User talk:Ravpapa/Archive 3

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 [1]. 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]"[2]).
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.[3] 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

[4] --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.[5] 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[6] 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.[7]. 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 [8] 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 [9]. 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)