User talk:Adpete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hi. Hit the "new section" button to send me a message. Unless there is a delay (say, more than 2 days) in me responding - or unless you request otherwise - I will reply on this page rather than on your talk page. (That way conversations are easier to follow).

/Archive 1 (Dec 05 to Jun 07)

/Archive 2 (Jul 07 to Jun 08)

/Archive 3 (Jul 08 to Feb 09)

I've had enough[edit]

I've deleted my entire watchlist and I'm having a break. Peter 04:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that, while it is a really good resource, Wikipedia will never be more than an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to its stated aim (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). There are too many editors with agendas (both deliberate and unconscious). There are too many editors putting in random irrelevant (or incorrect) factoids.

The people who concluded that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica[1] must have been on drugs.

I've tried to work on fixing these things and improving Wikipedia, but the tide is too great. It's a lost cause. I've got better things to do with my time. Peter 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (Moved from User page to here, 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia[edit]

What's happened to make you feel such a way? Was it any pages in particular? What pushed you over the line? It's a real shame that Wikipedia appears to have lost yet another good SA editor. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What pushed me over the line was about 5 different pages over a few days, under quite different topics. (I did actually cross swords with you at Talk:John Howard recently, but that one bothered me the least because there I think we've got well meaning editors with very different pespectives). There was a common theme: I was trying to improve pages, and my efforts were either in vain (changes reverted, talk page suggestions ignored), or it took (or is taking) enormous effort to get any changes through. I've taken a step back and decided: why bother, it's too hard, my time's not worth it. I've resigned myself to the fact that Wikipedia (like the Internet in general) can only ever be an error-riddled resource, and given up trying to help improve it. Peter 11:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, it's partly the reason why i've retreated to the nice and quiet tranquility of SA politics pages these days. There's still much room for improvement on Premier's pages if you ever feel the need to scratch a wikipedia itch at some point in the future. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I may return to quietly adding stuff once I've calmed down. Peter 05:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I can attest to the benefits of editing in low traffic areas - I edit heavily on WA topics where I'm often the only editor, although I've been able to solicit neutral reviews of my work where necessary. It'd be a shame to lose you to the void, and I wish you the best. Orderinchaos 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want a real break, go edit Encyclopedia Dramatica instead of WP for a while :-) --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Peter, of course I understand your frustration and even share your feelings. But-- with all respect for what you have gone through, please have in mind that we, Wikipedia readers in the Third World have verbally no local access to relevant print media and/or no funds to order them from abroad . I am a professor of cultural history at a Ukrainian university in Odessa. My students are actually depending on the Internet and encyclopedic sources like Wikipedia, Wikibook, Wikiversity, and others. Sometimes I ask myself why we have to live from these huge mountains of ecclectic or low-quality material - kind of like the poor on the garbage hills of Cairo. But then I have to realize that we have no other choice and we become thankful again... 91.90.15.48 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, one of my favourite Bible verses, but I'd never thought to apply it to Wikipedia before! My advice to you and your students: by all means use Wikipedia. It is a wonderful resource. But (1) check anything you read on it! i.e. check the references. And (2) be aware of bias, i.e. be aware that many Wikipedia articles have bias (deliberate or otherwise), or simply are badly written, with irrelevant material mixed in with useful material. Peter 06:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Peter -- I just responded to a good question you raised on the Nestle-Aland talk page. I agree that Wikipedia is a mixed bag, and I've had to retreat myself. You're quite right that there are too many people with too many agendas. I'm lately looking into two areas that I have a lot of resources on but few people care to add -- textual criticism and story theory. Just adding sources to document little fought areas might be a good way to take a break and still benefit the Encyclopedia. While many people have agedas on "Christianity", I've found that not so many have agendas on which text forms map to which manuscripts -- or which story theory agrees with Aristotle and which with Jung! I think what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia is a big place. The least controversial areas are sometimes the best places to take a vacation in. There's always a book on your shelf that can supply some footnote somewhere!EGMichaels (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll[edit]

The poll is reopen for one more day so please take time to vote. just out of interest, how did you hear about the poll? Did someone contact you by email? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See my response at Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll#Recent talk page posts regarding this RfC - is it canvassing? Peter 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please could you tell me who emailed you, or ideally forward the email to ryanpostlethwaite@hotmail.com. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Peter, please see my post [here]. Tony (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Adpete. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 15.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jude[edit]

Since you weren't satisfied with 1 reference citing the connection between 2Peter and Jude I've added a second ref to the first, and I'm prepared to add as many as needed, since this is a well known and notable parallel in contrast to the assertion made about Jude primacy. If you delete it again I'll add a third reference. And if you delete it again I'll add a fourth. Your call. Deleting referenced information simply because you don’t like it is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadtotruth (talkcontribs) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference (TCNT on Jude) is available on the web here.[2] All it says is "01:17 2Peter 3:2 01:18 Isaiah 3:4; 2Peter 3:3". It doesn't say Jude quotes 2 Peter (or vice versa), it just says there is a correspondence between the two. So the editor had (a) misinterpreted the source, and (b) presented the (alleged) conclusions as fact ("However, Jude 1:17-18 denotes a quotation from Second Peter 3:3"). That's why I deleted it. Accusing me of POV is silly. The new wording is better - it says "possibly", and quotes a much more widely known source (Word Biblical Commentary). Peter 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, are you sure that Baukham's Word Commentary says that Jude 17-18 quotes 2 Peter? Part of the book is browsable at Amazon[3], where he writes "The relationship between Jude and 2 Peter is discussed in the Introduction to 2 Peter, where the judgement of most modern scholars, that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude, not vice versa, is accepted." 05:31, 15 May 2009 Peter(UTC)
On further reflection, the argument doesn't follow anyway, and I intend to delete it. See Talk:Epistle of Jude. Peter 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Gender in Bible translation[edit]

I just noticed your efforts at a couple of articles. I added a bit to the article above, perhaps you could improve my contrib a bit: correct, expand, source or whatever. Certainly let me know if anything seems unreliable. I'm guessing we're on different sides of the fence in that debate, but both committed to NPOV treatment of issues. Just the sort of combination that can actually achieve progress at Wiki. Hope to hear from you. God bless Alastair Haines (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're enlisting people, could both you and Peter take a look at the Rapture article? Particularly this NPOV Violation. Two login names are trying to exclude non-Dispensationalists from the viewpoint.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Alistair wasn't enlisting me. He saw that I'd already done work at Gender in Bible translation and invited me to do more. (To which I reply: with not too much more work and rearranging, I think we could make that article reasonable). But Tim, I'll decline your offer. I probably don't know enough about the different theologies to be able to contribute easily anyway. Peter 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't really considered the current text of the article in detail, but we probably have different views of what that namespace should contain. Many people may think it should simply be a transclusion of Gender neutral language. Others would think it should give equal space to the Egalitarian/GNL understanding and to the Complementarian understanding of the Bible's teaching on human gender roles. However, I believe neither of those positions needs elaboration at a translation article (they are adequately covered elsewhere, or should be developed elsewhere if not done so already).
A translation article that doesn't deal with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and receptor languages (including those other than English) is not actually dealing with the topic of the article.
This work has already been done in hundreds of topic specific reliable sources and is addressed by thousands of others.
There are lots of people at Wiki who know Greek, for example, so we need not fear a lack of accountability for editors who contribute from original language heavy sources.
But what we can note as objective facts here is one thing, what unrestricted editing by people who don't appreciate these facts might lead to is another.
Specialist articles in predictably controversial areas benefit from having some documentation of how policy applies, and benefit from some collegiality among a few maintaining editors.
Gender in Bible translation is one of the areas I've read very widely in and care about for the sake of another Wiki project. Ultimately, it's one of my very highest priority articles to edit, and a place I can contribute more than any other at Wiki. However, what I will be wanting, when I start work, is responsible editors representing "the educated reader". Peter strikes me as precisely that; and, even better, one who has a slightly different view of things to me.
I anticipate it will be more than a year before I start work, though. Others might get it all done sooner, which would be great, but I'm just putting out feelers in case, as seems more likely, there is little work done in the meantime on the actual translation issues at the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that translation is a separate issue. I've written a lengthy comment at Talk:Gender in Bible translation. Peter 07:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've written too long a reply to your last at the article talk page.
Belatedly I found this interesting quote, courtesy of Michael Marlowe's eagle eye. Responding to criticism, "our Don" (I mean this genuinely and affectionately) said,
"I have been doing university missions for thirty years, and in such quarters inclusive language dominates. Not to use it is offensive."
DA Carson, "The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation—and Other Limits, Too", chapter 3 in Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss and Steven M. Voth (eds.), [ The Challenge of Bible Translation]: Communicating God's Word to the World, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003): pp. 65-142.
I was a bit player in university missions myself for a little over a decade: I agree with Don. It's a very serious issue to raise gender issues to an importance that competes with the intrinsic offense of the Gospel itself. I'm not a six 24 hour Genesis 1 literalist, though I respect those who are. But how awkward it can be to know how to avoid compromising the scriptures while avoiding compromising the Gospel.
Those issues are not for a Wiki article, but they are serious issues that provide grounds for mutual tolerance among believers. Don's no man to compromise the scriptures. The thought is laughable. To a university audience in Sydney, I heard him say, "sending single women as missionary pastors is an exercise in unbelief." Speaking of unbelief, I couldn't believe what I heard!
Christians believe and disbelieve a great many things wrongly. But only one belief matters.
Feel free to delete this post, I probably should have emailed it. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bert and Ernie[edit]

So what's the issue? CTJF83Talk 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What consensus?[edit]

Do me a favor and show me where is it then! Until then I reserve the right to protect the page against vandalism. Oh wait, it's actually vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Burdoh)

You gotta be kidding me. Two people (who could very well be one) doesn't make "consensus". Do you want me to show you a five-people consensus and then you'd leave it alone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Burdoh)

Sorry, my friend, but unlike the countless usernames you used to revert the Ahmed Deedat-article to something only you seem to like, most people use only one account over here. And, of all users who discussed this article, nobody felt inclined to discuss the external-links-part any further.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kerr "seemed drunk"[edit]

Well done, Peter! Pity it's a 2009 (32 years after the event) POV quote (and itself lacking verification). But, not to worry--will you now use it also to cite "Bob Hawke crie[d] as he confesse[d] to being an alcoholic and an adulterer on Clive Robertson's Newsworld (1989)" ? Or would you rather have someone else insert that? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I detect some sarcasm. Are you saying it really shouldn't be in there? I agree the source isn't that good, but here's a better one [4]. But I gather it's a pretty infamous event in Kerr's life so it probably deserves a mention. Peter 04:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Mind you the ABC source I give is wildly opinionated. The SMH article, puff piece that it is, does illustrate the point being made in the WP article - that it was a well known incident. Peter 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup, you've really said it all. It's not that such well-known aberrations (like the much more embarrassing ones of say Churchill or JFK) are without interest to political opponents; but they are rarely of notable relevance to the real substance of the persons, eh? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
IMO sometimes these events become big news stories which haunt political figures for years, and so deserve to be mentioned factually and neutrally on WP so people can go to WP to get the facts. On that basis I've argued in the past for inclusion of Rudd's stripclub episode. Whether this is the case for Kerr is debatable, because it's less recent history (he's been dead for 17 years). You can remove it if you want, I don't care either way. Peter 12:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Adelaide Family[edit]

Hi, I am pretty sure that you are on a Wikibreak at the moment but thought I'd draw your attention to [this] category/article/whatever it is. You have previously commented on it. IMHO zero evidence exists to suggest that such a category exists. It looks like a random, fanciful list of old money families. I [talked to the editor] but I don't really know how to proceed now. I'm staggered that this page is still kicking around! Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Hazir (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I finally figured it out and have [nominated] the category for deletion. Please take a look when you have a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazir (talkcontribs) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Peter! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,517 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Terry Cameron - Find sources: "Terry Cameron" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Stan Evans - Find sources: "Stan Evans" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  3. Robert Leslie Brown - Find sources: "Robert Leslie Brown" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bushfire merge to Wildfire[edit]

If you're still interested, I have proposed a merge at Talk:Wildfire. Also one at Talk:Bushfires in Australia, with respect to merging the content from the unnecessary Bushfires in Victoria article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the Bushfires in Victoria merge after that article was vastly improved as a result.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 2012, game 8 summary[edit]

Hey.

I noticed you changed the summary of game 8 on World Chess Championship 2012, with reference to the analysis of an (unnamed) GM, stating that the result of 17... Nc6 "is absolutely hopeless for black".

First, I think you made a mistake while editing in your reference, at the moment it's simply a link to an edit command of the section itself. But nevermind, I'm sure there is a GM that said it is hopeless. The problem I see with your summary (and which I tried to avoid) is this: by concentrating on one mainline (like the one you quoted, 18 dxc6 Qxc6 19 Bg2 Qc8 20 Rf1 Qf5+ 21 Qxf5 gxf5 22 Rxf5), you beg the question "what about other continuations after Nc6?". Because of that problem, I was trying to phrase it more generally, mentioning the positional disadvantage of black since /any/ position that could result from 17... Nc6 seems to be worse for black.

Another case in point for you is for example is GM Alejandro Ramirez commentary on chessbase, who calls one of the possible 17... Nc6 continuations "hopeless when you play someone of Anand's caliber. Or even a little less" (chessbase, game 8). On the other hand, GM Susan Polgar, writes "17...Nc6. But this is also losing.", but then adds "Unfortunately, Gelfand resigns as he may miss Nc6. Wow! Premature resignation." (Susan Polgar on blogspot).

In conclusion, I don't challenge the point that the game was lost, as far as we can see and, more importantly, as far as we can find others saying so. But I'd say your phrasing is a bit too strong, and instead of saying /why/ it was lost (which was, in fact, a positional disadvantage, since by material alone, black was hardly worse), you focus too narrowly on one mainline continuation of Nc6, and the drastic conclusion about it by the GM. I noticed you've been very active on the article and improved it a lot, while I just "drove by and edited", so I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this, but I at least wanted to state my doubts and hear what you think about it.

--Minvogt (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The earlier version (I think by you) said something like "significant positional disadvantage for black". My problem with those words is that I felt they were not strong enough, they don't (at least for me) convey the point that black is totally lost, which every commentator I've seen agrees on. (Polgar seems to contradict herself - if it's losing it's not a premature resignation - probably explained by the fact that Polgar blogs very quickly). So I don't mind a change or removing the variation I put, so long as the words are to the effect that black was lost. Adpete (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed[edit]

Hello Adpete,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Adelaide meetup on Wednesday next week[edit]

Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: 27 Aug 2014
Last: 23 July 2014
This box: view  talk  edit

More info here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Invitation to Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings[edit]

Riverside Precinct Adelaide
Edit-a-thon

Next: T.B.A.
Last: 6 July 2014
This box: view  talk  edit

Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.

This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott McGrory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1988 Olympic Games. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)