User talk:Ravpapa

Old discussions here

Help with deletion nomination

I have nominated 2001 Israeli Nerve Gas Attacks for deletion. I wrote a detailed explanation of why this page should be deleted, and when I tried to include the page in the log (step 3 from WP:AfD) the entire (and rather lengthy) text was included on the log page.

Obviously I have done something wrong. What is it? Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say, for sure; if I had to guess, you might have been transcluding the article, rather than the AfD page regarding it. In any case, I've gone ahead and fixed things up. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ofra_haza.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ofra_haza.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee keepts deleting the name war of Independence at Wars of Israel

He keeps dleting the name "war of independence to 1948 Palestine War. For NPOV I included both names.

He also keeps deleting Siege of Jerusalem (1948), to some newlly invented name.

it is unaccpetble to delete history, just because you don't like it.

someboy must take care of it, or refer this to someone responsible.

thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

read my anser in Hebrew on my talk page. --Shevashalosh (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

hey buddy, did you read my hebrew message on my talk page ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Changes need in article and title - u r invited

Ravpapa, you are invited to take a look at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Changes need in article and title

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey buddy, I wrote you back on mail. When you reply, post a message on my talk page, so I can be aware that I need to check my mail (I don't always do that) --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate them. I've been on wikipedia a while, although I did join after you. Now if you could just explain to me what you mean in Bava Basra daf lamed-gimel amud beis… -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Schubert's last sonatas

Hi. I've requested peer review for this article, as I hope to make it a GA (not FA as yet). Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Gidip (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your work on BL at DY

Do you mind if I proceed to some modifications immediately in your text.
If you don't agree with some of them, you can of course revert them immediately.
I think it is interesting to move forward without maybe-a-little-bit-useless discussions.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand. It is very tiring.

But please, don't leave this topic. Let's collaborate all 3 (or more) and when we have a consensual version, let's suggest to modify the content.

Alone, it will not be possible.

1948 history is already fascinating but its historiography is even more.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a final draft on tlak page

take a look at my combination of your version with Shabazz's

and Another remark to you: It don't matter where Milstein posts his articles, what matters is that he is the most RS to what is written in his book. --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Viola & chamber music in Israel

Shalom rav! Just to introduce myself - I have a particular interest in these topics, but haven't contributed as much as I might, due to the multiplicity of my To-Do's in other fields (WP and RL). Perhaps we might collaborate? Let me know; meanwhile, keep up the good work! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Your involvement is needed in Talk:Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

Hi ravapapa, I need your involvment at Talk:Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, I have crafted a "final draft", combined from Shabazz's (mostly) and your input chapter of "Conterversy" (I posted it on Talk:Blood Libel at Deir Yassin#Final Draft - see there).

user Asley came in and said that what he (Milstein) says sounds like a tone of complete truth, and crafted a "draft" of her own.

I tryed to explain her that this is her own input of what Milstein says, not the man's own words. In my "final draft", as I told her "these are the claims - and those are the answers, put it out there, if you think his arguments are weak then it will show".

the ref of "summary in english" (see article refs) - opens with the claim that deir yassin raid or what ever, is the basic founding myth of the paletinians, to fashion Israel as a terrorists state that has alegedlly never seased massacring arab. This is his main claim and how he opens his statement (see the ref "summary in English).

her opening statement is this is a book on Milstein blaming the Yishuv (Her input on what he says)

The rest about Ben Gurion silent, A whole chapter is there, and Meir Pail is at "conterversy" (on my "final draft" on talk page) - in the way you put it in the right context.

please get involved and post your opnion. Thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems with Ashley / Shabaz new Draft

Ravpapa, sory I thought the answer was Shabazz's answer - I didn't see that it was your signature.

since you have made a reaserch on the matters here are the problems (Shabaz latest draft is taken from what I have reffered as ashley's draft- so consider this as reffering to both):

1) one openining statement from Ashley:

She (or he) says this is a book about Milstein blaming the Yishuv. not true, this her own input of his own words. see ref "Milstein sumaary in English" [1]:

his words for opening ststement: The Deir Yassin episode, which began on April 9, 1948, is better known throughout the entire world than any other incident from the Israeli War of Independence. It became a basic founding myth in the Palestinian consciousness, and therefore in Palestinian culture...

According to the Palestinians, the Deir Yassin "massacre" was a "frozen incident" in the evolution of the State of Israel. In their eyes, it fashioned Israel as a terrorist state that has never ceased massacring Palestinians...

and thier is one line in the opening ststaement, in which he blames the "New Israeli Left" (hence, post zinists, new historians etc) - I would be glad to mention it !!! (not "the Yishuv" who existed before israel was established [hence- prioer to 1948] , but rather the "new left" of Post Zionism and New Historians [hence after 1948, in the 90th etc]),

This is how he represnts the problm, there is no mention of "Blaming the Yishuv".

2) his layout of the the claims list (1-5) for "massacre", are completely gone (only answer apear - how can one understand the answer if he does not know what the list claim are (1-5) ?

3) Ashely (or Shabaz's) opening ststememnt says where he contends that the raid at Deir Yassin in 1948 should not be described as a massacre. This he never said, it's an input of what you think he syays. his own words is that the massacre never occured (for many detalied reasons)

I will post these problems on talk page, you may post your answers there, better that everybody will see it.

thnk you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• your turn ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Schubert's last sonatas

Hi. Unfortunately only now did I notice your posting in the article talk. I didn't revert all your changes, just some of them. I actually waited a bit to see that you don't add further changes before doing my own. Schubert moved to the suburbs in Sept 1828, when his condition worsened. Actually one of my reversions of your changes was to make this more explicit (you deleted the phrase "at this stage"). Maybe you can rephrase this whole thing better. Please don't feel discouraged if I revert some of your changes. I think other people's revisions are very important and helping. But since I've written the original text here, and have read the references, I think it would be best that I make a final revision after other people, to make sure the correct meaning hasn't changed (I don't consider this ownership of the article, correct me if I'm wrong). If it suits you, I would prefer that you notify me when you have finished your revisions, and then I can go over it and correct or revert where necessary. But I can understand if you prefer not to.

About Schumann - my original phrasing was different. The 'guise' was someone else's revision. Maybe what he/she meant that he used a pseodonym in his writings? Gidip (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sound files

I noticed your editing on Schubert's last sonatas, and checked out your user page. Thankyou very much for uploading and adding sound files to Wikipedia, as you did on, among other articles, chamber music. There is a WikiProject devoted to free music files, Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music. There aren't many sound files of string quartets on Wikipedia, partly because a major source of free content classical music, Pandora Music, focusses so much on wind instruments.

I hadn't noticed the files you uploaded before because you didn't advertise them widely. I have added categories to all the files on Commons which I was sure about. I'm also planning to add them, with links to the full recordings, to the relevant composer/work articles. I tend to mention only the performing ensemble in the audio lists, like I did at Clarinet Concerto (Mozart). I didn't think of the idea of using footnotes to show the full performer information. I initially thought this was redundant, as the performer information is already in the description page, but I'll have to think about it.

Is there a reason why you use the format for images to display audio files? The normal way to display image files in music articles is with Template:Listenor the series of Template:Multi-listen start, Template:Multi-listen item and Template:Multi-listen end. I find the output of those templates easier to read with my screen reader than the image markup, and they give a consistent appearance to all the sound files in Wikipedia.

One more thing ... I hate to be the devil's advocate, but saying something to the effect of "this ensemble gave me permission to release this file under a free license" isn't strictly considered good enough for uploading to Wikimedia sites. There needs to be independent and verifiable proof that the file was freely licensed. To get that proof, you need to email evidence of permission to the permissions address of OTRS so it can be kept in Wikimedia's archives. There's no need to use the email templates with your friends .. what I did with the images in the white canes category on the Commons was just say to the person who made them "OK, we've talked about releasing them under a free license, I just need proof of that which I'll forward to OTRS", and it all worked out fine.

Regards, Graham87 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It will take a bit of work to get the required documentation together, but I will take care of it.

I looked at Template:Multi-listen start. The trouble with the multilisten template is that you have to put all the audio files together at the end of the article, and I wanted to interweave them in the text where they were discussed. As for Template:Listen, I couldn't find a way to make the text wrap around it, which made for a much less interesting page layout. I suppose I was being a bit of a toff, but that was the reason. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Rules are meant to be broken around here. ;) Wow the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum site is fascinating, I'd never known about it before. Graham87 14:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Politization of wiki

Hi Ravpapa,
Don't worry for that... We cannot prevent it ;-)
I have just this article that might interest you : [2]. It concerns the '48 war.
Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arghhh... What you wrote is not -at all- in the spirit of wp.

You are arguing for wp:forking, which has not a single chance to be accepted or applied.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think NPoV is just a question of editor education rather than a question of politization.

I think the "good solution" is in another direction :

• My mind is that even you "I don't agree with what X says", I can agree that "X says what he says". And on wikipedia, all (relevant) pov's have to be given.
• If you add that an editor of wp is not there to tell the truth but to report the different analysis, that also becomes easier to deal
• "forking" nevertheless is an editorial solution BUT inside articles and not from an article to the other. Eg, in Battle of Latroun (still not translated yet), I report in the "chronology of the events" only facts that are not challenged while in the section "historiography", there are 3 main sub-sections, each giving the Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian way of seeing these events... And just after, I put a sub-section named "confrontation of the historiographies", just to underline their divergence. But no one could never say which is the version I share personnaly... :-)
• Concerning who can edit or not each section, I think you are 100% wrong. Pro-Israeli should only be allowed to edit... Palestinian-pov section and vice versa. That is the only way to find a long-term solution to disputes : see wp:writing for the enemy. There are numerous advantages : no risk to see the section becoming too long, writer becomes aware of the other side's pov, no apologetic style.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The ISG museum license

Unfortunately, according to their Podcast FAQ, their recordings are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative license, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Files and content on Wikimedia projects must be licensed for commercial use for mirrors and forks, and the files must be modifiable - I used this to advantage at Image:Gustav Holst - the planets, op. 32 - iv. jupiter, the bringer of jollity (excerpt).ogg and Image:Wagner Tristan opening (orchestral).ogg. So unless you can get permission from the museum to make an exception for these files (the museum owns the copyright on them because it recorded them), they should be deleted by adding something like {{speedydelete|I accidentally tagged them with the wrong license}} to them. The only other thing I can think of is that they changed their license since you uploaded them, which is illegal because Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. But they still had a non-commercial license in February 2008 according to the Internet Archive, so this is unlikely.

You certainly aren't the first person to confuse the commercial and non-commercial Creative Commons licenses. Wikipedia is a non-commercial site, but one of the great things about it is that its content can be used for commercial purposes, like Wikipedia books or DVDs.

And while I typed this I was listening to the ISG recording of the Trout Quintet ... the atmosphere in that recording is so alive. It's amazing to hear the spontaneity of a live performance like that. Graham87 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the files for speedy deletion. They can be undeleted using the undeletion requests page at Commons if that is ever required. Graham87 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. After I replaced the references with links, I pretty much forgot about the whole thing. Bad housekeeper. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanqish

I'm surprised you made it that far into my room. No Problem...thanks for the correction.--Buster7 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pal music

Ravpapa, I hope you do not find my revert of the interim edits at Palestinian Music objectionable. The page needs considerable work, but the interim edits I reverted seem wholly pitched to political language (esp. saying Pal music's basic intention was to promote conflict with Israel). I did the revert because Tiamut does not seem to be very active these days. Of course, the article needs a lot of work, and restoring the earlier version does not indicate approval of everything in it. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I thought that Dance21c's edits were pretty scandalous. I didn't want to do the revert myself, but I'm glad you did it.

Incidentally, I think you should check the sentence "... as farmers or as nomads." I think only a very small portion of the inhabitants of Palestine at the beginning of the century were nomadic, almost all were settled farmers (even a sizable portion of the Bedouin, I believe). Nomads also were not included in censuses of the time. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just caught this while tidying up. There are a lot of confusions over this, not least my own. From memory, pre 1917 texts refer to fellahin as 85-90% of the population, hardscrabble farmers as often as not, plus a bedouin/Arab population partially settled, but engaged even so often in transhumance patterns of herding. Transhumance . .don't think that would get through to clarify 'nomad' (three groups, Galilee, Judean area, and Negev). Nomad will have to stay I suppose until one can think of a 'beddawun', as the tragically bad WW2 soldier pun put it. Cheers Ravp, with Schoenberg's arrangement of a Straussian waltz quixotically floating to mind as I sigh(n) off. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Avi's rearranged the jazz section on the Gilad Atzmon page. Ignoring the other extremely controversial stuff, I wondered, with him, whether you might not be the best person to cast a glance over that section and refresh it with your erudition, if you happen to have any hints as to how we might improve it. Sorry for asking, if this is a bother. No obligations. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be of much help. I know very little about jazz, and would never have heard of Gilad Atzmon if it hadn't been for the flap over the Wikipedia article. I think that the Gilad Atzmon article proves my point that a little bit of controversy causes marginal articles to get blown way out of proportion (see my essay on this topic, The Politicazation of Wikipedia). --Ravpapa (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry then for troubling you on this. I'm glad I did, because your redirect to the politics article made me think I'm not alone. The only difference being that I, as a good Marxist, would subject the process, by dialectical logic, to the judgement of the market place, and allow that to sort out which of the two sides had done the better job.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_2_Second_Variation.OGG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_2_Second_Variation.OGG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_3.OGG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_3.OGG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The fair use images

Yes, the images you upload fail the non-free content criteria because a free recording could theoretically be made. The guidelines say nothing about how difficult a replacement would be; if it's possible to make a free recording of a work, because the work is in the public domain, then no fair use recordings of it are allowed. I think that's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Either get (or make) your own recordings of illustrative passages released under a free license, or use MIDI. The only time non-free recordings are allowed for classical music in the public domain is for illustrating the distinctive styles of artists, like the recordings at Glenn Gould. Graham87 06:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there's no point in arguing, then. The criteria say, 'As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?"' Do you really think that if I were to record it myself (assuming that I could get together four players willing to volunteer their time, and find a recording studio willing to make the recording for free), that a pickup recording would have the same effect? The whole point of the example is to show the emotional, dramatic content of a certain passage. Four amateurs playing without expression and out of tune - or, even worse, a midi recording beeping away - doesn't do it for me.

Ah, well, RIP. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Later: I raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Compositions_task_force#Fair_use_issues. Would appreciate your input. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)

On 10 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your notes

Thanks for your notes. I like to keep people guessing. Regarding your essay, it's quite good overall. Oddly enough, the pro-Palestinian crowd really hates Muhammad al-Durrah, despite the fact that it is, as you say, "a fine article: it is clearly written, well-organized, comprehensive, copiously documented. It does not suffer from long apologetics and polemics, as do some other controversial articles." When I say "oddly enough", of course I'm being ironic, and really mean "rather predictably". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• In my evening surf through wiki, I landed on Jayjg s page and saw the reference to your essay, which I read with a great feeling of connection, and that wonderful sense of having written it myself... I agree strongly with your view about using lists for "depopulated villages" or "settlements" and outlawing the use of "massacre" for contemporary "conflicts". Your idea of 2 spaces could (maybe) work, but then, if you can't get sides to agree over one sentence or one paragraph, good luck! with the ultimate merge. (In fact, look at the brouhaha that emerged from the editing of Al-Durrah...there was blood on the ground [some of it mine, :)]) Still, it would be an interesting experiment. Why not post a link at the WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration? Please keep me in the loop if you do anything with this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories in your sub-page

Hi Ravpapa! Could you please change the categories in your sub-page User:Ravpapa/Billroth to comments so that page doesn't appear unnecessarily in those categories? Regards, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Smile friend!

Tiamut^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:Mperel gave this to me. I gave one to User:Nishidani who's been having a rough day, and I'd like to give this one to you. Happy editing! Tiamut^talk 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you! I've only ever been to Sinai. Have been planning to get to Cairo, Luxor and Alexandria for ages, but something always comes up. Enjoy. And if you have a camera with you, try to take pictures. Maybe some will be good for posting here. Tiamut^talk 22:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I think the three reliable sources Avi put up yesterday, and Wikidemon took down, should go back up first. I just proposed a compromise.Historicist (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Hummus

I'm afraid you just have to consume the picture I put on the page! Kind regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon

I wish you would rething withdrawing form the Rashid Khalidi discussion. Wikidemon is doing it deliberately, you know. His strategy appears to be to ask the same question and make the same points over and over until people get fed up and go away. He sometimes gets a little bit aggressive, but always stays within the boounds of formally polite idiocy. He signs on to consensus statements, then renegs. Repeatedly. He repeatedly removes consesnus statements from the article. He also posts things claiming that it as the consensus, but changes the language. Claims that he is leaving the discussion, but comes back. And fails to address responses, recurring instead to the same set of simplistic assertions that other editors have demonstrated to be fallacious. After playing his politely disingenuous game for a month, I began to call him on it. Every time I did, he backed off. Each time I did so, he backed off. Only to go back to his old tricks. Here are some of my posts calling him on these tactics:

• Thoughtful, honorable people like Ron Kampeas evaluate new evidence and sometimes change their opinion in the light of new evidence. In argument #4 under Sources, Wikidemon's analysis [[USER:Wikidemon]’s proposed wording makes it sound as though Kampeas changed his mind on a whim. It is this sort of illogic or, if you will, faux literal-mindedness, that makes me suspect that Wikidemon is actually an intelligent person, intelligent enough to understand that new evidence can exist and that it can change opinions. His pretense here that he believes Kampeas' opinion before examining the new evidence is to be weighed equally with his opinion after weighing the new evidence, as though the man inexplicably changed his mind, is simly so stupid that I refuse to credit Wikidemon with believing what he writes. If my hypothesis is correct, and Wikidemon is actually more intelligent than he lets on in the discussion with his doggedly simple-minded repetitive arguments, then he is, indeed, engaging in a tactic or strategy of endlessly prolonging the discussion instead of accepting the consensus. Historicist (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

• [edit] Objecting endlessly

At the risk of violating the policy of assume good faith, I am driven to wonder whether all of the participants are acting in good faith. I am willing to be persuaded by evidence. In fact, for years I dismissed the idea that Khalidi ever actually spoke for the PLO. There were no sources. Then sources appeared, and I was persuaded. Attempting to edit this article has increased my conviction that he most certainly did so. Certainly no one in this argument has ever presented evidence to the contrary. Instead of evidence, users present objections. This discussion has now been going on for over a month. During that time copious sources have been brought and consensus has appeared to have been reached three times. Each time a user then violates the consensus by removing the agreed-upon material from the page. The strategy appears to be to keep objecting and objecting and objecting until those who disagree with him get tired and go away. Over the period during which I have followed this. USER:79.181.230.41 USER: Andjam USER:Jaakobou USER:Glen Twenty and USER:RonCram have argued for a few days, then (apparently,) given up and gone away. Now we are back to square one, except that we have accumulated numerous, extremely reliable sources of all types. I begin to suspect thst the only real objection is WP:IDONTLIKEITHistoricist (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Tell me then, am I acting in good faith or not? I thought we had reached a consensus and were in process of implementing it. If you think I am not acting in good faith, bring it up on AN/I and we can suspend this discussion while the administrators decide whether I am a legitimate editor who should be blocked or banned from this article, or not. I am not going to do this on two tracks, three now - trying to negotiate a consensus, trying deal with new BLP violations that were never mentioned in the consensus discussion, and trying to defend myself against accusations of bad faith. Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• (Note that he did not suspend the discussion or call in administrators. He fears having his behavior examined.)

• Although I assume that all of us are willing to consider well-founded objections, so far the objection raised amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an apparent tactic of dragging out the debate until proponents a proposal fold their tents and cede the field. When I raised this above under the heading Objecting Endlessly - without accusing any individual of such behavior (there seemed to me to be two or three discussants who fit this description) - USER:Wikidemon took umbrage and appeared to concede that his behavior fits this description. I repeat that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and endless, obstructionist repetition of the assertion that patently well-sourced material is not acceptable Wikipedia behavior.Historicist (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

• I could add more, but you get the point. Wikidemon knows how to manipulate all the Wikipedia rules, and he uses them aggressively to bully bad material into articles and push valid material out.

• I think that it is important to keep the Khalidi material on Wikipedia. I hope that you will hang in there.Historicist (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Politicization

I read your article [[3]]. It clarifies much of what appalled me when I waded into the Khalidi article. I have seen it elsewhere on Wikipedia. The politicization of Poland is remarkable Hummus, however, may be the prize winner. Where I think you underestimate is in your notion that the word massacre can be applied objectively to historical incidents. Any national movement willing to go to war over chick peas will fail to concede the word massacre no matter how many centuries ago the killing happened:-)Historicist (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Thanks. There is indeed so much argument for argument's sake here. And I expect the level of useless rhetoric will go up with the unemployment rate. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The NYSun article you wanted

Will you do the proper edits. You are quite right about this.

Addressing an accusation that he had endorsed the killing of Israeli soldiers as legitimate "resistance" to occupation, he said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate. I didn't endorse killing Israeli soldiers. These people will take anything out of context. Anyone who knows me knows the last thing I am is extreme. I've called suicide bombings a war crime. I'm a ferocious critic of Arafat." http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:X01euB_aMlYJ:www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6067+rashid+Khalidi+%22international+law%22+New+York+Sun+site:campus-watch.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Right of Resistance?

by New York Sun Staff Editorial New York Sun March 14, 2005

http://www.nysun.com/article/10510

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 Print Send RSS

One of the more positive developments related to the controversy over Middle Eastern studies at Columbia University is that professors who teach in the field no longer enjoy immunity from criticism. Without checks and balances or, as Columbia law school dean David Schizer put it, when controversial opinions are "encrusted as orthodoxy," professors are given license to misrepresent contested or weak ideas as undisputed fact. Such a state of affairs at Columbia helps to explain why the director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, Rashid Khalidi, has felt free to misstate international law as relates to the killing of Israeli soldiers.

On at least four occasions, Mr. Khalidi has publicly stated that Palestinians have the legal right under international law to resist Israel's occupation. In a June 7, 2002 speech he delivered before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Mr. Khalidi said: "Killing civilians is a war crime. It's a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They're civilians, they're unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance." The following year he was quoted as saying, "Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it. But resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law."

Queried for an October 23, 2003, article in the Sun reporting that Israel's education minister had lodged a formal protest with Columbia over the Khalidi remarks, Mr. Khalidi responded by saying in an e-mail to the Sun that it is "disgraceful that a minister in a government that commits similar war crimes against civilians on a far greater scale - with complete impunity and without the slightest remorse - should have the gall to protest my reported comments on legitimate resistance to an unlawful and violent occupation now in its 37th year." To the New York Times, in an article that appeared on February 28, 2005, Mr. Khalidi said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate."

The time is overdue to challenge Mr. Khalidi's statements in respect of international law. Going by his 2002 speech quoted above, Mr. Khalidi is arguing that Israeli soldiers serving in the West Bank are belligerent combatants and thus legitimate targets of violence. The key question that Mr. Khalidi omits is who is entitled to attack the soldiers under international law, or, in other words, under the Geneva and Hague conventions and the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and binding treaties. Mr. Khalidi doesn't distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, which suggests that in Mr. Khalidi's view all Palestinians have the right of "resistance."

According to the Geneva conventions, however, only lawful combatants are given permission to kill other combatants in the course of armed conflict. Or as Nicholas Kittrie, a university professor at American University law school, says, "If you are not a law belligerent, you are not given that license to kill anybody." Who is a lawful combatant? It turns out that in international law - we speak of Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention - the particulars are spelled out, including carrying arms openly and having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. The "resistance" carried out by the Palestinians against Israeli soldiers flagrantly violates those conditions. A suicide bomber who blows up soldiers at a checkpoint does not qualify. Or, as Alan Baker, legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, put it in a report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "There is no such right of resistance to occupation in international law."

If it weren't for a Columbia law professor, George Fletcher, who last month challenged Mr. Khalidi to a debate, one might have assumed that either everyone at Columbia either agreed with Mr. Khalidi or simply did not care that he was wrong. President Bollinger has rattled on about the fine points of First Amendment law, but his employee is running around misrepresenting the particulars of international law. It seems that if it concerns the murder of Israeli soldiers, Mr. Bollinger is not going to confront the head of his Middle East Institute. It is the great tragedy of the situation at Columbia, which has become a college at which the authorities seem indifferent to the substance of the arguments made by those who teach the students.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 (the campus-watch archive is propably the best place to search for articles on academics speaking about the Middle East) Historicist (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nearing consensus

I really think consensus is possible on the Khalidi page this time.Historicist (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been lurking. I think you should simply accept Wikidemon's proposal, and argue about improvements later. As the article stands now, there is no mention of Khalidi's involvement in politics, and that is a straightforward distortion of the facts of his life (one of which I believe he would disapprove as much as anyone else). You can work out improvements later.

It's kind of mind-boggling that we have spilt so many thousands of words over the distinction between "spokesman" and "used by journalists as a source for official policy positions".

But that is just my opinion. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but wikipedia rules encourage interminable discussion. I will take your advice. However, it truly looks possible that we are on the verge of consensus.Historicist (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Told you so. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you like the refs for Khalidi...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood Libel

I am of several minds on Blood libel..

• Pure propaganda, self published, not noted in any academic establishment and as a book on its own quite worthless. AfD
• As a book that takes note on the subject of the left right split in Israeli politics it has a place in the genre of political polemics of the Israeli right. Keep
• As a method of showing Milstein's far right extremism. integrate under Uri Milstein

and I'm still not sure what is for the best. As I'm not sure I'd keep by default, as much as the title is propaganda all on its own...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try not to guess. The author inaccurately uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" in an attempt at aggrandisement of Lehi and Irgun (as part of his propaganda method and should therefore not be acknowledged). Battles occur between armies and are not carried out by a small group of irregulars against a civil population. Actions is normally used, by propagandists in sympathy with the irregulars, to describe an irregular attack, but in this incident Uri decided not to use the term "action"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand from your post that you have actually read the book. That you should devote the time to reading this tripe, all in the name of accuracy, is a reason for admiration.

You are right about not guessing. So I went back and read the English summary (the original Hebrew book is unavailable - where did you get a copy?), and there he uses neither raid nor action. He also makes none of the distinctions between battles, actions and raids that you so clearly (if somewhat arbitrarily) define. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa,
Even if I agree this book is a propaganda book, I don't agree that the article should be deleted. On the contrary. It is an important information to know that there is a propaganda struggle around all these topics. The introduction of the article is clear and the external links (eg to Neo-Zionism) is also clear.
But more, Uri Milstein is still considered as a wp:rs source on wikipedia. His other works are quoted by numerous authors from all sides (at least Morris, Gelber and Pappé) and so there is no reason not to have an article about his work.
I would add that on a very objective basis, the last book of Pappé, the Ethnic cleansing of Palestine is exactly in the same situation as Milstein one (self published, no official peer review, same topic, same controversy,...) and it is widely used as wp:rs source in several articles on wp. We must stick to neutrality and objectivity.
My mind is that none of these are reliable sources in the academic world and neither should be used on wikipedia but I am quite sure I cannot get a consensus around this :-) Ceedjee (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Ethnic cleansing has weaseled its way into the pantheon of reliable sources is no reason to keep Milstein's totally insignificant garbage in the encyclopedia. It is precisely this kind of pointless arm-wrestling that makes all the Middle East articles so consistently bad. "If they can use the word massacre, we can use it." It's like editing with a collection of four-year-olds.

Well, so be it. I am certainly not going to go to the barricades over this one. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't read the book, I've had bits and pieces translated, auto translated in the main...and there are synopsis available. I normally order my books as they rarely get onto the shelves...
• my differentiation on battles, raids, actions, are not arbitrary but comes from common military usage. Actions are at platoon/company/regiment level, battles are at full brigade to army level....raids have an entirely different meaning, raids are an attack with no intention of holding the ground...Dier Yassin was carried out with intent to hold therefore could never be a raid...and was too small for a battle...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One world publication is not self published...[4]...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you haven't read the book, then how do you know that 'Uri decided not to use the term "action"'? Did you ask him? (I assume this is possible as you are on first-name basis with him).

• You are correct that One World Publications is not self published. But One World is not the publisher. It was published by "Alim" which is the in-house publishing company of Milstein's private think tank.

• "Common military usage" - that's interesting. Do you have a military lexicon you can refer me to? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One world is in reference to Ilan Pappe (Ceedjee referred to Pappe self publishing Ethnic Ceasing)...Not about Uri's Blood Libel.."Common military usage" not a lexicon but a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the British army have SOPs covering writing up incidents, it got issued with the report writing SOP...All the auto-translations I've done on various passages came up with 'battle' when referring to Deir Yassin....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Saminsky et al

Thanks for your note, sorry I didn't realise others were on the track.....Gnesin has been an itch for a while, and I found myself with a day more or less free and 1001 things I was supposed to do - so Wikipedia is always a useful displacement activity in such circumstances....I am delighted to leave you Engel!! -all best regards, and leshanah tovah for 2009 --Smerus (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My Apostrophe S Edits

Hi. I'm wondering if you saw my earlier comments. As I indicated there, I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor and so I'm not sure about protocol. Given there now seems to be some agreement about the issue at hand, should I just go back and reinstate my edits at the aforementioned pages (Waits, Jones, Richards, Brahms, etc.)? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysloop (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

hello Ravpapa - i'm hoping you can find the time to look in on the discussion here again - if you're no longer thinking of rewriting the MoS to "ban" the apostrophe-only form, it seems like the RFC is unnecessary and should be closed. so it would be helpful if you could clarify over there what your current stance is - thanks! Sssoul (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Music and Sderot

I'm not musical, wholly ignorant and tone-deaf is about accurate. Nevertheless, I just put a music section into Sderot with pages for a coupld of bands and performers who hadn's had pages before. Someone who knows Israeli music could probably find some socpe here. The Sderot music scene is a remarkable and positive phenomenon.Historicist (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your post on Reconstructionism

Here. Thanks. --Toussaint (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response is not accurate. You are right that Reconstructionism is a religious movement, and that Ben-Gurion and Herzl were secular Jews. I am refering to the Zionist (political) philosophy expounded by Kaplan, which is rooted in his religious beliefs. Read his essay "The New Zionism" (Theodore Herzl Foundation, 1955). There he explains the relationship between Reconstructionist Judaism and his approach to Zionism. You can also look at this.

Kaplan's Zionist philosophy (which is also an extension of the approach of Ahad Haam) has become the predominant philosophy (explicitly or implicitly) of American Jewry, and also of European Jewry. Among people who study Zionist philosophy, this approach is sometimes called Reconstructionist Zionism. So you see why I think your use of the term is a source of confusion. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I suppose. So what is the better term for the branch of Religious Zionism that is consisting of folks like the "Re-Established Sanhedrin" and the Temple Mount Faithful that is going beyond just settlements? I mean yeah, what I wrote was original research, but I felt that it needed a separate summarizing article after someone questioned me appending the Religious Zionism template onto the article about modern Sanhedrin revival attempts and stated that the subject of that article was more of a religious Orthodox body rather than a political body.

I'm only surmizing that the above groups are religiopolitical in their nature because the Sanhedrin wants to be recognized as both the Supreme Court and the Upper house of parliament, and the TMF's goal also runs counter to the ambitions of the Muslims in Jerusalem and symbolizes a potential conflict with a billion folks over that piece of real estate. But if it isn't Zionism but is a religiopolitical manifestation that is mostly concerned with Israeli institutions, then what should I call it? Halakhism? --Toussaint (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I didn't know about Kaplan's "New Zionism" until you just mentioned it. Thanks, and I'll go for a merge of the title with Reconstructionist Judaism. --Toussaint (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem you are trying to address is titanic, compelling, and virtually unresolvable, given the rules of engagement in Wikipedia debates. From our point of view (I mean the secular, enlightened, liberal), all these attempts to reestablish a 2000-year-old religio-political order are a form of subversion, a nascent Khomenei-style putsch. See the book (in Hebrew) The Messiah's Donkey, by Sefi Richlevsky. From their point of view, these are all legitimate debates, rooted in halakha and logical extensions of a fundamental acceptance of divine will.

The shades of opinion within the religious Zionist (and anti-Zionist) community are, for those engaged, matters of halakhic dispute, and not of political debate. So any attempt to inject political interpretations into articles on these topics will be met with fierce opposition. For example, if you were to quote an article suggesting that the new Sanhedrin was an attempt to undermine the authority of the Israeli Supreme Court or Knesset, you would get into a violent edit war, which, most likely, you would lose.

Your approach, of sneaking in the political implications in the guise of a new article, was well-intentioned, and, in a way, I wish it could have worked. But I fear we will just have to think of another approach. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, funny you should mention that, since I just split a huge article-size chunk from here to here earlier. --Toussaint (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rav papa would probably not approve :-)

Accusing fellow editors of doing anything "scurrilously" is a bit too strong, imo, and is not really in line with WP:AGF. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Of course, the problem is that people are so entrapped in their own points of view that they can't see. And that applies to both sides - this article (ז"ל) was certainly no worse than Israel and the apartheid analogy or any of the dozens of massacre articles. Ask any of these editors and they will tell you with honest, ingenuous amazement, "But it was a massacre!" Yes, it was, and it was also a bunch of antisemitic attacks, and it was also the name of the book, and yes, and yes and yes. Reading these articles is like looking at the world through a pinhole: what you see is really what's there, but it is such a tiny, distorted little piece of what's there that its description is irrelevant and absurd - and offensive.

So I guess scurrilous is the wrong word. If wiki-etiquette requires an apology, consider this it. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who claims to have Jewish blood coursing through their veins, or anyone with a basic grasp of Jewish history for that matter, would never minimize "a bunch of antisemitic attacks." The increase of antisemitic attacks have not exactly been the best news for Jews. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should be offended by this insinuation about my ancestry, but I am of an equananimous temperament. However, it is this article, and not me, who is minimizing antisemitism. An article about a rise in antisemitic attacks associated with the Gaza war suggests there is something notable about this; that it is somehow unusual for antisemites to link their attacks to an Israeli action. Otherwise, there would be an article about antisemitic attacks following house demolitions, or speeches in the UN, or assassination of terrorists. There would be hundreds, if not thousands of articles titled "Antisemitic attacks following ..."

You see, there is always an increase in antisemitism when Israel gets into the news. So there is nothing notable about this particular increase. It becomes notable only when seen through the pinhole of someone like you (and like me) who lives with the knowledge that there are people out there who hate us, who want us dead.

But as editors of the Wikipedia, we have to step away from our pinholes. We have to look at bigger pictures, at issues that have true cultural and intellectual significance. And that goes for both sides in this battle over Wikipedia's middle eastern soul. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like your argument evolved into a lack of notability argument. That's fine, but it's not what you said at the deleting admins talkpage it's not supported by the multitude of reliable sources covering the attacks. Indeed, an increase of attacks against a certain religious/ethnic group is always notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)

I have done some copyediting as well as adding four audio samples as you suggest. Respect scores I am not sure, but Alton can help. The problem is that I don't know how fair use applies in that kind of works. Cheers OboeCrack (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly scan sections of the score and upload it into the English Wikipedia. The trouble is that most Wikipedia readers can't read scores, and orchestral scores especially. You really need to edit them with a picture editor like Photoshop so people can understand. Take a look at File:Haydn20-4.jpg to see what I mean. If you need help doing this, email me the score using the "Contact this user" function on the left menu, and I will edit the file for you. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A land without a people

The Muir article intrigues me. This is why. Type the phrase in each of its variants into books google , Historical Newspapers, and similar search engines limiting the field to pre-1918 or pre-1948 . You get Zangwill and a couple of his followers only; until the post WWII period. Type in some of the other Zionist slogans, and you can find lots of hits. This also works in German and Yiddish (the only languages I tried it with.) What you do get are scores of hits in missionary and Christian Restorationist literture. They used it a lot. Then after Balfour, you get hists from anti-Zionists. One thing no one can deny about Zionists is that they wrote incessantly. The fact that you don't find Zionists using it proves that it was not a Zionist slogan, as Dowty and Muir state. Since you don't find usage, it wasn't a Zionist slogan. So, why shoehorn Zionist attitudes into an article on a Christian slogan?Historicist (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Zionist attitudes are what the article is really about. The slogan itself is a figleaf. Is this what the Zionists thought or not? That is the real issue that you and the article are trying to deal with.

Look at the section on Zangwill. It presents Zangwill's view of the relation of indigenous Arabs to Palestine. It is not about the slogan.

Look at the section on "Use of the phrase by Christian proponents..." It is a discussion of Evangelistic attitudes toward indigenous Arabs.

Look at the section on "Use of the phrase by opponents of Zionism". While ostensibly refering to the slogan, all the complaints of anti-Zionists are about the attitude, not about the slogan itself.

Look at the section on "Interpretation of the phrase by scholars". This whole section is essentially about scholars' statements about Zionist attitudes toward the indigenous population.

The slogan is a figleaf. The article has a hidden agenda. Which is not so hidden. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

My spelling and language skills in general have never been strong. I like to think it's caused by savant syndrome.... Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On Rav Papa

I doubt he could have been a member of the Sanhedrin, since he was active in Babylonia, while the Sanhedrin were in the Galilee. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Knesset HaGdolah, of the Babylonian exile, is also refered to as the Sanhedrin. See http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php/Historical_Overview#Babylonian_Exile. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Knesset HaGdolah, consisting of returnees from the first Babylonian exile, was a temporary institution which ceased to be called that hundreds of years before Rav Papa. As you will find later on in the article you cite, the Sanhedrin were located in the Galilee during the period of the Amoraim, before eventually dissolving in that period. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Parallel pages

In most of these issues, people have used parallel articles as a means of fighting it out (we call them POV forks), and hilarity has ensued. I don't think it's a good solution, tbh. It's perfectly possible to write neutral articles about Israel/Palestine (the presentations you gave are quite biased, and are not the only alternatives). But it's not going to happen. The reason is simple: the pro-Zionist side not only outnumbers the pro-Palestinian side, but it represents the orthodox view of the American commentariat, so that it not only has the power, but most Americans can't even see the other point of view as valid. In most content disputes, there's a similar lack of balance of numbers and commitment, which makes neutrality impossible, simply because the more powerful side has no incentive to make concessions. While Jayjg has the numbers, he can shamelessly claim that the West Bank is widely known as "Judea-Samaria" until he's blue in the face.

Worse is "pseudoscience", where articles are not even close to neutral. Wikipedia's policies are rigged so that they never can be. They have, at best, a kind of neutral tone, which apes modernist works of reference like Britannica. I think ultimately this was Jimbo's aim: not an encyclopaedia that fairly represented all views or even one that didn't take a stance on the "facts", but simply one that did not seem to do so. In any case, he only cares that the fighting is unseemly, not what is being fought over. He'd probably support Sarah's proposal if he thought it would be widely popular. Grace Note (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted your position. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Freegolan

Wise decision, thanks for the info. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sean.hoyland

From where are you getting that information about PD status in Israel? Neither our nor Commons's templates say that. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I misreading the template? "If owned by the State, and there is no special agreement between the State and the photographer — 50 years after the creation of the photograph (paragraphs 36 and 42 in the 2007 statute)"

In fact, this applies to all works owned by the state, not just photographs. Section 18 of the Copyright act of 1911: "18. Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work."

The poster was published by the Keren Hayesod, a prestate governmental institution which in 1948 became a government institution. Therefore, this clause applies.

My original statement to Sean was indeed too broad - works of art (not photographs) have a copyright of 50 years after the death of the author. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Keren Hayesod a government institution ? I can't figure it out from here. [5] I hope so or else it's 70 years and I'll have to revert to fair-use, abandon my plans to improve Wiki content with superb old posters and do something rash like join Hamas. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) That's a joke by the way. The evidence for causal links between copyright law and militant group membership is tenuous at best. If you know anything about Palestinian copyright law it would be handy too. I read a masters doctorate about it which didn't help much. It seems to be in a bit of a mess. It came up a few months ago when someone took a photo of a poster in the West Bank and added it to wiki. The photo's gone now but it would be good to know whether old Palestinian posters are okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keren Hayesod is what is called a "government corporation" - that is, an incorporation that is wholly owned by the government. It is like the Israel Lands Authority. As such, it is a government institution, and copyright rules government government publications would apply.

Palestinian posters printed prior to 1911 are governed by Ottoman copyright law, which requires payment of a bribe to the vizier of 500 piastres. After 1911, the copyright goes to the one with the biggest nabut. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I'll update the licence info to be more specific.

Oddly enough, the masters thesis on current Palestinian copyright law pretty much came to the same conclusion that Ottoman civil codes still apply in the main. I think the aim is eventually comply with WTO standards any decade soon. Fascinating reading if you ever get trapped in an elevator or something... Sean.hoyland - talk 02:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering

After considering your merge proposal at anti-‘s AfD page, I am still not sufficiently convinced that it is a good idea now. But, that is predicated mainly on the less-than-perfect-world that exists among editors who choose the knowledge and challenge of this particular arena. You and I have both commented along similar lines. How is that to be accomplished?

Taking a step down to a more fundamental NPOV on the lobbying subject, as your merge proposal suggests, does indeed provide some benefit for the betterment of Wiki’s quality as well as an improved reader understanding of the arena, from my particular pov. From this inclusionist view, I consider that both are intimately involved; the history and actions of one caused the birth of the sibling, and both are tied or followed documented history elsewhere. My interest and concern is the trajectory of where it is going, and although that is beyond any Wiki-consideration, the angle and azimuth of the barrages are easily RS’d as are some deflections along various paths; that is true of both. I am, however, a staunch inclusionist (between the fringes), like RS’d history/events, and tend to be a stickler on chronology and five pillars.

It may be possible to finesse an eventual merge, and thus a more NPOV article and reader understanding of the “narrative wars”, using methods similar to those you have discussed on subpages/elsewhere. My consideration is that a ‘Background’ section should be developed, which is sufficiently inclusionist that the same prose could then be inserted in both lobby articles, prior to ‘History’. I do not think it would be a short section, and for brevity, should include many internal links; it might even result as a separate article, something like Middle East narrative wars [6]. Without looking at any in particular, many sources already are well represented on the current mirror-image articles. It seems more descriptive and sufficiently neutral, and by varying the first descriptor, includes aspects which are not currently included but likely notable and informative of the wider situation. Are you a stickler for “magic words”?

If willing, I would appreciate any consideration and thoughts. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well,I have been watching the page develop since I finished my rewrite. Not a lot of time has gone by, but there has been a lot of editing by adherents of both sides. Yet there has been no edit-warring so far, no vituperation on the talk page, and all the changes have been pretty much cosmetic. The only real bone of contention is the name, and, if we can fix that, we may have a formula here that is palatable to all.

So, for now, I would vote to leave things as they are. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

lobby page

I think the rewrite you did was very good and think most of it should be incorporated into the mainspace. My thinking is what is there specifically on efforts of groups in opposition to the so-called Israel lobby should be in an article Opposition to the Israel lobby in US politics or some other less nonsensical name. What is there on groups being called anti-Israel should go in the pages of the groups. I am not all that fond of the current article either and would favor its deletion as well as it is mostly focusing on the phrase and I do not think the phrase itself is a notable topic. But this AfD will likely end as a "no consensus" closure and we will have an article. I think an effort should be made in redefining the scope of the article, mostly through a name change, and then reincorporating the text you saved off. But the real reason I am leaving this note is that it was refreshing to see how you worked through that article and how you conducted yourself on the talk page. Just wanted to say thanks for that. nableezy - 06:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for thanks. I think you also, prior to this last disastrous round of editing, conducted yourself admirably. Until the latest band of editors trooped in like Attila the Hun, I actually believed we could have an article where editors with opposing viewpoints could cooperate. Alas... --Ravpapa (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to tell you that your delete vote on the AfD is among the most eloquently written arguments I've seen at AfD in some time. As a result, you get one of these:

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Firstly, for attempting the gargantuan task of rewriting Anti-Israel lobby in the United States, and then for so eloquently putting your deletion arguments in its AfD. In a debate that is so often filled with hysteria from both sides of the gallery, your eloquence and thought is noticed, and greatly appreciated. Cam (Chat) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I have a very bad feeling that this thing is eventually going to find its way to ArbCom. Cam ^(Chat) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar (I don't get many), and for your realism. In my euphoria of rewriting, I deluded myself that, for the first time, the most virulent partisans of both sides seem to be lining up together. But you are probably right about the arbcom. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Kafr Saba

I appreciate your efforts to come up with a solution acceptable to all on that page. I was ok with your rewrite, but unfortunately, it did not gain acceptance of all other editors. What should be the next step in trying to resolve this, in your opinion? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to throw in the towel. It isn't such a big deal, anyway. If Nableezy likes "Palestinian-Arab" in the first sentence, let him have it.

This should be our biggest problem. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:)

Talk like that could quickly lead to scandal, especially in the neighborhood I live in. Seriously though, I do appreciate your rather consistent openness to entertaining the viewpoints of others. And the levity you try to bring in. My greatest fault is I'm too darn serious sometimes. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

• Discussion
• Poll

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass in C major (Beethoven)

Hmm. Your advice has been anticipated and already taken! (Perhaps you hadn't noticed?) What this with the Mass? Please explain. --Kleinzach 09:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because the article on the mass is a stub. It deserves better. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AmalMurkus.OGG

Thanks for uploading File:AmalMurkus.OGG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I remember actually looking through that page as I searched for licensing info. I have cleaned up the image page and removed the deletion notice. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon

A simple question: Why did you review the article when you have absolutely no interest at all in the subject? Answer that one and stay credible.--andreasegde (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed it because I saw there was a large backlog of GA reviews in the music category.

Thank you for pointing me toward C.A. Russell. It took a little sleuthing to figure out who he was and why he was related, but it was interesting to see that he found much the same fault with the article as I did.

Now that two independent reviewers have noted the rather extensive copyright violations in the article, I suggest you take these criticisms to heart. Also, I suggest that you ask for comments regarding the potential BLP violations in the article. A particularly egregious case is your citing Lennon as saying he had affairs with Joan Baez and Marion Creek in 1968. Joan Baez was in a relationship with David Harris at the time, whom she later married. She is certainly still alive, and might not take kindly to our passing off a possibly slanderous third-hand rumor as fact.

I do not intend to pursue this matter any further. But, as an experienced editor who has been around Wikipedia for a while, you probably know that there are many administrators who, if they get a whiff of the copyright violations and potential BLP problems with the article, will simply delete it. So, for your own sake and the sake of the article, I advise you to deal with these issues.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"And the hammer came down..." Have fun. --andreasegde (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia

OK, now we're working together on it, which is always good. :) I'll look at the lead. --andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Paris

Hi Ravpapa. I just wanted to point out that your idea that Paris is not the capital of France probably constitutes an extraordinary claim, so should be made with sources to back it up and talkpage discussion before it is implemented.

I think you may be under the misapprehension that, to qualify as a capital city, a city must be named in that country's constitution. It doesn't seem at all clear that this is the case. Many countries (the UK, for example) do not even have written constitutions, but they are still capable of having capital cities.

Have you ever seen the British TV show QI, by the way? This reminds me a little bit of that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Never have --Ravpapa (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem, the chosen city

I would like to try to convince you offline of the merits of my proposal at Israel. You, nsaum and others have latched on to this idea that writing "Israel has chosen Jerusalem" is in some way weakening Jerusalem's title to the crown. But I believe the context of this argument has clouded your judgement. No reader, other than those who have been personally involved in this convoluted debate, would ever read my proposal that way. Set yourself outside this argument, and read these two sentences:

"Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the most populous city."

"Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city."

Which of these two sentences leaves you with a stronger impression of Israel's claim on Jerusalem? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, my judgment is not clouded, thank you very much. The question isn't which leaves me with a stronger impression of Israel's claim on Jerusalem -- as both indicate the claim that Jerusalem has been chosen/designated/etc. as its capital. The question is which leaves me with a clearer impression that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That's the latter. That's why I opposed the former formulation. Now, perhaps if the first piece had used "capital" instead of "seat of government", I'd be 100% fine with it, and would see little difference between the two. But we all know that the problem is with the C-word; that's why people are proposing removing it, or at least proposing qualifying it, in the lead. If the average person were to genuinely get the same message from both formulations -- i.e. that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel -- you wouldn't see people supporting the first, and opposing the second. I'm going to assume our readers are intelligent enough to see the difference, and thus will not support the evasive language that some editors would like to see used in order to cast doubt on Jerusalem's clear status as capital and fulfill their efforts to make this article a battlefront for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- tariqabjotu 08:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Failure

It's probably partly my fault for failing to distinguish myself from the Discovery Institute's 'Teach the Controversy' campaign in okedem's and other's eyes...not sure how on earth that happened. I suggest you stare at some Hodgkin paintings to recover and while your doing that you might as well work on his article using the sources I prepared earlier here Talk:Howard_Hodgkin#Sources. That should brighten your day. I'm trying to delegate most my wiki stuff for the greater good for a while because apparently when I say something the meaning becomes reversed when read. Oh well. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation

Although I opposed the changes, I do appreciate your attempt to mediate the issue. Failure is not always a bad thing and some things just cannot be mediated. Regardless, your attempt to do so was done honorably and respectful to all involved, and I appreciate that greatly. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 09:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

I created a request for mediation surrounding the Israel/Jerusalem dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel, but I intentionally omitted your name because I wasn't sure whether you were actually interested in the dispute. It seems like you've tried to play peacemaker, offering a compromise or two, but I'm not sure you have much of an opinion either way. That is, you seem rather nonchalant about the matter, and just want it resolved. So, if that really were the case, you wouldn't really need to be involved in the mediation. But if you think otherwise and want your name added to the case, I can do that. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I will certainly follow the mediation with interest. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA notification

Heyo Ravpapa,
ARBCOM worked out a set of rules for the Arab-Israeli conflict to help promote a collegiate atmosphere. Small incivilities tend to escalate over time and its best to avoid personal commentary about fellow editors (per "the author of this section has tried to pass of[sic]"[7]).
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyo again,

I wouldn't work on the biography section if my interest was to "prefer it" looking badly.[8] You obviously care to make a good effort on this article so I apologize if my edit broke down on a portion of this effort. I explained most of the issues and hope that you will find that more of your ideas are implemented and accepted than less since you do bring good ones.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservative phrasing

Heyo Ravpapa,
I myself feel a bit awekward about the phrasing here. It seems to use a bit of a colorful language that will probably not stand the test of time. Suggesting we figure out a more conservative phrasing if you don't mind.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand. What is colorful about which phrasing? --Ravpapa (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I've been around wikipedia for too long, but there's a habit of making an effort to avoid words like rampage and terrorism even when they are accurate. Certainly, a politically motivated buldozer attack aimed at civilians is a form of terrorism, but I'm feeling like the earlier, more conservative phrasing, might be more lasting when editors with a pro-militancy perspective review the page.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The earlier phrasing was not more conservative. On the contrary, it was slanted and inaccurate, as well as bad English. "he was critised for having his Haaretz column cited by Hamas as support for their usage of bulldozer attacks in Jerusalem." This sentence has the following inaccuracies:

• "Criticized" suggests that the article in INN was editorial. It was not. It was a news report. Of course, you could claim with some justification that everything in INN is editorial, but in the Wikipedia we should try to differentiate between editorial and reportage.

• "cited by Hamas as support": the citation by Hamas was not used in support of bulldozer attacks, nor did Gideon Levy write anything in support of bulldozer attacks. On the contrary, Levy's column condemned all bulldozer attacks, whether by Israelis or by Palestinians. The original sentence suggests that something that Levy wrote could be construed as supporting terrorism. That is a falsification and a slanting of the article.

• "bulldozer attacks in Jerusalem": there were not multiple bulldozer attacks. There was one "attack". Even that incident was, by all evidence, not a terrorist attack, but rather a rampage by a mentally deranged bulldozer driver. The fact that Israeli politicians, and later Hamas spokespeople, chose to attach political motives to the Arab does not change the convincing evidence to the contrary. But that is beside the point. The original sentence, refering to multiple attacks, is simply false.

The sentence is also ungrammatical. "Hamas" is singular, so the pronoun should be "it", not "they".

Not only this sentence, but the entire section is full of little inaccuracies and use of sly, slanted syntax to make Levy out to be a villain. Well, maybe he is a villain, but that is not something Wikipedia should be taking a stance on.

And, as for your claim to seniority: I don't know that you have been around the Wikipedia any longer than I have. Probably shorter. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on English grammar so points in that aspect, I will accept gladly. Regardless, there were multiple bulldozer attacks in Jerusalem and your personal interpretation of the "convincing evidence", doesn't really convince me that all the people involved in such attacked were mentally deranged (in the politically correct sense that doesn't call terrorists by such names). Anyways, I haven't even noticed that you thought there was only a single event. I'm open to suggestions on how to move forward with this but there were multiple attacks in this fashion. That is certain.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are partly right. There was not one attack, there were two - On 22 July 2008 and on March 5, 2009. The second - in which no one was hurt, but a police car was overturned and a bus rammed - was apparently terrorist-inspired. Read this account for the first. None of the Israeli media, nor police spokesmen, attributed the first attack to terrorism in the first hours after the attack. It was only after politicians said that the attack was terrorism that the newspapers went along; and it took Hamas a few days to try to make political capital of the incident.

In any case, the Hamas article quoting Levy was before the second attack, so it could not have been justification for "attacks."

However, your original point - that some editors might object to my characterization of the incident as a "terrorist rampage" - is well taken. I am changing it. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reuters were never much for the accurate. He was considered to have acted alone but the Brigades of the Liberators of the Galilee claimed responsibility for the incident. Also, two other attacks by Palestinians using bulldozers were carried out since that one. I'm not fully certain on the dates of the incidents but I figure the best way to resolve this is to check the exact phrasing of the source and use that rather than play detective and search for what happened when. Agreed? (I'll check it later today) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to research this further (you are welcome to do so if you are really interested), because it is not germaine to the article. In any case, the Hamas citation was to justify the first attack. It occurred before any other attacks.--Ravpapa (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,

I just checked and the relevant article speaks of two bulldozer attacks being cited by the Hamas website as "operations". I figure this is why its best to avoid original research (by me as well, no offense intended) into how many attacks were performed. I hope you agree now :) Anyways, I don't mind writing down the explicit number 2 with the relevant "one month" time-frame. Just so we don't sit in the dark, I also checked a little more into it and found that two bulldozer/tracktor/loader attacks occurred in Jerusalem on July 2 and July 22 of 2008.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice

Good effort on the BLPN thing. I got caught up in the stupidity of the IDONTLIKEIT arguments instead of letting it go due to the actual lack of value of the citation to the article. Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ravpapa. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infobox Classical musician

Quiddity (talk · contribs) is working on a box already, it seems: you my wish to talk with him. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've been working on User:Quiddity/composers (a draft for a potential, minimal, infobox), and was wondering if you had any specific advice/feedback/tweaks/etc that you could suggest. I hope to add another couple of examples to the doc page tonight or tomorrow, and then potentially post it and a discussion thread to the RfC, for further discussion/tweaking. Thanks. (reply here or my talkpage, I watchlist almost everything ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues at Death and the Maiden Quartet

A piece of text seems to be missing from the analysis you added to Death and the Maiden Quartet, where the text goes as follows:

Then the chorale theme recurs, leading to the second statement of the main section,
the third period of the rondo begins.

which is not grammatical. Also, it is not quite clear to me what part of the music the words "the main section" refer to, and what its first statement would be. Are the words "theme", "section" and "period" used here interchangeably, or do they refer to different things?  --Lambiam 21:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have revised the section so it is clearer. I hope this helps. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello Ravpapa. I would like to ask if you might be able to find the original document that Uri Avnery refers to here in which he writes the Ministry of Justice, in a brief to the Supreme Court, wrote that "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective." Any chance you could find this brief? Thanks, nableezy - 18:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the specific document, and I'm not sure Gush Shalom's article is correct. I think they might be referring to the amicus brief presented by "Metzila", an organization headed by Ruth Gabizon. That brief (which is not a government brief), says that as long as there is "hostility and armed struggle" immigration for the purpose of family reunion should be limited.

Sorry I can't be of more help. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is plenty help, thanks. nableezy - 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note

• Note: Please tone the 'bad Israel' rhetoric down a tad (see also: WP:SOAP). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. My point was that it was you, not me, who missed the "good Israel". If you had read the source, you would have seen that Tiamut and Nableezy had missed key arguments in Yiftachel's book that show the Judaization policy in a light that is not nearly so negative. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well,

I didn't see that it was addressed to anyone in person and you've started to repeat the 'Israel did X,Y,Z,W and a lot of other terrible things' style on several occasions. No hard feelings, just a courtesy request to pay attention to how you use the talkpages.

p.s. Tiamut never misses a chance to miss something good about Israel. I'd blame it on selective attention more than anything else. Nableezy, I suspect, doesn't really read material and only focuses on trying to drive other editors out.

p.p.s. good effort on the reading of Yiftachel and finding the "lost spoilers". I wish I had more time then I currently have to deeply inspect citation material but, in all honesty, the article was in such a travesty, that it wasn't about a certain source.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still editing that article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article since February 24, when I added the section on mixed Arab-Jewish communities. I have never edited the contentious parts of the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your survey

I was impressed by your initiative. How did you find out the daily hit counts for your pages before you did the survey? alteripse (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On the "View History" page, in the paragraph at the top of the page, is a link to "View page statistics". --Ravpapa (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Never noticed it. Thanks. alteripse (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Link in Composers talk

Is that the correct discussion? It is headed "controversial articles and neutrality problems" and I see no mention of surveys! It is sort of relevent, though. Any clarification appreciated. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A-ha! I think you meant to link here. Wikimedia have a weird archiving/discussion system, it would seem... your post are in the history but not on the page (indeed the heading I mentioned is no longer there either...) --Jubilee♫clipman 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How resourceful of you to find it. This liquid thread thing is indeed a puzzlement. I will fix the link on the composers talk page. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I just clicked the link in the history, BTW, and I was sent to the actual page rather than a page with a load of transclutions that come and go at random (seemingly). Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Schubert 810 Mvt 1 Coda.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Schubert 810 Mvt 1 Coda.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library

Have you seen this wiki ?

• http://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have downloaded many pages of music, and also uploaded some. One of the great internet resources of all times. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, good, so it's just me then. I only stumbled across it yesterday... Randomly typing strings of characters into google does pay dividends after all although it took some time to reach bwv1014imslp. Sean.hoyland - talk

Joseph Hallman

Ravpap- I am Joseph Hallman - the Philadelphia Composer- perhaps you might help me set up a wiki delete-proof page ;) I am happy to provide all manner of links and verification. THe wiki page is a nice asset when referring people to my music and work.

Would you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.92.2 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I think I sent you for deletion... erm yep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Hallman. Sorry about that. Glad to help out with recreating the page, but it has to be iron tight... recreated page are usually frowned upon unless they are extremely well sourced --Jubilee♫clipman 04:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joseph. As I said in the deletion discussion, I really liked your music. Unfortunately, that is not quite enough of a criterion to get a delete-proof article in the Wikipedia. A good couple of first steps in that direction would be to get a symphony of yours performed by a major orchestra (Philadelphia would be a good choice), and get a tenured faculty position at a major university (U of Pa would be nice).

Wikipedia is indeed a great hype for pushing your career. That is why there are so many bluenosed editors wandering around axing articles by snotty-nosed upstarts. Not that I am suggesting that you are anything like snotty-nosed. But you are up against a tough bunch.

If you send me the score and parts to the not-so-magnificent cadaver, i will gladly give it a playthrough, and perhaps perform it if I have an opportunity. That in itself won't help get past the blue noses, but every little bit counts. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Add: what we really need are Reliable Sources and lots of them. Note especially the demands made of biographies of living persons. Also don't be tempted to edit any article that might be created either about you or your music: conflict of interest is usually jumped on around here... Hope all that hasn't made you run a mile (unless the running helps you digest information, of course!) and both Ravpapa and I would be most willing to help all we can. I'll post a note over at the contemporary music project and see if anyone else can help. (Deskford is an active commentator over there, BTW, and he was reluctant to !vote delete.) --Jubilee♫clipman 07:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I would be happy to send a score for it (and parts) and also my bio-which has the links from press , etc. what is your email- perhaps it's simpler to email me- I think a quick google search will find my email- hint: it's got my last name in it... By the way, I have worked with the Philly Orchestra (members) on a chamber concerto on their chamber music series on an english horn concerto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.92.2 (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Press "email this user" in the side bar. The software takes care of the rest --Jubilee♫clipman 12:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Have you heard any more from Hallman? I forgot: the email button isn't visible for IP's but has he contacted you any other way? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he sent me the score to the "not so magnificent cadaver string quartet". I hope to give it a playthrough this week.

The Hallman episode (so far) really elucidates how much power the Wikipedia has. It would be nice if we could be proactive - if we could write articles about people who are not particularly notable but who we believe will be notable in the future. Just writing the article would be a step in that direction. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat

I have been updating the page for Harel Skaat and would like someone with expertise in Israeli culture and music to do a peer review. If you get a chance would you mind looking over it and making suggestions for improving the article. Thanks. Hjquazimoto (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article. Looks great. In fact, the article is much better than Harel Skaat himself, who, personally, I think is dreadful. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat

Thanks for the feedback! You're hilarious. I love some of his mellow songs, and I also really like Rivka Zohar, Shlomo Artzi, Rami Kleinstein, and Alma Zohar (I've just started working on her Wikipedia page). Do you know an Israeli site that shows the chart history of Israeli songs. For example, I know that "Milim" was number one for five weeks from the end of March until the beginning of June on the Reshet Gimmel chart, but I haven't been able to find a site that states this information. Also is there a site that lists the year-end charts of Israeli music for Reshet Gimmel and Galgalatz besides www.he.wikipedia.org? Thanks again. I really appreciate it. Hjquazimoto (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Hjquazimoto (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat

One more question: Do you know a website or other source that would tell me the date when a single by and Israeli singer has been released? Thanks again! Hjquazimoto (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you. Try the WP:Israel gang, someone there might know. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

24 Caprices for Solo Violin (Paganini)

I see you're a violinist. Do you happen to have expert knowledge that could help this article? Brambleclawx 22:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you were looking for someone to work on the article. Alas, I don't know any more about them than is written in the article already. I will look around to see if I can find something out. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. In the meanwhile, I will continue searching... Brambleclawx 14:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

House concert

I de-prodded it and will try to save it. See the talk page. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made several major changes. Please, can you see it now? Bearian (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it made it onto the DYK section of the Main page. I think this is the first article that I've saved from Proposed deletion and within a month gotten onto the Main page. LOL. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Your recent edit removes a locus of dispute, but leaves the question why that sentence is in the lede open. It needs to be noted that belief in Yeshua as messiah is a tenet of the Christian religion. I've reverted Lisa's WP:POV too many times in the past day to revert your well-meaning attempt at resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be written "...believe the Christian tenet that...." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of your readers. How many of your readers don't already know that belief in Jesus Christ is a Christian thing? I suppose when the article is translated into Swahili, there might be some animists for whom that fact might be enlightening, but not anyone living in 98 percent of the earth's inhabited surface.

Incidentally, it's lead, not lede. Who invented this egregious spelling? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Later. I looked it up. It is in the dictionary. I still think it's egregious. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about "lead/lede"; but it seems to be a Wikipediaism to use lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede is the preferred spelling in periodicals that I read. I think it's an Americanism. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You read the wrong periodicals. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Salad

[9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Gideon Levy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

specifically, with this edit summary--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

giggle. nableezy - 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

what's so funny, Nableey? Do you know what "der gruber yung is hakin a chainik" means or are you just laughing for the heck of it?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken it is a reference to a Yiddish phrase Hakn a tshaynik. What I am laughing at is this user being "protected" from personal attacks. Seeing that makes me giggle. Sorry Ravpapa, Ill stay away now. nableezy - 19:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

okay, lets see if you can come up with the other half in the next few five minutes (without Nishidani's offline help).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani's offline help? I think the last email I had with Nabsleezy was to do with an inquiry as to whether he could fix my templates on the Shakespeare pages, yonks ago. No one will believe this of course, but like many things people don't believe, it happens to be true. Nableezy my meatpuppet? Not quite kosher, whoops . . halal. As for puppets, if I may break the privacy of our rare exchanges, I did suggest he read Pinocchio, but only because it was, in my view, a synthesis of Western literature. This was about 6 months ago. That about sums it up.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

now its my turn to giggle. you had this talk page on your watch list despite not editing on the I-A conflict at all. the section name "November 10" piqued your curiosity. you click to investigate and lo and behold your name was mentioned!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Giggle away. I suppose our forebearing maestro host will murmur scherzo reading you, and, given my age, briefly think of certain dissonant passages in Caccini, in perusing my intrusions. I have Nab's page on my watch list, and saw a note from Ravpapa, and checked Ravpapa's page, he is a rare voice, but almost invariably sane, and found this, I wouldn't normally comment, obeisant to the heavy sanctions that weigh, like a fardel of reprobration, on my fragile shoulders, but since a comically absurd innuendo was made about me, I thought. . well, yeah,.. it's that honour bit again, I thought I'd drop a note. And low and behold you giggle again, and screw up your earlier misprision with another adjunct piece of fantastic speculation. In the history of science I think it is called Ptolemaic bricolage. I believe Conan Doyle had the hang of how to make a narrative of plausible inferences out of the nonsense of evanescent traces, and suggest you read him for tips. Apologies to our host for any interruption this occasioned to his melodious equanimity.

If I were to guess I would say it is "the little [or young] rude boy". My half-German is a lil rusty, sorry. But I said what I was laughing at, which isnt the meaning of Ravpapa's edit summary. nableezy - 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

half German. Very nice nableezy. I guess Arabic should be refered to as half Hebrew? 74.198.28.193 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

no. all boys are little and young. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, you are quite right. It was impolite and uncivil to refer to Jaakobu as a gruber yung, no matter how appropriate the expression may (or may not) be. I apologize. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

you may want to notify the apologee of the apology.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I have very little to do with this particular dispute, perhaps you would like to continue it on Nableezy's or Brewcrewer's talk page? Of course, you are always welcome here, I was just thinking it might be more convenient. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

parallel drafts

Can't intervene because of my topic ban, but couldn't help but note this, and, as in the past, approve. It has been tried, however, and with success. Without wishing to distract you with an otherwise exceedingly tedious story, on the Shakespeare Authorship Question, an historic impasse was overcome when (a) the admin ScienceApologist order both parties to work a sandbox version (b) since the principles of the parties were totally incomparable, one party created a fork, with the result that (c) the strict RS/fringe theory crew, myself and Tom Reedy did a complete rewrite according to our perceptions and the other party Smatprt did his version (d) the community then was asked for input (e) though few replied, our version got a thumbs up, with qualifications and (f) replaced the old page. Perhaps other examples exist, but this is the first concrete example I know of, and worked on conscious of your suggestion, and I think there is little doubt that the process worked. Obviously there are no real victors, since the 'winning page' will hereafter be edited by people who subscribe to the viewpoint of the other page. Cheers Rav, must catch that flight to Dubai!!Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I will check it out.

Have fun in Dubai. Going skiing? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Ask for thalj when settled in, not sheleg.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Civility

You can't honestly expect me to participate after that personal assault.[10] I request that you remove the offensive content and work with me on this in a collegiate manner. I take my time to make carefully phrased rewrites and explain why I consider x or y to be important without insulting you. It seems only natural that you will be able to reciprocate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jaakobou. Your comment, Ravpapa, was uncivil.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa,

Please remove the personal attack and consider participating in a collaborative spirit. Your last comment[11] is counter productive.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jaakobou asked me on my talk page to take a look at the disagreement between you two. While I can't offer an opinion about the content, I have to say that your comment here, "that English is not your first language is painfully apparent in all of your edits", was not a good idea. Per WP:NPA, we agree to discuss our disagreements in terms of the content we disagree about, not in terms of each other. I think that it might be a step towards resolving the disagreement if you struck out this text. I've recommended to Jaakobou, and would encourage you also, to try to get some fresh eyes to look at your disagreement, which looks a bit complicated. Regards,  Sandstein  06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right that it was not a good idea, but it is true, oh so true. Jaakobou has a long history of introducing grammatical and syntactic barbarisms into articles and then defending them with the tenacity of a bulldog. It makes editing with him a trying experience, to say the least. I have tried to be as patient with him as I can; I know I have been far more successful at it than many other editors.

In any case, on your recommendation, I will strike the offending word. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Tilt

I enjoyed your Tilt essay although it neglected the rich potential of visual propaganda via the use of prominent templates (e.g. Template:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Template:Nakba) rather than purely functional footer navigation templates and the use of photography in general (e.g. I was particularly pleased with my recent pro-American addition of the 'Stacking USAID-Donated Wheat, 2002' photo to this article). My guiding principals from here are

• construct a marked difference between one side and their enemies
• diabolize the enemy
• portray one side as a victim of the evil-doer, so that demands appear reasonable to a wider audience.

That article also has the very nice statement "The successful propagandists are those who can get most people to read their own meanings into what is communicated. Thus political propaganda is not so much a matter of convincing audiences about the virtues of the propagandist’s own ideas and policies as an attempt to make the audience(s) believe that what is being communicated is the same as they always thought it was." Sean.hoyland - talk 08:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How right you are! I will add something on this. How did it slip by me? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning it...

I was assuming (apparently mistakenly) that you were referring to the old rabbinical story, a version of which appears in Fiddler on the Roof.[12]. So I was expecting a different response! RolandR (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry about that edit ...as i was a little upset as you can see. The editor in question that filled the complaint has been banned as a sock-puppet - so my whole post is now very embarrassing to me that a sock was able to get me going like that. Again sorry about my rant (though i do think those guidelines violate wiki polocies). I see its a real sore spot for all and simply will back away for ever bring this up again.Moxy (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I was just a little confused. Without understanding exactly what was going on, I am sure you did the right thing. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joel Engel (composer)

The article Joel Engel (composer) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kudpung (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joel Engel (composer)

The article Joel Engel (composer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Your essay

Spot on, good observations. un☯mi 18:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you...

...read Yiddish ? I've been trying to write an article about Todros Geller because, inexplicably, there wasn't one. This is proving difficult enough anyway given that no one seems to have written a proper biography but I wanted to upload wood blocks from his From Land to Land (1937) and I can't, for the life of me, find English translations of the Yiddish print titles (although I know some of them). There are about forty-ish prints. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is my best effort:

Starting on page 30 (title page of drawings)

Yiddish motives (subjects)

A Hassidl (diminutive of Hassid)

The knife grinder

Yidl with a fiddle, Beryl with the bass (from a Yiddish song)

A Shadkhen (marriage broker)

Yeshiva Bokher (Yeshiva student)

Going to Shul (synagogue)

Making business (Hussle and bussel) (also from a song)

??? (something about a sheath, but I don't understand

??? (Becoming pure? Purification?)

Kabbalist

From a Spanish album

The missionary

Al Het (of our sins, a Yom Kippur prayer)

Mishloah Manot (a gift of food for the poor, a Purim custom)

Hassidic

The Kosher butcher

Korohod (a Hassidic dance)

Indian motives (subjects) (p. 65)

Oklahoma Indian

??? (Indian gettskes)

An Oklahoma Indian dancer

An old Indian

Toward (?) Mexico

Cold water (near Mexico)

Indian village (?) near Mexico

Fire rock

Monastery in Taos

A Spaniard from Mexico

A Mexican woman

Santa Fe, Mexico

??? (Indian gettskes)

Magazine cover (this is the camel on p. 93)

Palestine

The Halutz (the pioneer)

Eucalyptus lane

A beggar in Jerusalem

a Yemenite beggar

Jerusalem

Rain in Jerusalem

Going home on Shabbat

Hard (?) labor

Sadakitchy Hartman (seems to be the name of the person in the portrait)

The welders (steel makers)

Skyscrapers

Flowers and skyscrapers

an old neighborhood --Ravpapa (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's marvelous. Thanks very much indeed. Much appreciated. hmmm maybe it's Sadakichi Hartmann...an interesting connection to investigate. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon

I really don't appreciate the word "idiotic" being used by you. I actually bought some books, and used them for references. If you can't see the wood for the trees, you should take a step back.--andreasegde (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use the word idiotic, and do not think its use in the title of the thread is appropriate. You are quite right to take umbrage at its use in this context. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• "I didn't use the word idiotic". Oh, really?
• "Too many idiotic details that don't actually say anything about her". That was the title of your thread. Did you write that or not? You just shot yourself in the foot.--andreasegde (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the thread was started by Harryirene (talk, who wrote the title. I added my comment after your response. I did not write the title. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a lot of questions to answer

You say that you wrote the article, Walter Willson Cobbett, which is as bad as an article can get, and Ignaz Schuppanzigh, which is awful? They are both extremely bad articles (I could say a lot worse), and you complain and de-list other articles? You should be ashamed of yourself.--andreasegde (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got the message. I won't make any more comments about Cynthia Lennon. Perhaps another reviewer will decide it really is a good article. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Classical Music in the Signpost

Thank you for participating in the Signpost interview. The final article is located here. Please check to make sure your comments were used accurately and that we used the correct gendered personal pronoun. Thanks again. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a pleasure participating. I hope it raises some new interest in the project. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help with deletion

I nominated the following articles for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 concerto (ABC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 opera (ABC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Mozart (ABC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 piano (ABC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Symphony (ABC)‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 chamber (ABC)

Obviously I have done something wrong, as the articles to not appear in the deletion log. Can someone help

Hi. Can you just confirm a couple of things.

1 The articles were put up for deletion today?

2 The correct procedure was followed and which one was it - Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion?

as far as I can see, and I have only looked very briefly, they were only put up for deletion today. Normal deletion would be a 7 day hiatus while people weighed in on whether or not the page should be deleted. Speedy deletion is quicker but requires certain parameters to be met. There are also a few things which seem to be missing from the process but need to know which one first :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They were put up today for regular deletion. The problem is technical: I thought I followed the procedure, but when I was done, the articles did not get transcluded to the deletion log. Perhaps there is a time lag and they will show up later? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I will look in more depth. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you follow all 4 steps on the notice? Template:Article_for_deletion/dated

It may just be that you did not complete steps 3 & 4 Chaosdruid (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the articles listed above are now for deletion. Just a head's up to let you know that you have only tackled a small part of this enormous problem. Please take a look at the Triple J Hottest 100 page to see the mountain you still have to climb to achieve consistency in this area. That page, and the 23 sub-pages it lists, all suffer from exactly the same problems that led you to take the above delete actions. Not to cast aspersions on your work ethic or abilities, but I suspect that tackling the 24 pages is too big a task for one person, so I'm offering to assist with some of that burden. If you would care to start the process with a few of the Triple-J pages, would you be willing to accept help to tackle this important work? My offer to help is of course dependent on having time available when the call comes (you just wouldn't believe the amount of time I am forced to spend on WP with trivial off-topic causes—all of which detract from my ability to do what I love: adding content).  GFHandel.   23:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I see that the Triple J articles were already up for deletion, and a mob of fans voted to keep this obvious linkspam. See [13] I suppose, then, that we will lose the Classic 100 battle, as well. Isn't there some kind of policy about garbage like this? Does hoi poloi always have to win? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice that a day has passed and you haven't started the process of deletion on the 23 Triple J Hottest 100 lists. I realise that you are busy, but I can't help but wonder why you haven't made a start on the problem? Now that you are fully familiar with the process of deletion, it would only take you a few minutes to start the process with (say) the most recent of those lists: Triple J Hottest 100, 2010. Of course if you don't feel that any of those 23 lists (with information identical in nature to the ABC Classic 100 countdown lists) is worthy of deletion, perhaps you would consider voting Keep and/or withdrawing your deletion nomination on the ABC lists? After all, I'm sure you'll see the need for the editors policing WP to show absolute consistency in their actions (for the fairness of all).  GFHandel.   01:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that this is a little hounding? Ravpapa is new to the process and to nominate all those articles under mass deletion would probably be a task better suited to someone with more experience, such as yourself GFHandel? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I started the deletion process, and then discovered that there had already been a deletion discussion which failed, so I removed the deletion tag [14]. While I believe these lists have no place in Wikipedia, I don't plan to go jousting windmills.

Your own position has me a bit confused. I thought from your first post that you were eagerly in favor of deleting all these articles, which are really no more than listspam. However, from your post at the deletion discussion, I am confused as to where you stand. In any case, be assured that if there is a community decision to keep these articles, I will not oppose it, regardless of my own opinion in the matter. There are, as some have pointed out, articles in the Wikipedia on topics far more worthless. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're leaking MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 spam

See what you did there. Palosirkka (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That was really bizarre! I don't even use Microft Explorer. I wonder how that got in there?

Thanks for pointing it out. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it happens in some condition when copy/pasting stuff from some Microsoft programs. Palosirkka (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Some advice

Be careful of regularly or emphatically describing things as "libellous", or implying that Wikipedia or its editors are at risk of legal action of some sort. Sooner or later, someone will try to use Wikipedia's policy on legal threats against you.

On a related note, also read this little mini-essay that I wrote. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why I generally limit my editing to articles on people who have been dead for at least 200 years. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead 100 years is best, it makes it so much easier to get photos that you can use without worrying too much about copyright :-)

Anyway it looks like Steven J. Anderson has summarised the issues with Jonathan G's editing better than either of us managed. I have some optimism that Steven's comments at AN/I will help things along. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Boteach

Hello, Ravpapa. You have new messages at Steven J. Anderson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

SPI case

I've sent you an email about my behaviour at the SPI case. Hope this is OK. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to out user and personal comments unrelated to SPI

Would urge you to remove is violation of wiki policy to attempt to out user. Babasalichai (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He didn't state who he thought the user was, he just mentioned some articles that the user had edited, and what was said elsewhere about the people related to those articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely he implied who he believes the user is. A very clear violation of Wiki and would urge each of you to immediately remove all suspect commentary. This is a very serious offense. Babasalichai (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? What sort of consequences might it have? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a clear violation of Wiki policy and serious offense. Are you his bodyguard ? Babasalichai (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be worrying about bodyguards! You have now committed a even more serious offence, about which Wikipe-tan is most displeased. And she wishes to admonish you for it! Please review WP:NOTWIKI where she will duly do so. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page. I am thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks, Demi, for introducing me to the delightful Wikipe-tan. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, it is quite amusing. 5W Public Relations have a less than stellar record on Wikipedia given the dimwitted edits people who appear to be connected with them make. This was a nice one. I love the idea that identifying editors who work for PR firms that manipulate articles about themselves, their clients or people they don't like is outing. Brilliant. I'm sure they will be back. Nice work shutting them down for a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to out user and personal comments unrelated to SPI

You asked a question which didnt get an answer and vandalised a page which has been discussed ad naseum and page which has been defiled ad naseum. Pls dont start a needless edit war and before making radical changes discuss any changes. Billybruns (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)