User talk:Peter Isotalo/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Flemish

Hey, there.

You closed the poll on Flemish with the summary "The result of the debate was determined by Peter Isotalo to be move." Does this mean that merging the edit histories isn't relevant in this case? Should I just make a cut'n'paste move of the current content to Flemish (terminology)?

Peter Isotalo 12:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter Isotalo; I've actually changed my decision to no consensus now. I had completely missed to edit history of the article, and was actually getting confused as to which page was the disambig page and which was the terminology page. There's really no consensus from the discussion (4-3 vote) and people have been edit warring over the article, so there's obviously no "accepted" result. Once again, I apologize. —Mets501 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Deciding that no consensus exists for moving the current content of Flemish to Flemish (terminology) is very unfortunate and of little or no benefit to readers. The page had been a normal dabpage for a very long time until this summer, when a few editors decided to turn it into an article (and a terribly messy article at that) in an obvious and pointless violation of WP:D. If anything, there should be a consensus shown for the displacement of a neutral dabpage, not to reinstate it.
I should also note that the main contributors to the current article have been consistently territorial, uncivil and hostile toward anyone they don't deem to be knowledgeable enough, often based only on ethnicity. No references or citations have been provided in support of their claims and none of the supporters seem to actually understand the reason for having the same neutral disambiguation as for any similar language/ethnicity term.
Peter Isotalo 14:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
They understand all too well. As I went through replying most of your opposition to these contributors' work, I would like to express my contempt for the way you here above depict these people, and your continued suggestion of them being too thick to understand you or to interpret Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, ethnicity has not been any of my arguments while two contributors merely expressed their assumption of unfamiliarity with the topic being rather expected from one who lives at a distance; the only claim for a 'territorial' attitude came from one who does not live at the territory. The uncivil and hostile behaviour on the 'Flemish' talk page, disrespect for Wikipedia procedures, and the methods applied, and by whom, as well as the contra-indications regarding your criticism of the article, should better be inspected and judged by the readers. — SomeHuman 31 Dec2006 15:56 (UTC)
That reminds me... You also seem to discuss these issues almost exclusively through focusing on the perceived or real shortcomings of the editors you disagree with. Discussing facts as much as motives of those contributing doen't seem to be all that relevant. Three other editors, including a native Dutch speaker, seemed to think that a dabpage was the proper thing to do. That includes comments on the somewhat poor state of the article. How about taking suggestions or even complaints seriously instead of shooting the messenger?
Peter Isotalo 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval cuisine

Hi Peter. Thanks for the invitation to look over Medieval cuisine. It looks like a great article. However, I am just about to put myself in "wikibreak" mode so I won't be able to assist you—in the near term. Thanks, –Outriggr § 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'd like to nominate the article in January, but the One-FA-per-quarter-deadline isn't stressing me out terribly; I'd rather have peace of mind and a better article than to fulfill a certain quota. And I still have a lot of section that need to be worked over (or written at all). I'll ask around for other copyeditors, but you're more than welcome to help out when you get back.
Have a nice vacation!
Peter Isotalo 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you now have your desired copy review—I see Geogre has done it? –Outriggr § 04:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see the section immediately below this before I wrote. That would have given me my answer. :) –Outriggr § 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Foodies long gone

Well, for whatever it has been worth, I have gone through the Medieval Cuisine article. It's a fantastic article. I can't predict how it will do with the Crypt Keepers start sniffing at it, but the language, illustration, and scope are good. I could be picky, a la scholarly passtimes, but doing that would be absolutely useless and would miss the point of an encyclopedia article. Whatever questions I had ("biscuit" and viruses) were put on the talk page. As I said before, feel free to revert, rollback, ignore, or undo any change with which you disagree. Geogre 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Geogre! If you don't mind, I'd like to call on your (mad) copyediting skill(z) one more time after I add the new sections (some more regional cuisines) and finish some of the rewrites and expansions of existing sections (fasting and religious regulation, meats and veggies). Those temple guardians won't know what hit 'em...
Peter Isotalo 15:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Law definition

Hello Peter, I hope you don't mind me changing your recent edit to something else on law's definition. You can see me objecting to defintions in the talk page before, but it looks like I'm outnumbered. You made a definition (which is very accurate and sensible) that was pretty close to a legal philosopher called John Austin, at the start of the 19th century. The problem is, the definition of law forms an entire body of philsophical work known as 'analytical jurisprudence' which is all about the question 'what is law' - yes, only the definition. That's why I've opposed it before, but I'm going to try rewriting the first sentence to incorporate all the different viewpoints - read the philosophy of law section down the law page to see what I'm talking about. Hope you can do more on the page!! Wikidea 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy

I feel that you are missing my point. The word does not have English roots only, and it, or closely similar ones are used in other languages. Why do you insist on deleting that? MadMaxDog 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As for this being the English Wikipedia, why should that have anything to do with it? Information about non-english-usage should be included were available. Sparingly, obviously - we don't want to overfreight an article with alternative meanings + spellings in other languages etc... but certainly that wasn't the case here. MadMaxDog 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The etymology of a word isn't really relevant, but whether it's a recognized word or not. I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that many, many words in English have foreign origins but are still often exclusively English. There simply doesn't seem to be any non-English usage of "gypsy" other than as a titles of songs and the likes. Or are you saying there are other languages that refer to the particular ethnic group(s) as "gypsies"?
Peter Isotalo 12:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Elfdalian

I assume you haven't a copy of Levander's Älvdalsmålet i Dalarna (published in Svenska landsmål, 1909 ,(105)), do you? I didn't think so. So, why did you revert from my edit then? Please, no original research, mr Isotalo.

Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

You're gone, man. Do you even know what you're talking about yourself? You don't specify which article, which diff, and not even what material you think has been reverted. You have no excuses for being this sloppy since you've been around Wikipedia for at least a year already. Don't bloody post this kind of nonsense here again. Ever.
Peter Isotalo 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Style guidelines for sound pages

Hello, Peter, recently CyborgTosser and I discussed and came up with proposed style guidelines for all the individual consonant and vowel pages wherein the Occurrence section would have a table rather than a bulleted list. You can see the discussion here. So far nobody else has commented on the proposed guidelines and I believe it's safer to get a solid consensus before undergoing the work to change so many pages. If you could comment on what has been proposed, even if it's a simple yay or nay, this would help us out quite a bit. Thank you very much. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Abraham Lubelski (2nd nomination)

I have recommended Abraham_Lubelski for deletion again. If you wish to express an opinion please do so Bus stop 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the person to turn to for an opinion on this...
Peter Isotalo 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you participate in this [1] the first time it was discussed? Bus stop 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, you're right. I guess I was tried when I checked the old nomination.
Peter Isotalo 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese language

  • Honestly, I think the article is now very poor, I don't agree with much of the IPA transcriptions nor European neither Brazilian, they don't match what I've in books and what I listen daily! It is not common-reader-friendly, too technical. I had a lot of work with it, but... things were removed continuously because a guy doesn't like that, other doesn't like another thing, etc. Unfortunately back then there were no "ref" templates, and there's an arbitrary chopping down culture in this wikipedia. I gave up of that article and I don't have a lot of time now and when I get some time my priority is the Portuguese language version of wikipedia, besides my native language is not English. Maybe another wikipedian is willing to make the article better. Maybe you can help ;)-Pedro 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed the unreferenced claim:
  • 1st - it is referenced. just because it has no references in specific sentences does not mean it is not referenced.
  • 2nd - that tag is just pollution and adds nothings.
  • 3rd - you should search for specific sentences in which you have doubts (not every sentence, as common sense, or widely known facts should not have that reference needed.-Pedro 14:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to reply to the FAR, please do so at the appropriate subpage.
Peter Isotalo 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sound pages

I've noticed that you have been giving some attention to the consonant and vowel pages. Last month I and another editor came up with guidelines to make the occurrence sections for each page into a table. There's enough consensus to implement this but I seem to be the only one actually doing it. If you'd like to, you're welcome to help out in the process. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep the standard in mind for the next round of improvements. I'm planning on replacing the vowel pronunciations, since a lot of them are quite a bit off. You're welcome to comment (or revert if needed) that once I get around to it, btw.
Peter Isotalo 12:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Berth Milton Jr.est

I always find these questions odd, since by finding me you've seen the deletion log so already know why it was deleted. In this instance it was deleted as a redirect to a non-existent article. Though that of course is not that helpful, since I guess you were expecting an article there. the move log shows it being moved to Berth Milton, Jr. back in October. That was then deleted in mid-December by a different admin with the comment "No evidence of notability, no independent sources". I'm just passing through at the moment, so I suggest you ask the deleting admin about it. --pgk 07:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And I find the assumption that someone would ask questions they already know the answer to equally odd. You just presented a thoroughly complex chain of events, which is quite oblique without intimate knowledge of the routines associated with AfD. I didn't even know there was a separate move log, for example, and neither was I aware of the standard of naming article "Foo Bar, Jr." rather than "Foo Bar Jr." Though of course not your decision, the rash and seemingly unilateral deletion of the actual article didn't make the whole debacle any less oblique.
Peter Isotalo 16:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I guess I wasn't too clear, I meant that you'd seen my delete reason for that specific page (rather than all the other stuff). In this case it was more complex, but in most it isn't (and hence my musing). This is why I said that the deletion of it as a redirect to a non-existent article was not too helpful... I see you've contacted the deleting admin, if you need any more help from me please ask. --pgk 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.
Peter Isotalo 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Learn something, write something

Please stop shange "pfonology and phonetics" with "sounds", "lexicography" with "dictionary". Maybe it's common in Swedish colture, but vist the pages of othere languages (Englis, German, Russian) and you are not going to find mediocriteted lines, such as "sounds" etc.

I'm sorry that the educational system let uopu down, but there is a huge difference between phonology and phonetics, and "sounds" is proper only to ON ASPECT of the PHONETICS. Also lexucography inclueds some basic infos on work on dictionaries, not only a list of dictionaries. Also, Serbian hasn't got any "Writing systems", but two alphabets, and both alphabets are represe3ntatives of the same writing system. Finally, "Geographic distribution" is a criteria of area, "demographics" of national identity of speakers.

B.R.--Luzzifer 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On Grammar sections

You wrote, "To me it seems as if you're not all that concerned if anyone outside your own discipline actually understands articles about languages or linguistics." Who is going to fail to understand an article on a language simply because there are three sections called "Phonology", "Syntax", and "Morphology", or because there is one section called "Grammar" with three subsections called "Phonology", "Syntax", and "Morphology", rather than two sections called "Phonology" and "Grammar"? Getting it right isn't going to confuse anyone, so why deliberately get it wrong? —Angr 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone complain about this in articles intended for everyone? Granted that articles like Lexical functional grammar don't need to be simplified a whole lot due to their very specific nature and complexity, but when you're claiming that anything but a strictly by-and-for-academics approach is the only correct choice for a general article like Portuguese language, you're being highly inconsiderate to laymen. You certainly don't need these articles for your research and neither do your colleagues. You already have the know-how of most of these things and you certainly don't need to have extremely strictly defined terms in all articles on language or linguistics because an encyclopedia isn't a place for this kind of hairsplitting. Or at least not in such a prominent way. In articles like grammar, it's very reasonable to stress the fact that, for example, phonology is included in the modern academic definition of the term "grammar", but not in main language articles. Not even about very minor languages as far as I'm concerned, because where to draw the line between a language only relevant to academics and those relevant to the general public is fairly arbitrary.
I still think you should get your priorities straight about this one, because I've seen from your arguments and the way your write articles (though thorough and meticulous) that you seem to want to turn a lot of the linguistic articles into linguistic papers rather than basic introductions to people who've never heard of the subject before.
Peter Isotalo 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. What makes you think a layman is going to be confused by having either (1) three sections of a language article called "Phonology", "Syntax", and "Morphology" or (2) one section of a language article called "Grammar" divided into three subsections called "Phonology", "Syntax", and "Morphology"? And here's another question: what makes you think these articles are intended for everyone? What makes you think anyone except people interested in languages are reading articles about languages? And the same goes for other fields: ten days ago, Today's Featured Article was Polar coordinate system, which is completely incomprehensible to anyone but a professional mathematician (or an amateur with professional-level understanding). That didn't stop it becoming featured and appearing on the main page. If math articles don't get dumbed down so laymen can understand them, why should language articles? (Although, as I say, using the term "grammar" correctly isn't confusing to laymen anyway.) —Angr 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Having a (more or less) standardized article structure that assumes that the reader subscribes to a relatively obscure academic interpretation rather than a widely popular one serves little purpose in an encyclopedia. It can be explained in detail in grammar, but not in every single language article. Using "Sounds" instead of "Phonology" and sorting both "Syntax" and "Morphology" under "Grammar" does not make the article unscientific. It simple makes it more intuitive to a larger audience. The average linguist won't be confused by it, even if they might get annoyed that they can't write in Linguistic and be understood by everyone. And if you're outright stating that you don't want language articles to be for everyone, then you should seriously start thinking about getting yourself a research project to tinker with instead of turning Wikipedia into one. Trying to explain things to people who might not have a vested interest in, or indeed a deep understanding of, a topic is reasonably simplification, and interpreting every move in that direction as "dumbing down" is patently offensive to what I believe Wikipedia is all about; the democratization of knowledge.
I'm also quite surprised that a linguist gives the appearance of having no clue about how passionate people can be about language, even if they're not interested in linguistics as such. Languages is a very touchy subject and they're relevant to just about everyone since it's a part of their everyday life and culture. You can't compare that with an article about mathematics, even if I do wish that more respect could be shown towards the non-nerdy laymen.
Peter Isotalo 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What's unencyclopedic is providing misinformation simply because it's "widely popular". The belief that Spanish is the national language of Brazil is "widely popular"; shall we edit Brazil to say so? Many urban legends are also widely believed to be true; shall we simply say they are? Don't be absurd. Using "Sounds" instead of "Phonology" is both unscientific and condescending, because phonology is about much more than sounds; pretending that phonology is outside of grammar simply because most laymen don't understand what grammar means is also unscientific as well as academically dishonest. Laymen who don't already know a lot about linguistics have the right to linguistically accurate information; the democratization of knowledge may required some degree of simplification, but not the misuse of terminology. How will the interested layman learn what "grammar" actually means if the term isn't being used correctly in the articles he first encounters? The point of an encyclopedia is to educate the reader, not to pander to his preconceived notions.
Trust me, as someone who works primarily on Irish, I know all too well how passionate people with no linguistic understanding can get about language -- all the more reason to keep language articles as dry and scientific as possible, to dissuade nationalistic passions from interfering with the encyclopedic content. None of this, however, changes the fact that no layman could possibly be confused by removing "Grammar" headings from language articles and just having three separate "Phonology", "Syntax", and "Morphology" headers. —Angr 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we'll agree on much of the issues discussed here any time soon. The presentations that to you are equivalent to urban legends and outright false facts are to me reasonable simplifications. I suppose this might have something to do with the fact that Chomskian grammar isn't quite as dominant everywhere; that's something I've noticed myself as a student at Stockholm University, a fact which was confirmed by one of our teachers.
But I really don't see your point in saying that "sounds" isn't an accurate, if simplified, substitution for "phonology". Why would it be inaccurate as a heading for a section of the sound system of a language?
Peter Isotalo 09:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name

There is a dispute over whether to apply Template:Chinese name in articles of Chinese persons whose names are already rendered in the western order and have found myself in a few edit wars. Since you posted a comment on the template talk page (which has since been responded to), you may want to chime in at Template talk:Chinese name.--Jiang 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration literature

I'd appreciate it if you withdrew your comment to Lucifer at the FAR for this article as a)he didn't bring it FAR and b)this FAR has previously descended into character assassination and mud-slinging and having it sparked off again will do nothing for either the article or the encyclopedia. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Toned down and de-personalized. I still think this is an extremely blunt application of deliberately vague guidelines.
Peter Isotalo 12:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the current guidelines have evolved as the classic compromise: a middle ground that nobody is happy with. Unfortunately the entrenched positions of the interested parties means any work on them is slow, frustrating and normally collapses in a heap of recrimination. Ho hum. Yomanganitalk 12:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't help seeing it as an instance of the footnote counters having steamrolled the fairly moderate opposition (a lot of them people who actually have long-time experience with footnotes IRL) and leaving in their wake the impression for the rest of the community that "less is more" is something that sly, elitist academics try to envoke to get away with sloppy research. What I see in the FACs that are actually promoted lately is proof enough for me. :-(
Peter Isotalo 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Noreen_1908.PNG

I have responded on my talk page. You may want to have a look. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IPA

There is no reason to remove it though, wikipedia is not paper. If someone with ESL comes through it could help them. Dictionary.com seems to think its worth providing a sound file for. [2]. If you are really obsessed over 74 characters I'll find somewhere else to remove that many. -Ravedave 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionaries are supposed to give pronunciations for everything, and the file was as far as I can tell recorded for Wiktionary purposes since Dvortygirl doesn't do any specific work for any Wikipedias (that I'm aware of). Regardless of the number of characters, it's superfluous information in an encyclopedic article.
And even if you consider second language speakers, Minnesota is still pretty darned easy to pronounce.
Peter Isotalo 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I specifically asked DvortyGirl to record it for the article. If we go with your argument of WP not being a dictionary, and therefore not needing IPA pronuciations, then why aren't the IPA pronunciations removed from *all* pages regardless of difficulty? That argument doesn't work. I have posed the question on the talk page. -Ravedave 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Barring the something-centric attitude you have Peter, I'd side with you in removing the pronunciation altogether if we cannot come to a conclusion over which pronunciation to use. It's not very fair for you to judge my race when you have not offered a version of your own to compare to. Davumaya 08:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

More what?

Hello, out of interest what does 'M0aR N0tZ0RS' mean? --Joopercoopers 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You know... The dinky li'l numbers that people smear all over perfectly verifiable articles so they'll look more verifiable to people who wouldn't know proper citation formats it it bit them in the ass. Some call them "notes", but I thought it fit the occasion. :-9
Peter Isotalo 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Regional cuisine comment

Added more to the comment. Though created (>2000 characters by the end of 1 March, as of today, it is >18000 characters.) — ERcheck (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Book keeping comment - article on next update. — ERcheck (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regional variations in medieval cuisine on DYK for 7 March 2007

Updated DYK query On 7 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Regional variations in medieval cuisine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nice, comprehensive article. — ERcheck (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan

your injection of sense into the discussion is much appreciated. Chensiyuan 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

that said, give Quad a break too, the discussion will probably be less intense if it took place face-to-face as opposed to over the internet. we are all trying to make WP a better place and to that end given both of your contributions to WP all opinions should be respected. Chensiyuan 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the main thrusts of all his counter-arguments (except for completely trivial stuff like "His Airness") is "you're alone on this" (even when it's not true), "you're the first one to suggest it" or to pick apart objections through mere rhetorical feints I don't exactly see what it is I should be respecting. And now there's a second objector who considers that the article is too long. You wanna bet that he's not going to try to belittle him as well?
Peter Isotalo 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval cuisine

Congrats on a great article. Hope to see it on the main page in due time! Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm really excited about it since I've really put my heart and soul into the article. I'm going to what I can to add a section on food preparation and more on fasting before I have to batten down the hatches and prepare for the onslaught of attention that is main page attention. I'm suspecting that'll be a lot sooner than anyone expects...
Peter Isotalo 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. It really is an excellent article. Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, everybody, et bon appétit! Kosebamse 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit late, but congratulations! Really an excellent article. Opabinia regalis 02:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations. Too bad I missed out on the voting. Here's to an accomplishment worthy of a flagon of mead and some date-stuffed pheasants! DurovaCharge! 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their encouragement and support! Everyone has been very helpful and given me plenty of good insights on how to improve and expand the article. I've requested for the article to be featured on the main page, and I would be most thankful if you could help out with comments on the summary.
Peter Isotalo 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Left a few words of encouragement at the link. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A Barnstar!
A nice cookie for you

becuase I could not find a dish of eels in hypocras sauce. In appreciation of your work on Medieval cuisine, Tom Harrison Talk 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. Dr.

Wikipedia has guidelines on styles and how to use them, as I stated on the discussion page -previous to your comments- the Goebbels article qualified as a case where the style DR. should be used. Thus it was, now because I am not a historical figure I would be very glad if you addressed me as Doctor, thank you very much. Gavin Scott 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course, Dr. Scott! But in return for this rather unique act of wikihumility I only ask that you address me as "Your Scrumptious Deliciousness and Grand Master of Fire-breathing Subtleties".
Peter Isotalo 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Your Scrumptious Deliciousness and Grand Master of Fire-breathing Subtleties you may see that I have removed the Dr. prefix from the article. Now then, I suggest you calm down, loose the attitude and go get some fresh air Gavin Scott 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking of a fellow wikipedian to be addressed "Doctor" is pretty darned haughty and deserves a tart retort. You're being pretty defensive about the Goebbels-article. It's in a great shape and I think it's only a few minor fix-ups from earning its FA-status and as you may have noticed, I'm not new to the game. So let's both try to assume a little more good faith, k?
Peter Isotalo 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, I suppose I am fairly protective of the Goebbels article but I can't help but feel as I read it that it portrays Goebbels as an evil little man, which (and I have debated this to great length) is just not the case. However, I am not some neo-nazi who seeks to glorify Goebbels and what he did and while I have always referred to him as Dr. Goebbels it is because I know how difficult gaining such a title is and I suppose I like to see it recognised. Yet, I have conceeded the point that the prefix should not be included in lead. Gavin Scott 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan at WP:FAC

Peter, you're welcome. I'm glad the article made it to FA. If you have time could you read my article William Monahan and comment at FAC.-BillDeanCarter 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Talk:Domenico Selvo

Hey, Peter. I've responded to your kind and thoughtful message on the talk page for Domenico Selvo. I hope you can answer some of my questions. :-D JHMM13 06:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to thank you again for your taking your time to help me out with this article. I've finished one of the last few sections and I've only got a few more to go before I just rewrite the lead and put it up for peer review. Hopefully this won't take me more than a few days. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to help me out with the peer review when I put it up. As I did on the talk page, I'll be addressing certain questions all in one place so I don't waste your time and I'll try to lay it out as well as I can. I've been using your tips and as you can see (Domenico Selvo) I have made separate notes and references sections, which, as you suggested, has proven to be very useful in editing. Cheers, JHMM13 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm no expert on 11th century Italy, but I'll do what I can. Count on my help for the peer review.
Peter Isotalo 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. :-D JHMM13 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish phonology

Okay, I've tried to increase the readability of Irish phonology for non-experts. Please take another look and let me know what you think at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irish phonology. Thanks! —Angr 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels obtained an earned Ph.D., and hence was entitled to be addressed as Doktor. This does not excuse his behaviour in the Nazi era.--Anthony.bradbury 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming the contrary...
Peter Isotalo 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ärans och hjältarnas språk

Hej Peter!

Do you have any opinion about employing the old Tegnér quotation as the almost first thing defining the Swedish language? Cf. Talk:Swedish (language)#"language of glory and heroes"

Yours, JoergenB 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Joergen and Peter. I noticed this message, and have responded on the talkpage. (And reverted, too. Be bold)! Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
What Bish said, pretty much...
Peter Isotalo 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cynical?

Hi Peter. Sorry, but I'm wondering what the intent of this is exactly? I made a plea for good formatting, and it seems you're including that as a cynical comment. Or am I reading it wrong? Marskell 10:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant what I said; I don't like cynical bureaucrats with an inflated sense of their own importance. I didn't say that all comments in the thread were cynical.
Peter Isotalo 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, I'm still confused. I don't like cynical bureaucrats either. But I didn't see any posting in that thread. Marskell 13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the attitude radiated from many regulars of FAC and FAR that smear their generalized criticism on articles in rushed and broad strokes is clearly cynical and pretentious. Talk about scaring FAC:ers into shaping up from those same users just makes it more obvious.
Peter Isotalo 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that comment was ill-advised. The unfortunate problem that I keep seeing is stupid comments get made, and the baby subsequently gets thrown out with the bathwater. We do need some checklists ('author, work, date(s), publisher, access date' is a checklist, after all) and we do need people to apply them consistently. Marskell 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That I agree on and I don't want to discourage anyone from either applying or, at times, even demanding certain citation formats. But this logic can not be extended to fact statements. Such statements can only have two basic demands: a) that they are verifiable (meaning that there is a source mentioned, no matter how it is cited) and b) that no one can challenge them with anything but decent amounts of logic or by citing (or even hinting at the existence of) a conflicting statement in a different source. Everything else has to be negotiated, and only those who provide good argumentation should be given the benefit of the doubt. The behavior or many reviewers as of lately has been almost entirely devoid of good argumentation, but filled to the brim with a lot of strident opinions.
Peter Isotalo 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing {{fact}} tags

Regarding this[3]. If you have a reason that a {{fact}} tag should not be there, please bring it up on the talk page. Per WP:V "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."

That means that I can request a citation without an explanation, but if you feel that the section is already attributed, or does not need attribution then the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I already explained to you that I don't need to have a discussion before requesting a citation. I am going to return that tag, and if it is removed without providing a citation, or explaining why a citation is not needed, then the information in question should be removed.

The article is very good, and the last thing I want to do is remove swaths of information, which is why I am working on getting it cited. You are demonstrating ownership of this article. I see from the history that you have done much work, but that does not put you in charge of it. If you don't like the tag, then cite the information, or remove the information.

I am working within policy to improve the article. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to edit war with you, I advise you to return the tag or cite the facts in that paragraph. You have not made any sort of cogent objection to the tag, whereas my addition of the tag came with a very clear explanation[4]. I am not sure why you are objecting so strongly to my attempt to improve this article, frankly I am baffled. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I posted on the talk page, perhaps you can explain this now? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery

This is just about the best way of putting this particular point that I've yet read. I can't quite remember what I was doing on that talk page in the first place, but I'm glad I saw it ;) Opabinia regalis 04:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo peer review

Hey, Peter. I'm just letting you know that I've finished the article and I've submitted it for peer review here. If you have any extra time and are interested in helping out, I would very much appreciate any input you have to improve this article that, though I would like to call it mine ;-), is ultimately Wikipedia's to improve beyond what I have done. To help guide the peer reviewers, I've posted a list of concerns I have with the article at this point. Helping on any one of these or suggesting anything on top of that would be a great help! Thanks a lot, JHMM13 07:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Entremets and Sotleties

Peter, thanks for your message. I feel I can't give much useful help on those two articles, I'm sorry to say, because I'm not really a medieval food specialist (Byzantium was out on its own!) and the references available to me are much less consistent and explicit than I would have hoped. You may have found the same ... I'll keep watching them, though, and where I can help I will. Best wishes Andrew Dalby 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad... Thanks for the pointers anyhew. Like you said, I get the feeling that this might be an issue which has not been investigated thoroughly yet. Or at least that no scholars have really gotten around to debating the problem. I hope to get going on all kinds of historical cuisines in the near future. I'm in the research and planning stages of articles on Ancient Egyptian, Aztec, Mayan, Inca and early modern European cuisines right now. And probably more on the regional medieval cuisines. But if I keep this up I'm pretty sure I'll be taking on Byzantine cuisine fairly soon. It'll be delightful to get your input on that once I get going.
Peter Isotalo 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo FAC

Hey, Peter. I just want to let you know that, thanks in part to your help at the various stages in the writing of this article, I have nominated it for FA status. I hope you have a chance to check it out and I will continue carefully addressing any concern you might have. Thanks again, JHMM13 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Nice to see Mediaeval cuisine on the front page. regards --Joopercoopers 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete my comments..

Don't delete my comments from the talk page. If you do that again I will have no option to report this to WP:ANI. Polling is evil is not a policy is an opinion. There is nothing wrong with polls and RfC's to bring in additional people it is part of the conflict resolution procedure. -- Stbalbach 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't go there, dude. If you try to turn this into a poll without even trying to provide a single factual argument, I'll revert you and with good reason. We are not having a vote because you ran out of stuff to say.
Peter Isotalo 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA?

I happened upon your userpage, and I see you've been contributing for many months, you have about 5,000 edits, and you were instrumental in preparing medieval cuisine to be a featured article. Would you like to be an administrator? If you are interested, I would be willing to write a strong nomination for you at WP:RFA. YechielMan 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

I'm afraid I have had very little time for Wikipedia of late, and haven't been able to participate in the process, but I just wanted to compliment you again on your work on medieval cuisine. It really is a lovely article, and please don't let complaints about the citation style drive you off. All the best, Choess 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made some idiosyncratic comments, but it will probably be another two months or so before the pressure of work relaxes and I can try to throw in a detailed contributions from the book I have here, which draws on several Italian sources, as well as everyone's friend, Le Ménagier de Paris. Yours, Choess 04:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why English IPA?

Please see my note on this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages/Template. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand your position on this. I genuinely find it difficult to understand the rationale of referring people to the English IPA chart (perhaps I missed some previous, archived, discussion). Is the idea, perhaps, that there will be at least some phonological overlap between English & X language—sufficient to give the reader some idea of what IPA is, even if all the tricky sounds are represented by obscure symbols? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for alerting the stewards about Robdurbar so quickly! – Riana 11:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink

It's part of my automatic signature I set up on my preference, so it's on purpose. I suppose I could consider getting rid of the line of data beyond my name. I have never thought about it too much. Ive done quite a bit of research into medieval cuisine in my graduate Food History 2 class. I suppose a potage is still around, but it is more of a French phrase for a thick soup, than something that is all together different, so I'm not sure what I could add but I will think on it. Thanks for the welcome, look forward to working on the project.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

I just realized what you meant about the signature. When you said Christopher Tanner, I thought of the first part of the signature. Thanks for pointing that out, I wonder why no one else bothered to point that out before. I revamped the project page and I will be working on some other things as well. Thanks again for the input--Christopher Tanner, CCC 06:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish language

Is this Youtube clip fine: [5] ? denizTC 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a good reading. I think you should suggest it at the FAC to get some more opinions on it.
Peter Isotalo 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for the thorough cleanup you did on Turkish language, it really made the article a lot better. I left a comment on your removal of references from the introduction and the infobox, on the article's talk page. Hej då! Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:your question at RM:300 (comics)

Since you ask (but I felt unsure about answering below in that space) per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) it has been decided that the unifying disambigation phrase of this medium is "comics". Comics in plural is a concept, as opposed to a comic, primarily understood to be a comedian. So yes, the article in question is designated to be the article about "300 of comics". MURGH disc. 13:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems like a reasonable enough argument, but I hope you're not all still insisting on the contrived idea of separating the "British comic" from the "American comic book", but calling just about everything else "XXX comics".
Peter Isotalo 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota pronunciation

I'd like to vote to return to my pronunciation of Minnesota since I'm a native. Refer to Minnesota talk page Davumaya 08:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry let me also add that your comment on the talkpage was rather racist and insinuative. I'd doubt you would say anything if I had made no mention of my Chinese-American heritage and kept my identity a secret. As a regularly paid voice actor in the Minneapolis area, I don't need you to judge my English over perhaps your Swedish-American English. Keep your racism and egocentrism to yourself. Davumaya 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I insinuated nothing and accusing me of racism because of your own assumptions about my motivations and lack of insight in your own pronunciation is pretty uncouth. My pronunciation of English has absolutely nothing to do with this. I compared you to another native speaker of American English, not myself. I've been speaking English since a very young age and my command of the language and sensitivity for deviations is very high. I can easily identify an accent and many dialects. Whenever I'm in the US, few ever even notice that I'm actually Swedish and most of my friends insist that my speech is very neutral and accentless. Instead of getting all sensitive about this, I think you should take my comments a bit more seriously.
Peter Isotalo 09:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the recognition, I'm hoping the re-vamp and aggressive tagging I'm doing will attract more people to be part of the project. Some of the spin-off wiki-projects I think need to be deleted for in-activity, I'm not sure how that is done. The Cheese group has a delete tag from January 2007 and has no activity on the page except from about a year ago. I think by concentrating those groups back into Food and Drink the project gets stronger as it seems like much of the group isn't very active. I had originally thought of a Culinary Arts Profession spin-off, but now I feel that they are best left as subsets of the main project not all together new projects. What are your thoughts?--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I am surprised that you did not get a barnstar for figuring out who to contact to have Robdurbar's rampage stopped, so here it is!

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded for notifying a steward about Robdurbar's vandalism and blatant misuse of his administrator tools, stopping a vandal with sysop tools from doing further damage. Jesse Viviano 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That's most appreciative of you, Jesse. Thank you very much.
Peter Isotalo 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aztec cuisine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Early modern European cuisine

Updated DYK query On 2 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Early modern European cuisine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive for Leet

I didn't archive it based on days, I archived it because it was so long.
Topics can always be revived with a link to the original in the archive. Sorry if it's inconvenienced you or anyone else. That was not my intention. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Crisco

First, unless you're my mother, don't be giving me orders. Second, citing a specific use for Crisco on the Crisco page amounts to POV-pushing. If you've got a page for sexual lubricants, it could go there. But singling out this one use on the Crisco page is out of place unless you also plan to list the hundreds of other uses it could have. Wahkeenah 09:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's out of scope of the article, but since you're insisting on pushing this one item, then it's only fair to cite other, G-rated uses of the product within the article. Wahkeenah 10:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, I would make the same criticism if it was about "straight" sexual activity. Wahkeenah 10:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Peter Isotalo.

I think you're one of the disputants in the "Crisco" RfC. Can you write a statement summarizing your position, including what you think is best for this section of the article, and your reasoning? Ideally it should be concise, but make clear to editors who are unfamiliar with the controversy. Please do not continue the debate in this section — leave room for the comments! / edgarde 11:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, why...? We seem to have reached a pretty reasonable compromise. I'm not against having more opinions on the matter, but I don't see the need for all this right now.
Peter Isotalo 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just responding the the RfC. If you and Wahkeenah can come to an agreement, that's even better. Since (I think) you placed the RfC request, it's okay for you to remove it if it's no longer needed. / edgarde 12:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sauvignon blanc

I've attempted to address some of your GA concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do. AgneCheese/Wine 03:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mesoamerican cuisine categorisation

Hi there Peter. Have just noticed the category moves from Category:Mesoamerican diet and subsistence to Category:Mesoamerican cuisine, and in the process come across your earlier comments at the category talk page. IMO there are different objectives in the categorisation which need to be satisfied; I've responded at Category talk:Mesoamerican diet and subsistence with some comments, would like to hear your thoughts.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Political history of medieval Karnataka

I have replied to your comments on FAC discussion. thanksDineshkannambadi 10:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. With an effort to rename the article to be more specific to the topic, of many options, seems like "Pre-colonial empires of Karnataka" is being more popular than others. This way neither "Medieval" is used nor is "Political". All the empires discussed ruled from Karnataka and in the pre-colonial history of the region. Your comments are welcome.ThanksDineshkannambadi 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Germanic SVO

I can't recall hearing of a living Germanic language that isn't SVO and I think it's a bit uncalled for to demand a specific citation for it. You should at least try discussing things on talkpages before asserting your doubts in article space.

Hi, personally I think any editor has full rights to demand citations anywhere, even if the bits in question are so elementary that any introduction to the subject would cover it. I'm sorry if you thought it was uncalled for, but I believe my citation request would have increased the usefulness of the Swedish language article (and Wikipedia in general) so I think my request wasn't without merit. (However, asking for citations in every circumstance would be a bother to all parties involved, so it shouldn't be overdone.)

Whether to ask first on talk pages or to go ahead in article space is largely a matter of preference IMHO. Personally I find nothing wrong with using tags to raise any concerns that editors may have.

Cheers, --Kjoonlee 20:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests are fine, fact tags are not since article space is not a discussion forum. Inaccurate statements should be removed or left alone, not have "I dunno about this"-tags smeared all over them.
Peter Isotalo 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Tag templates are meant to be used that way, though, as requests in article space. --Kjoonlee 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And I've explained why such requests should be limited to an absolute minimum. I'm with Jimbo on this one; remove aggressively rather than making half-assed compromises that usually only lead to tags staying in articles for weeks. In the absolute worst cases, they're used because some editors misread statements or simply can't be bothered with reading the closest available sources; i.e. "OMG! M0aR |\|øTZZørZ!"
Peter Isotalo 09:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A copy-editing request

I noticed your recent copy-edits on the Jurassic Park article, amongst others, and I was hopingyou could help me out on another FAC. GoldenEye is currently a candidate, and one of the problems it faces is the need for copy-editing. While I was looking through a few other FACs I noticed that you had experience with good copy-editing, and I hoped you would help get GoldenEye to FA status. Your skills would be a true asset to this FAC, I hope you can help. Thanks! - • The Giant Puffin • 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian cuisine

Updated DYK query On 21 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ancient Egyptian cuisine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Aquarius • talk 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedited

OK ? Bishonen | talk 09:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Of course... Thanks.
Peter Isotalo 09:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Food

Hey Peter, I think we need to figure out some sort of order for the article. I'm thinking of some things, but right now the article is like Food on ADD, just kinda wait heres a thought, then heres another. I'm trying to wrap my brain around it now as well as fix all of the citations which make the article difficult to edit.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If I make any edits like in Food last night, feel free to point them out (ie. excessive sources). I own way too many books and tend to grab for the ones I want people to look at sometimes subconsciously. If you have any suggestions for the project page for me to change or add please feel free to suggest as well, I'm still figuring out the code stuff, but in time I'll get it down.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)