User talk:Folantin/Archive 3

Spelling of Handel's original name

Grove's Dictionary Of Music And Musicians gives Händel's original name as Georg Friederich Händel, and that should be the most reliable source. 193.65.105.175 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Guess what? Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast, sometimes it's a bit slow. You may just have to wait. I've a sent a combination of the various ones I sent earlier via the Wikipedia email function, that may be quicker. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in duplicate. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, the reply is slightly more urgent. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berlioz

Sure, no problem - Jay 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera genre?

Hey Folantin, I was curious whether you knew anything about what a componimento dramatico is, exactly? I'm trying to figure out whether I can call Maria Margherita Grimani's Pallade e Marte an "opera", since according to the New Historical Anthology of Music by Women it may or may not have been staged, but Grove calls it an opera without any more explanation aside from the genre. Mak (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, indeed, a bit confusing. Someone else calls it an "opus dramaticum", which is once again just a "dramatic work". I've saved the article now, so you may be able to learn a tiny bit about Grimani. She may have been related to Handel's librettist, which is interesting. There are a lot of unknowns, though. Mak (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for your comments on the assessment drive thread. Every time someone else chimes in, each one of our little group of heretics feels a little less alone. I don't know if it has happened to you yet, but when you spend a couple days writing an article, compiling everything available from several sources, using one's specialist knowledge to put it all together into a coherent whole, and one of those "taggers" tears by and sprays a graffiti "START CLASS" on it, it feels rather like being vandalised. And then when someone objects, and removes the graffiti, they're threatened with admin action. Maybe I'm overreacting, but this "drive" bugs me a lot. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scroll format

Your scroll format is brilliant. I “copied” it for my profiles in Wiki EN and MS, now it looks more organized! Cool, really cool. I love it! - Jay 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Haha, that article is nuts. I don't know what all the {{fact}} tags are about, some of the statements that apparently aren't verified are bleeding obvious. Then there's some really awful prose in there, along with some stuff that's downright weird. Anyway, let's try to sort it out. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read and replied. Moreschi ^Talk 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's hilarious. I'll laugh about that for a week. I think that safely passes under what this fine fellow described as "noxious nonsense". What junk! Annoying as these nationalists may be, they certainly have amusement value :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a different subject - does Pastoral opera deserve its own article? I think probably, but what are your thoughts on putting some sort of "The pastoral in music" section into Pastoral? Also, don't I remember you planning List of operas on the Orpheus theme a while back, or am I imagining it? Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll sort that out tomorrow. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I say, my dear Watson - it's Moriarty up to his usual tricks - POV-pushing! I'm not sure I have the heart to fix that article. Maybe I should calligraph the text and pin it up on a wall somewhere :) Best, Moreschi ^Talk 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Russia

Thanks for the help in improving this article. One comment: when cutting info (like here), move it to a subarticle - no reason to waste yours and others good job in expanding the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Belarus and West Ukraine. The double standard of the Polish POV

You should not consider these territories as self-evident possession of Poland. When Russia (Russian Empire, USSR) incorporated these territories, you name it as the aggression, capture, crime. When Poland annexed these territories you consider it as self-evident restoration of the Polish authority in the Polish territory. It's the double standard. Historically and initially these territories were the parts of the old Russian state. In these territories the Orthodox East-slavic population always prevailed. And today Poland does not claim these territories Ben-Velvel 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Empire never had West Ukraine. Regarding population-it included milions of Poles. Parts of those territories are still in Poland.--Molobo 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roméo et Juliette (symphony)

Hi, I am going to do a little work on this page, and was wondering where you got the movement list from? This site lists five sections (which I assume may be sub-divided further), this one lists something completely different to both of them. I thought the revisions only changed things in each movement, rather than rearranging/cutting out movements. Also is the 1846 version pretty much the only version performed nowadays? If so then I guess it's not an issue. Sorry about this, I get confused easily :-) Le the 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll check a lot of track lists and see if they agree (I noticed one site is very adamant that it has seven sections: "There can be no doubt of Berlioz's intention to structure the work in seven movements (not in a series of four loosely-related parts as in Faust):virtually ail the original sources divide Romeo and Juliet into the seven movements specified.". R&J is turning into a bit of a monster article atm... I'll probably streamline it (and add a lot more sources) once everything has been added, but it's going to get bigger first... Le the 08:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished for today I think. It's not ideal, but an okay start. By the way - I was Googling for a specific event mentioned in a biography I read but don't have access to atm (I think the David Cairns one), the one in which Wagner wrote to Berlioz to ask to be sent a copy of one of his scores - I think it was R&J, but may have been Harold or Beatrice, and I don't want to add it without being sure. If you can recall the quote, feel free to add it to bolster the Wager influence section. Le the 11:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thank you. We can probably get this thing to GA status eventually. I've run into a bit of a wall on R&J with my inability to expand the influence section using only online sources, so feel free to add anything as I probably won't do anything major to it unless I can borrow some books from the library. It would be nice to add more citations from the book to individual sentences in addition to the current web sources to make the references more extensive, if it's no trouble to make a reference code for the book paste it around a little (it seems to be favoured over just adding the book to the bottom without citing specific sentences - although this is possibly a sign of me getting a little too obsessed over potential GA status, hehe). I'm probably going to start on the Berlioz composer article in the meantime, he deserves a FA eventually Le the 11:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe :-) I have a very bad habit of wanting to read through large books but never being able to - I blame the internet! I'll drop a message once the Berlioz article is in an (IMO) decent state Le the 01:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a better biography to Hector Berlioz (it took longer than I thought). Do we need to keep the Romanticism box at the bottom (with the various links to other composers, etc)? It seems a little silly. Le the 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh! Thank you so much for working on tenses - technical aspects like that are a big weak point for me (in addition to a few specific things: choosing between burnt/burned = panic) Le the 08:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to make one final pain of myself (I would ask this in the classical wikiproject, but it seems a little dead): I notice that on Wikipedia, the Symphonie Fantastique article has the second word in upper-case. This is contrary to most spellings I have encountered, and I notice that other people as well as myself are using the code to rename a link to enable it to show as lower case, and then link to the upper case article without a redirected link at the top of the page. There doesn't seem to be much precident for Anglicising case for his work names (making most upper case except for small joining words) - considering that Grande symphonie funèbre et triomphale seems to be in its original case, as does Les nuits d'été. Do you think that the FS article should be capitalised like this instead: "Symphonie fantastique"? I also find it very debatable that the Harold en Italie article should be called Harold in Italy any more than Les Troyens should be called The Trojans... Le the 08:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That requested move section is rather intimidiating, so if it would be no problem, I would prefer if you requested the moves. I 100% agree about Faust as well - and the reasoning is simple: the original titles of Faust and Harold are easy for anybody to translate into English in their head (even somebody who doesn't understand anything about the language), as they are so similar to the English names in their original form. Le the 08:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC) After your second message: nice, that will be simpler. I'll make a reply to agree with your stance if you make a new topic in both talk sections. Le the 08:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indent. Done - hope it goes well :-) Le the 09:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely going to go through every section eventually (I am nothing if not obessive) - I worried that the large bio would mean that the page would go over 100kb by the end (this seems to be Wikipedia's "this is too big, split the article!" cut-off point), but I figured that if anybody deserved a lage biography it was Berlioz. By the Style section, do you mean Musical Influences? Wanted to check - as we could each "adopt" a section, if the Influences section is the one you mean, I could work on Legacy, for example.

I agree that more on Mendelssohn would be important to add. If you run into the anecdote about them exchanging batons (Mendelssohn's one being expensive and impeccably crafted, Berlioz's one being just an undecorated lump of wood) after a concert, that would be fun to include. Le the 09:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "Musical influences" is an inappropriate name, as to some it may read it as ~~"Music that has influenced Berlioz"~~* "Music Berlioz has influenced" ~~- which is doubly confusing when the section contains a literature sub-section.~~ I'll stick with Legacy in the main article (Musical works would probably get insanely long if I'm not careful, but I guess we can just provide very small introductions and link each work. Actually, that may be too pedantic, considering there is already a list of compositions. For compositions, I have my eye on Harold en Italie as one to work on soon, as I found a lithograph of Paganini bowing to Berlioz, which would be nice to add some visual interest to the section. Faust is also ripe for a large history section being added, which I can work on. Le the 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Brain overload, I need to get away from the monitor for a while

Quick question - what do you think I should rename this section to? User:Lethesl/Yet another sandbox#Works_of_music_and_literature Conducting had a brief mention in the original article, but I am looking to expand it (nowhere near done yet), but I can't think of a cohesive title for the section. Le the 14:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll slot it in between bio and Legacy for now Le the 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! I didn't even consider that a book may be listed with an opus number, sorry! Le the 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it's more likely to be true than not - considering how important it was, and how unusual it is for any composer to publish a book of note Le the 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicookie

		WikiCookie of Obvious-Enforcing
		I, OkiefromOkla, hereby award this WikiCookie to Folantin for enforcing the obvious during the History of Russia FAR, in which this revert edit was made: [1] followed by this explanation of the revert: "Please try to review the right article". Good job, and keep up the good work! Okiefromokla•talk 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I raised my eyebrow a little when I read that part Okiefromokla•talk 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, but.....

Have you seen this? That's just...oh. Words fail me. Moreschi ^Talk 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Pigsonthewing's editing privileges are suspended for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give him one rant. If he carries on, we can take action. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Shah

Good work on adding more information in the article. It seems that most of the material you have added comes from Axworthy's The Sword of Persia. Although, some of the material you have added is not sourced. I suspect that the unsourced material is from Axworthy. If this is the case please cite all material. If not, the unsourced material needs to be removed per WP:ATT. Cheers.--Agha Nader 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera in English

Thanks for pointing this out, I have just been fooling around with it whilst on holiday, will gladly consolidate my opinions with those of Moreschi (and everyone else). --Smerus 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dusan Nenkovic

Do you speak Serbo-Croatian by any chance (if so, I'm envious - I've always wanted to, but that's beside the point). If you do, do you think there's much notability in this deceased football trainer's bio? If there isn't, drop me a line on my Talk page and I'll speedy him as soon as I get the chance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on Boris

Thanks for letting me know on the possible deletion of my Boris spin-off. I put in my three cents' worth but we'll see what happens from there. Jonyungk 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berlioz renames

I guess it's time to fix Harold en Italie and La damnation de Faust? No objections (or even comments of any other type :-)) in over a week Le the 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a try - it's done at Wikipedia:Requested moves, right? It'll be nice to finish the Berlioz article soon - I think Musical works needs sorting out a bit too, which I can start soon. Do you think we have a realistic chance of getting it featured once your section and the intro are fixed, or does it have obvious areas for improvement? Sourcing doesn't seem to be lacking (bar some key claims, which I added fact tags to Le the 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a nightmare with moving an article a while ago - I wanted to move it to where a redirect was, but the redirect counted as there already being an article there, and it went kind of horribly :-) Still nervous about doing those things Le the 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing (I am so sorry for bombarding you with all this stuff, I try to keep it to a minimum), this part, currently at the end of the conducting section:

"Similarly, his conducting technique as described by contemporary sources appears to set the groundwork for the clarity and precision favoured in the French School of conducting right up to the present, exemplified by such figures as Pierre Monteux, Désiré-Emile Inghelbrecht, Charles Münch, André Cluytens, Pierre Boulez, Charles Dutoit, and, above all, Colin Davis."

I got that list from the Wikipedia article before we started working on it, and I was tempted to add Thomas Beecham due to his affinity for French music, but I don't have a clue about his conducting style. And additionally, for all that he likes Berlioz, I am unsure what makes Davis's style "above all" French - more French than French(!) - especially considering how much German repetoire he conducts, in very... Germanic ways. Do you have a comment on either, or should I just cut the "above all" and leave Davis in? Le the 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You have. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Word of Gregory the Theologian"

See Slavic fairies for details on this document. Thank you for your efforts in bringing Berehynia to normalcy. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berlioz

No offence, but his four symphonies and operas are pretty easy to classify and it makes for far easier navigation. Especially as the old navbox made no indication of what is a symphony and what is an opera due to the fact all the works were listed by their programmatic names. I feel this new navbox is far clearer and easier to use for someone wishing to read into Berlioz. And if you find the new navbox too big, just set it to collapisble. Centy – reply• contribs – 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All's Well On the Classical Music Front?

Apparentally not - Talk:Leck mich im Arsch#Ass/arse Centy – reply• contribs – 10:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikołaj Sęp Szarzyński

Hello! :) Many books about Baroque by ranked Polish critics, poets and writers tells about MSS as a "metaphysical poet" (in Polish: "poeta metafizyczny", "przedstawiciel nurtu metafizycznego" etc.), for example:

Czesław Hernas, Literatura baroku, Warsaw 1999 [the main handbook for students of universities in Poland]

G00labek

That's all right :-) I thank you too :-) G00labek —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 6 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Georgia within the Russian Empire , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 11:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Both the block and the salt - it's what I'm paid for :) Out of interest, just how many languages do you have under your belt? Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail with attachment, FYI. Moreschi ^Talk 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Lange

Hello! I have a little request to you... Could you check if there is all right with the style and/or grammar in the article about Antoni Lange? I would be very glad, because writing about Lange on en.wiki is very, very important for me. Thank you!!

[As I know lange's writings, especially Miranda, were translated into English but today Lange isn't well known and popular]

G00labek —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am very cheerful! I think Lange is an original and interesting poet, so I hope he will interest you :) With thanks for you G00labek

Os patos

Hi Folantin. Can you give me a translation of a little bit of this (the first sentence or something)? I can't read Portugese so I can't confirm your assertation it's patent nonsense. Pedro : Chat 10:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And deleted with extreme prejudice. Thanks for your help. Pedro : Chat 10:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovico Ariosto

Thank you for the correction. I have been tagging articles based on their presence in categories. Ludovico was in one of those categories. The reason it was tagged twice is that I double-checked the category after you had removed it and I was unaware. Please feel free to remove any others that are not appropriate. Be well, Greg Bard 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will review that category more closely. In the meantime feel free in removing any inappropriate tags. Greg Bard 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

I've read that disruptive editing shown by that editor who was recently blocked by a month. I see you redirected Lodewijk_van_Beethoven, but what is normally done with the talk pages? [2]? Phgao 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Armenia

I may have jumped the gun, but you deserved it nonetheless. Good job. :) --VartanM 16:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purcell

Thanks for your help. I'll be working on Purcell opera for a while.JuliaJG 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you very much for your assistance at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. We are still having a bit of a stalemate at the article though, so if you have time, I was wondering if you could offer another opinion? I have created a subpage in my userspace where I have rewritten the article from top to bottom, shrinking it down from 167K to a little less than 70K, removing some of the unreliable sources and less relevant information, splitting other sections out to more appropriate articles, and most importantly, trying to smooth out the writing so as not to give undue weight to certain POVs. My rewritten version of the article is currently at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've announced it at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, but because this is such an obscure subject, it's really been very difficult to prove that there is consensus for the new version. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over the rewrite, and offer an opinion on it? I am very open to making changes, but I'm in a situation where I basically have one editor (PHG) who keeps saying "no," and no one else seems to want to comment and help break the stalemate. We've been trying mediation for the last month, but without success, and even our mediator appears to have gone AWOL, with no posts for over a week now. I would very much like to find a way to move forward through this dispute without having to further escalate it towards ArbCom, and it's my genuine hope that if we could just get some more editors actually commenting there to prove a consensus, it could help a great deal. Any assistance appreciated, El on ka 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag on Russia article

Please state your concerns on the talk page of the article. This is the way to have them addressed. Also I guess you are an experienced editor and aware of the WP:3RR policy Alex Bakharev 09:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

A few of us have some questions about your post to the RfC on Dbachmann. When you get a chance can you stop by and clarify things? Thanks! futurebird (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again about this... there are 5 users who are asking the same questions, it'd be helpful if you responded. futurebird (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't replied because I don't think there's much to clarify. If you want to know who the obvious "POV pushers" are then find out which commenters have extensive block logs. One is clearly a sock puppet of a banned user. My comment is based on my general impression of Dbachmann's behaviour and his dedication to improving content and introducing a note of neutrality into POV war zones. I thoroughly concur with his comments on civility here [3] and regret taking part in this time-wasting RfC. --Folantin (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post this response at the talk page? There are now 6 users who want some sort of response. Thanks. futurebird (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to transfer it. --Folantin (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it, but, I don't think it answers the questions. futurebird (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this answers any of my questions? It seems that your comments have more to do with an old RFC that was for a different set of articles. Furthermore, the comments are based on a "general impression of Dbachmann's behavior" rather than his specific behavior on the articles cited in this RfC. As such, I don't know how much weight these comments can cary. I'm also troubled that this RfC, which has been supported by a number of long time users, who aren't known for "trolling" or for "POV pushing" is being called "time-wasting" --I find that dismissive and unhelpful. futurebird (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it answers the questions - it's just that you don't like the answers, which is a different thing entirely. I've given you the means of finding out those I regard as "POV pushers" should you so choose. I honestly don't see the point of continuing this conversation since neither of us are likely to derive much satisfaction from it. All the best. --Folantin (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you have accused me of POV pushing. I don't think that is too much to ask. futurebird (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accused you of POV-pushing even though your RfC comment was chronologically later than mine? I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in this any more. --Folantin (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, the way your RfC comment was worded --it made it sound like EVERYONE who supported the RfC was POV pusher. If that isn't what you're saying then it'd be helpful (and civil/polite) if you clarified what you meant, because there are 7 users who thought, as I did, that you were making a blanket accusation' about anyone who had anything critical to say about Dbachmann or who supported the RfC, as I did, by signing the RfC before your comments.

I'm sorry that you feel that this is a waste of time, but it would mean a lot to me, and really go a long way to resolving this dispute and showing good faith if you'd take just a little time to review your comments and perhaps revise them to avoid blanket accusations. Do you know what I mean? Can you make that small gesture? Please? From what I can tell, you have been involved in some annoying incidents in the past, but please look at this one with fresh eyes and try to be fair about it. That's all that I'm asking. And if you don't agree with the grounds for the RfC, well then good, we ought to know why, please give solid and specific reasons and back them with evidence rather than just rehashing old issues that aren't at the center of the current dispute. Do you think that you can do that? futurebird (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's perfectly possible you're a fine editor in your own right. If so, good - consider yourself exonerated. You have a clean block log, and that counts for something. But some of the company you choose to keep is rather more dubious. All I see when I look at that RfC is an attempt to organise a show trial of one of our best admins and editors. RfCs are "requests for comments", not "requests for rubberstamps". They are quite open to abuse and I'm not going to limit myself to the parameters set by the initiators. As I've already said, I don't really see the point of this conversation, since it's very unlikely I'll give you a response you're happy with. I have nothing in particular against you personally but I'm afraid I really can't share your opinions on Dbachmann or find any merit in this RfC. --Folantin (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Folantin

I would really like to collaborate with you on bringing an Armenian related article (preferably of historical (ancient to late medieval) nature to a featured status. Do you want to work on something in particular? Btw are you really Cornish?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about Urartu, that topic is disastrous to begin with. I think we can easily promote Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia to a featured status in under a month. The same can be said about Tigranes the Great, these two are easy given the abundance of sources covering them. I would enjoy working on Cilicia more though. Much harder but not less interesting would be expanding an article of any given Armenian Bagratid. This would take much much longer though. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkirkers

Thanks. I'd already done it once, but the original contributor changed it back. I didn't want to get into a revert war, so I thought I'd talk it out with him first - your intervention seems to have settled it though. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]