User talk:Abie the Fish Peddler/Archive2

December 2009

Thank you for your contribution to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely-used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. ^Izzedine 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I will remember to be neutral. I meant no joke, so, with an impartial mind, please read my discussion on the Talk page.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jack Kerouac

You removed the important and historically significant fact that Kerouac received little critical acclaim during his lifetime. Please add it back.Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One of dozens of sources supporting the material you removed.Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Kerouac did not enjoy critical acclaim or regard until well after his death." - Benedict Giamo. Associate Professor of American Studies. Any particular reason you haven't reverted yourself? Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, because, it seems so negative. Who cares about the critics? Some of them liked him. Some didn't. He wrote for the lay people. That subjective line just doesn't seem to fit into the lead, in my opinion. I'd be happy to discuss this further on the article's talk page, so yours and other perspectives can be voiced. Whether I'm right or wrong, truth will be reached.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems so negative? Sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from. It's a historical fact. I sincerely hope you don't edit Wikipedia based on such subjective criteria. It fits the lead and it's an important part of his career. More: "...Kerouac seemed almost done for. As a commercial writer he was finished, and though he had well over a dozen published books to his credit, he could not get a decent advance on a new one. The last few reviews had been as bad as ever...Jack's utter lack of critical acclaim was made even more painful by the fact that poetry critics had grudgingly but finally capitulated to Allen Ginsberg, who used the methods and insights that Jack had taught him...[1] Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• More info: Prothero, Stephen. (Apr., 1991). "On the Holy Road: The Beat Movement as Spiritual Protest". The Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School. Vol. 84, No. 2. pp. 205-222.[2]

That's the first I've ever heard of it. Of course, there are going to be detractors and poorly received works, but I don't think that necessitates inclusion into the lede. Just reference Gilbert Millstein. Kerouac was hailed on television in the United States and Canada, read by Jackie Onassis, and made numerous recordings with musicians. And that's the info that you think deserves to be in the lede. This needs to be taken up on the article's talk page for some healthy debate.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No debate is required. You are simply ignorant of the vast amount of material on the subject, and you should not be editing articles based on an unfamiliarity with the content. Frankly, there is nothing to discuss. "...the rest of the review press resented On the Road for rejecting the conformist values of Eisenhower America, and launched an anti-Kerouac campaign that would hound him for the rest of his life...[This campaign is documented in its entirety and would take me several pages to copy.] In 1998...On the Road sales were up to three million copies. Most remarkable of all, a repentant literary establishment at last recognized Kerouac's genius...The Sampas family provided the occasion for the long overdue critical revaluation of Kerouac with the dramatic release of his letters a quarter of a century after his death. On publication in 1995, the letters were greeted with overwhelming praise. Joyce Carol Oates compared Kerouac with Byron and Shelly in the New Yorker, and noted that Kerouac "deserved to be treated better by the censorious 'literary' critics of his time." Defining "Kerouac's position in the literature of mid-twentieth-century America," Oates placed him alongside Salinger, Mailer, Nabokov, Ginsberg, Burroughs, Updike, and Paul Bowles. On the front page of the New York Times Book Review, Columbia professor Ann Douglas rated Kerouac "this country's most important critically unrecognized modern writer," and defined his achievement as "the most extensive experiment in language and literary form undertaken by an American writer of his generation." With "a dozen major novels" to his credit, Kerouac belonged, Douglas concluded, in the front rank of "mid-20th century" American writers...On December 11, 1997, reporter Doreen Carvajal wrote: "Kerouac's former editor, Ellis Amburn...said Kerouac would not have been surprised that he is once again in vogue among young readers...Kerouac thought it would take about 25 years to regain his popularity, said Amburn..."[3]"[4] Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, friend, thanks for getting the fire going under me. How's it look so far? By the way, watch it with that "ignorant" word. It smarts a touch.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly an improvement, and I'm glad to see you looking into the subject. The fact that there was an active anti-Kerouac campaign in place for decades, only to have a positive reevaluation of his legacy in the 1990s, is important and should be represented in the lead. However, more needs to be said about it in the article. For what it is worth, I am ignorant of a great many things, but what I try to do before I delete material, is quickly determine if there is any factual basis for it first. I admit, I have made errors along these lines as well. Recently, I made the mistake of removing material about Maureen Dowd's plagiarism accusations without bothering to check on that particular detail, and it wasn't until I was reverted by another editor that I realized I was wrong for removing it. In any case, I apologize for the harsh language, but I did get your attention! Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To see how the Kerouac lead might be improved, take a look at the last paragraph of the lead section for Johann Sebastian Bach. While not in the same boat as Kerouac, they are somewhat similar. It's amazing to think that Bach's music was not heard by the general public for almost a century! The relevant portion of Bach's lead says: "Bach's abilities as an organist were highly respected throughout Europe during his lifetime, although he was not widely recognized as a great composer until a revival of interest and performances of his music in the first half of the 19th century. He is now regarded as the supreme composer of the Baroque, and as one of the greatest of all time." We're looking for something similar in the Kerouac article. No need for all the quotes. Keep it simple and just paraphrase. Thanks for your continued efforts!Viriditas (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Good ideas. I'm on it. Jeez, what have I got myself into?!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm about sapped for ideas. I await your suggestions, additions, and/or deletions. Cheerio!

Also, I'm sorry I was so flippant originally when I answered you by saying "It's just so negative!" I sensed we might be coming from the same place (aware of Kerouac's awesome contribution), and I was hoping to dismiss the pointlessly negative criticism, and focus on the man and his work, especially since he still has his detractors today. But I now see that the negative criticism actually played a big part in his life and work. Thanks for making me notice this, even though it is a bitter truth. Regardless, however, your complaint deserved a more respectful explanation. I will try for improved communication with you and other editors starting now.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. If you want to collaborate more on this, that would be great as there's a lot to do here. And, if you want to take the lead on something that interests you, I'll join in and help if you need me. I can also help with research if you want to pursue a particular angle or idea.Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great! I accept. :-) Please let me know, likewise, about angles you'd like my perspective on. At the moment, I'm curious about your thoughts on the state of the article. And, I mean in regards to the recent changes, as well as any other areas you have concerns about.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll take a fresh look at the article tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== Jimi's Mug ==

Thanks for understanding where I'm coming from, and for encouraging my attempt at compromise. As you can see (and as I predicted), it wasn't good enough to qualify the caption. I've tried in the past to reason with several editors whose arguments strongly remind me of our friend; that is, one argument, endlessly repeated and immune to change. I won't compromise further by removing the image, and as you accurately observed, I only added it to "include it for comprehensive memorabilia". There aren't enough free images of Jimi out there, and one that tells a story is even better to include. I love Hendrix, and certainly wouldn't have included this for any other reason than that. By the way, love the many excellent images you've added recently. This was too large to add to the Jimi talk page, so I went here. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. You might have been a little hasty to think I'd suggest removing the pic, or that DavidTTokyo was trying to sabotage the article. You have no need to worry. As long as you're being openminded, resourceful, and clear, this article and Wikipedia in general is well served. Carry on.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Abie. I never thought David was trying to truly sabotage the article; he stuck to his guns, and that is very respectable. I firmly believe David was simply misguided in one small aspect of one tiny issue, but that he is an editor who cares enough about WP to make a difference. All of us are fighting for the same goal - to make WP as accurate as possible. And all of us are wrong from time to time. However, from the fruits of adversity, we have now managed to expand the image content of the Jimi Hendrix page considerably (thanks to you). Keep the faith :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Right on, Holmes! Trés cool!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie, I'm interested in your opinion on the latest image I put up on Jim Morrison, in the "Early years" section. I need a caption; might you have any info (or know where to find it) on when this pic was taken? Clearly he's in college at this point, I would think. His page (& The Doors page) need serious work with images and references. Not sure if you're as much of a Doors fan as you are a Hendrix fan, but your help on these pages would be greatly appreciated! Have a look if you're not busy... Doc9871 (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I probably know the same about both artists, which is nothing to brag about. (Personally, I used to be crazy about the doors, and hardly knew hendrix' work, but now I think I've swapped them.) I've just finished searching pretty extensively for details on the early photo you inserted. Nothing. Maybe you could put a fact caption, like "Morrison attended the Univ. of Florida before transferring to UCLA, where he studied film." I know that's not perfect, but my point is the caption doesn't necessarily have to exactly describe the photo. The caption can be a blend between the photo and the general sense of the section. Hope that helps.

Archives

Here - I would encourage focusing on the content, rather than the editors, and remember the archives.

Latest discussion was in Archive 11, and there is a good bit more, including edit summaries, NPOV dispute pages, ANI threads, etc. I think most of the previous discussion was in the edit summaries, but I don't recall in detail.

It is important to understand that an editor faced with a meaningless section must make a choice... add content to fix it, kill it, flag it, or leave it damaged. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New BOGs info

I'm interested to know where you came by this info: "The resolution for the dispute included Hendrix having to record an LP of new material for Chalpin company, which wouldn't feature the Experience band, and wouldn't be associated with the Experience band name."

I would really love to see a cited source for this or I will have to delete your addition, and ad a cite source: that Chalpin complained after it's release in an interview that the Lp he was supposed to recieve as per the settlement would be the next 'Jimi Hendrix Experience' LP and that it was supposed to be a studio album. (never mind the fact that this was one of Jimi's best selling LPs - the greedy bastard)Jameselmo (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool question. But since I think the article would be better served if we discussed it on the article's talk page, that's where I'll reply. Cool?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not cool - you haven't replied to my question on that page, but merely reasserted your previous POV that Hendrix wasn't popular with the "black" community? and added a cite from a WWW. site that is full of hoplessly garbled info and innacurate POVJameselmo (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

I only just now noticed that you awarded me with a barnstar. I would not have noticed it for possibly months if I had not checked the revision history of my user page moments ago. Why did I decide to check it just now? Well, just to make sure that a vandal had not recently targeted it.

Anyway, thank you a lot. I did not do much; I did what anyone should have done. I will see you around, and keep up the good work. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. You are one of the editors who remembers to keep the fun in Wikipedia. Nice job.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Headings in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Abie, I agree that a third party got out of hand with the subject headings in this article. However, unless you are willing to undo all the headings, how about leaving my edits alone for a while, huh? Jonyungk (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article would be better served if we discussed this on the article's talk page.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right—it would be better to talk about the headings on the talk page and will do so when I can access it. (Unfortunattely, there are some Wiki pages that my computer will not go without shutting down Internet Explorer. A virus, perhaps?) My leaving a message here last night was done in anger and was a mistake, and I hope you will forgive me for doing something stupid in acting that way. You've done a lot in watching after the Tchaikovsky article, and I greatly appreciate that. I spent two years bringing the article up to FA status and occasionally get a little paranoid about that article's losing FA status if too much is done to it. I was not happy either with the headings or with some improperly cited sections that were added—both done, evidently, as part of an education assignment by a student—but was willing to allow consensus to have its way, since that's the way Wilipedia works. When I saw my edit reverted, that set me off. I should have signed off for the evening right there but didn't. The rest you know. Again, I apologize for leaving a hot message on your talk page and hope you will understand and forgive me. Jonyungk (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bless your heart! I have to admit, I didn't think much of you yesterday, because your comments took me aback, but today you seem like a sweet soul. Thanks for the kind apology. And on my birthday, no less!?! HA HA HA! Seriously, though, it's a lovely article, and I'm grateful that you are tending it. By the way, I think this is my chance to post something which I can never do on the article: TCHAIKOVSKY ROCKS!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

No worries . Personally, I don't think it implies more weight, but if it concerns you, feel free to make it sentence-form again. I just thought that you missed the extra "*"'s when adding your comments. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It bothers me no longer. 'Twas just a phase which I had to pass through, I think. :-) Love the smile, by the way. Cheers, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Said

The article Edward Said you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Edward Said for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the news and the conditions! I plan on doing my best to meet them. Cheers!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Edward Said

Glad I could be of some assistance, though the edits I made were only minor ones. I've been in your position, and can understand the stress. The article could use more attribution (techincally, every paragraph should be attributed for the article to make GA or FA status) but otherwise it looks very good so far. Hopefully, I'll be able to read through it again in the next couple of days, and help out some more. Hang in there. Jonyungk (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

on Edward Said making GA. You must be very happy. Again, congratulations. Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonyungk. It hasn't fully sunk in yet. I'm still nervous about checking out the page to see the new rating. Haha! It's good hearing from you. I wish you luck and clarity on the "Tchaiko and the the Five" article"'s assessment.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well done.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. You disappeared for a while. I'm glad to hear from you again.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Brilliant Corners

Hi. I removed the talk header template, the banner shell, and the bot message. For the most part, the talk template is used to inform IP's or new editors on heavily used talk pages. There's none of that here. The banner shell is generally used for three or more tags. And the bot message is old and unnecessary. I also demoted the article from start to stub as it doesn't really meet the start class. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand the reasons, and agree with your edits. Good day!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what is the status of the Kerouac page? Are you going to try and improve it further? Are we going to collaborate on it together? Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see lots of work I can do there. I am going to try and improve on it. And, I would love for you to check my work. But it'll be later. For now, I'm thinking I can only work on it in small batches of edits. Nothing major, until I can find a way into it. Right now, I'm not really into the subject matter. My interest at the moment is closer to John Cassavetes than Kerouac. But, I've been leaving the Kerouac thread above where it is as a constant reminder to myself, should the opportunity present itself.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Article ratings

Hi Abie. Actually, the article ratings start with Featured Article, or FA, as the highest, then GA, A, B, C, Start and Stub. Since Edward Said is now rated as GA, that is actually higher than an A rating. Your next step if you wanted to take the article higher would be to put it through Peer Review (PR), where other editors critique your article. You can get a lot of good feedback that way; it can also be a little brutal. Once you make whatever changes that come from that process, you would nominate the article for Featured Article Committee (FAC), which is a combination of the GA and PR processes. By the time you do this, the article should be able to stand up to the highest quality Wikipedia demands; this means the prose is polished, all the copyright information for the images is in place, all the alt text for the photos is written, everything is the best it can be.

If you want to get your article to FA status, you will have more work and stress ahead of you. It's up to you whether you want to go for it now or wait and take some time to live with the article as it stands now. Just to give you an idea of how long it can take, Tchaikovsky and the Five was just listed as a FA. It was listed as GA last March and went through two PRs—one in June and another in either September or December, I forget which. Each PR resulted in a lot of work in getting the article into shape, but the work was worth it. At the same time, I'm glad I took my time with getting the article ready, since it gave me time to think of more things to cover in it and how to do so.

I know this is a long posting, but I wanted to cover as many of the bases as possible so you have complete information from which to decide what to do. Depending on your comfort level, you may want to wait, or you can take the plunge. Jonyungk (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonyungk. That answers my question nicely. But I'm confused about one thing: the order of the assessment ratings. On WP:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ#Quality scale, it says FA, A, GA, B, C and so on. Is that mistaken? Or are you? Also, I see it here: at Category:Articles by quality .

I am the one who is mistaken. Usually people go from GA to FA, so I mentally skipped the A step—my bad.

Either way, to get to FA seems like a real workout. If that's the next step, I think I want to start a PR right away. How do you recommend I begin? Or, rather, if you're not too busy to show me the ropes... :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You would sign up for a PR the same way you signed up for GA review. Simply go here, follow the instructions for signing up, say why you want a peer review, and go from there. There is also a list of volunteers in various areas who you can contact for additional input. Before you sign up, though, you may want to go back through the article one more time, check the formatting of your references and notes, make sure of the copyright status of your photos, and that you hae alt text written for them. Those were the first things I was nailed about in the PR for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, which is going on right now. Since the reviewers in the PRs for Tchaikovsky and the Five focused on the text, I wasn't ready for that. Whether you go for an A or an FA rating, PR would definitely be the next step. Jonyungk (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kate Winslet

I have reverted your last four edits. The WP:POV tone of the lead was shocking. Read WP:LEAD. The POV tone on the tormented nature of her roles may be suitable for the main body if well-cited. The LEAD should give a broad overview. My goal is to have a first paragraph, which details the essentials of her career, summarizing the most important general details. Then the subsequent paragraphs detail her acting chronology and the most important non-acting elements of her life. Look at your first paragraph and the current one. Ask yourself what best summarizes her career for someone who only is going to read the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to shock you, I only meant to do what you suggest. The reason my version of the second sentence differs with yours, I think, has to do with the fact that your version says she is notable for her AMPAS awards, while my version says she's notable because of her work. In fact, I have read the articles you suggested, and as an added fact, I referenced them just before my edits. To verify this, simply read above the first line of the article where it says "Please don't mention Academy Award winning in the first sentence." Yes, you didn't add that in the first sentence, but if you look at MOS:Film, you'll see it advised not to even mention awards won in the first paragraph. The reason the article cites is POV. So, my friend, I think you are the one making the POV edit, additionally since my edits were well referenced. I shall add the mention of "acutely portraying bright but tormented women" into the body of the article as you suggest, but I insist that it belongs in the lede, at least until we find something that improves on both of our versions.

Just as important, you're edit summary saying that you don't have time to edit with a scalpel is the thing that shock me. If you don't have time to edit well, I strongly feel that you should take a break and come back later. WP won't burn down if you don't step in, and WP won't lose credibility if someone reads about Kate Winslet from a perspective which you personally hadn't thought of before.

With all respect, I will revert your reversion, additionally because your edit repeats the mention of several of her films.

Hope to hear your further thoughts, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that your actions on this article have rendered it unstable and knocked it completely out of good article criteria as far as stability goes? Thanks. I worked on this article for the better part of a year and in two days, you've knocked it out. Personally, I'm sick to my stomach about this, my blood pressure is through the roof. There is no reason to start a "notes" section in this article. Did you hope to grab a piece of a good article out of your edits? Good for you. I cannot address or defend your edits in this article during a review. Nor can I address questions raised about it. Thanks so very much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to talk about this on the article's talk page. Thank you.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five at FAC

I've just nominated this article for Featured Article status and would really appreicate your input. Thanks very much. Jonyungk (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I wasn't aware of this article until now. It looks lovely at first glance. I will read it shortly and will gladly give you my feedback.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had a great holiday, Abie, and am still looking forward to your feedback. BTW, in case you are interested, there is a sequel to this article—Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle—with which I am still tinkering but may eventually send to peer review and so on down the river. Jonyungk (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonyungk! I am sorry I haven't gotten around to reading the article yet. It presses on my to-do list everyday, I want you to know. And not in a stressful way, but in a "I want to read it when the time is right" kind of way. I hope that doesn't make me sound lazy. :-( --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make you sound lazy at all—I unerstand. Whenever you get around to reading the article is fine. :) Jonyungk (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD: Musicians who have served in the military

No problem. Suggesting that the intersection of the categories is trivial doesn't mean the effect of military service is trivial on the musicians. As you note, Atzmon cites his service in the IDF as a turning point, and music critics say Young was a changed man after his stint in the army.— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Abie! Sorry I couldn't give a "full" Keep on this, but I certainly am more on that side than deleting it for the reasons cited. As you know, I could have just as well voted to delete as Malik Shabazz did, whose advice you also sought - but this was a WP:CANVASS, right? You expected our 100% approval, right? Hah! My hackles always get raised when opinions are sought, and when they may seem to "turn the tide" against an editor bent on defeating it... "it's a canvassing". Sour grapes? Anyway, happy editing! Doc9871 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob, Doc! I appreciate the fact that you went out of your way to share your honest opinion. The whole thing is laughable. But it's been a good exercise for me in reasoning. Hope it was fun for you. I only wish the accusations wouldn't have been flung about so instinctively. But I loved your comment about "we're not Abie's robots"!! HAHAHA! (Now, how do I turn you off?)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

MUST...AGREE...WITH ABIE...01001110011100 Doc9871 (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL...I wish you had a sense of humor right now, robot Doc, because if you did you would be bustin' a gut, right about now!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and the scope of the topic would work best as either a list or article titled Musicians in the military. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!!! It's an honor watching this article being developed, additionally because it's happening on one of my pages. It's like you're putting on a magic show just for me. Nice, Viriditas. As for the title of the article, how do you see "Musicians in the military" encompassing people who weren't notably musical during their military days? Or do you intend to create a more focused article, i.e. "Music in the military"?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are different topics. "Music in the military" already exists - it's called military music; However, it is only a redirect to military band at this point, so there is certainly room for expansion. I really don't have any interest in this topic, I'm only trying to help you narrow the scope of the list. As a fairly new user, you might not be aware that list articles are not necessarily lists; They can include much more than a list and can sometimes expand into a full article. Musicians in the military, as I see it, would be more of a historical/biographical treatment of the subject, perhaps even a subtopic of military music. I can talk more about it if it isn't clear. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Abie, Thanks for the note on my page. FWIW I completely disagreed with the decision but as always would happily have gone along with any consensus. What irritated me (to the point here I had to walk away) was the blinkered arrogance of some of the mods in that particular discussion. It's one thing to discuss, it's something else entirely to stand there and lecture / talk at people. Wikipedia at its worst IMO. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No comment. I'm trying to find inner peace and forgiveness. :-) Wikipedia still goes on. ==Abie the Fish Peddler(talk) 09:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Award

How very nice of you. I honestly never expected anyone to thank me for anything I add her (for Lady or anyone else's page), but it sure is nice to feel appreciated. I just want to be able to share information as best I can. Thanks! --Tal1962 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a pleasure watching the article improve. Thanks for being a part of that, and specifically one of the more complicated aspects of it.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI Tchaikovsky images

I am also posting this on the Tchaikovsky talk page, but just wanted you to know for your own information that I have added an image of Tchaikovsky with his nephew "Bob" Davydov to Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and will also add an image of Tchaikovsky with his wife once that image is re-uploaded onto Wikipedia (it is on Commons now but I cannot use this image for licensing reasons). I am using both of these images as fair use, non-free historic images for exclusive use on Wikipedia, which is allowed under US copyright law (hence my inability to use the image on Commons, which has its images available internationally). Since there are no other fair-use images being used in the article, the images are irreplacable and the article discusses both Davydov and Tchaikovsky's wife in some detail, it is probably alright to use these as non-free historic images in the article. Jonyungk (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. In fact, I've just come from checking out the Bob and Peter pic, and I think it looks good. Thanks for the update!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. The second pic is up, and I replied to your question about Maurice on the Tchaikovsky talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, please see my update on the pictures on the talk page. I'm fighting what may be an uphill battle to keep these pictures in the article. Jonyungk (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response re. my answer to Maurice and subsequent editing. I've done some more to that section of the article but am not convinced my efforts have been entirely good and could be improved. If this is so, please let me know—as usual, I'm open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!"

You ever see the film? I feel like chanting this (except, "Abie! Abie! ABIE! ABIE!!"), as I see the discussion is still going on musicians who served our country in the military. Fight the power! We've got to keep these soapboxes open, or we're all a bunch of slaves... Doc9871 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You crack me up, Doc! hahahaahHAHAhahahahaahah! You'll never be a slave, my friend. They'd have to fry your brain first. Yikes!! I should shut up. I'm giving them ideas...(Looks like I turned this heart-warming story of an individual's triumph, into a excruciating torture scene. Sorry.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"They Saved Doc's Brain!" It could happen! No... no, it really couldn't...(?) Doc9871 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I've been to Mandoras. The whole place smells like raw sewage. Or maybe it's their brain cache. Anyway, I really don't have much else to say on the discussion for the category. I feel like I gave them a kidney, and they still fight me. Yes, it's a ridiculous category. But if you think about it, what category isn't? So, why they gotta pick on mine? Why they gotta be like dat? Hmmm?! They can do what they want now, I gave it my best shot. Time for a spliff. Just kidding, I'm all out. Been out since I started editing....Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Schweet! (The Barnstar and the spliff)! Thanks, Abie! "They may take our lives. But they'll never take... our FREEDOM!!!" (pretty sure that's a paraphrase from some motivational film I saw)  ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: the Poznansky bit

Not a problem on where to contact me about Poznansky—either my talk page or the Tchaikovsky talk page was fine. I replied on the Tchaikovsky talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at what you added to the article on Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony. It's a good start; more needs to be worked in on Bob to give the dedication its full context and let what Poznansky says actually make more sense, but that's not a major problem. The information seems more appropriate in the article on the symphony than in the Tchaikovsky article, and could probably be expanded slightly to discuss other thoughts on the symphony. Not bad at all. Jonyungk (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added some more to the section. It's stil rough but much fuller by the inclusion of other theories as to the symphony's program. Let me know what you think. Jonyungk (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I love it Jonyungk. I continue to be amazed at the level of care and attention to detail in your work. Because of that and because the rest of the Tchaikovsky article leaves out details on the particular works, I concede: the Tchaikovsky article is better off without mention of the suggested programs of the 6th Symphony. Once again, lovely work.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I also redlinked Bob and Poznansky; hopefully someone will write short articles for them, as well. Jonyungk (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Writers who served in the military

I have nominated Category:Writers who served in the military (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Not meaning to play a Mozart versus Saleiri on you, or at least a Tchaikovsky versus Rimsky-Korsakov, but in case you're interested, I'm gettingNicolai Rimsky-Korsakov ready for FAC and any comments or suggestions would be welcome. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question

Of course, if categories are being proposed for deletion without discussion, even through only one was nomiated originally, I would consider that to be a violation of policy. You should address this yourself, and I assume the other editors won't be able to ignore you. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Sir!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat:Writers who had a miscarriage ... Yeah, that's the same thing you're talking about... Doc9871 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc! I needed that laugh right about now! But I guess I have no one to blame but myself. I don't even know why I care. LOL The whole thing is ridiculous. Makes me wish I weren't out of cigarettes. (Why does talking to you always make me want to smoke?)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat:Wikipedians who smoke tobacco - same relevance as musicians who served in the military... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! And Category:People from Duluth, Minnesota, or Category:Men.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude!!! You nailed it with Category:Men. I am seriously laughing right now, and amazed... Doc9871 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm seriously bowing right now. WP is an amazing place.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical orientalism

Does Edward Said go into any detail about musical orientalism in his writings? I've thought off-and-on about writing an article on musical orientalism and have read Figes and Maes about Russian musical orientalism, but I have not read about Western European use of musical orientalism. Any suggestions you have for texts would be welcome. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon reading your question, I realized that I had not until then consciously considered the intersection of Orientalism in music and Edward Said, and so, your question allowed me an enjoyable quest down a road I thought I'd already fully explored. I thank you for that. The quest involved scanning through the ten Said books I currently have at my disposal: Beginnings; Orientalism; Musical Elaborations; Culture and Imperialism; Representations of the Intellectual; Reflections on Exile and Other Essays; Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward Said; Parallels and Paradoxes: Explorations in Music and Society; Humanism and Democritism; and, On Late Style. I didn't find much on the topic. Throughout Orientalism (even from page one), Said mentions that he is not focusing on Orientalism in Russia, Germany and some other nations, so much as that in England and France. In Power, Politics, and Culture, I found him mention that he thinks of his literary criticism as completely separate from his music criticism, and that "What I'm moved by in music criticism are things that I'm interested in and like. I am really first motivated by pleasure" (pp. 94-95), which would mean he adores Beethoven and Wagner, as his verbiage on those two seems to overflow out of every book, while he barely acknowledges the Russian composers, outside of Stravinsky. For the most part it seems that when it came to music criticism, Said turned to music as a solace from thoughts of Orientalism and even possibly from thoughts of the "Orient": "The main problem I have and don't have any answer to, is that it's strange that, for example, the music of my own Arab and Islamic tradition means relatively little to me as I write this book. I've never been interested in or compelled by it as something to study" (pp. 144-145).

However, in the same book, I did find an interviewer mention that "the piece that you did on Verdi's Aida" reminded of Said's denser and more politically engaged literary criticism. To which Said responded, "I have written about the problems of political power and representation over years in some of the things I've done for The Nation" (p. 95), referring to his music column. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to read through those articles, though they're available through the external links section on Said's WP page.

Hope this helps!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It does—thanks (belatedly) for sharing all this, and for the time you put into answering so thoroughly. Although there was nothing by Said that could be used, your answer encouraged me to check Amazon, where I found Ralph P. Locke's book Musical Exoticism: Images and Reflections. This might do the job but I'll have to wait until I can budget it in. Thanks again for all your help. BTW, did you see my question below about Bob Davydov? Jonyungk (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fredy.00

Just to give you an idea of what Fredy's views are, this is easily his most disruptive edit yet. His next block will be for a long time if he tries shenanigans like that again... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That was eye-opening. Thank you.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have gone a little overboard

with the private Cossack army at the beginning of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, but let me know what you think. My impression is that the whole section on his childhood needs to be redone, but maybe I'm overreacting. BTW, thanks for backing me up on the misquoting on Tchaikovsky's ancestry. Jonyungk (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice it. It all seems pertinent. I edited the 3rd paragraph down a bit, though I think it either needs a word about Alexandra's future, or to remove the words on the future of the twins. What do you think of the edit?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm mixed about the edit—on one hand fine, on the other, I miss the info on the future of the other two sons. I think you're right in that something about Alexandra might be good (especially since Bob Davydov was one of her sons). Let me see what I can do. Jonyungk (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I am fully on board with your addition of info on Alexandra's future.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're onboard. What do you think of the latest edits by Joachim:11? Jonyungk (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, for the most part, they are good, though possibly a touch heavier than was explained in the edit summary. In particular, there are two things I think should be worked back into the article.

• In Joachim.11's first edit, it's the mention that their love was not consummated, that it had begun when Bob was 13 and lasted until the end of Tchaikovsky's life. And that Tchaikovsky dedicated his last work to Bob. As far as the description of Poznansky goes, I would reinsert "biographer".
• In the second edit, I'm not sure how important it is, but mention of the considerable homosexual population at the School of Jurisprudence could be made.

Other than these few concerns, I am pleased with the edits.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the edits with which I have a problem, but the way in which they were done. The material really should have been discussed before it was eliminated wholesale. Melodia's explanation on the talk page was a good one—that we are not stating facts so much as we are sourcing or reporting information put out by others—and if two or three biographers agree on a piece of information, as I believe was the case with one of the passaged edited out, then it might be a point generally agreed upon. As much as I was tempted to revert the edits, I'm agreeing with Melodiya to get consensus before acting one way or the other. Jonyungk (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion has more potential to benefit the article if we move it to the talk page. I'd like to reply to your comments there.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Responded on the article's talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the back-up, but now I have another concern. Is there now too much information on Bob Davydov? I have added some more since you may have last seen it but am starting to become concerned about overdetailing the passage. Please let me know what you think. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

["RESILIENT BARNSTAR" moved to Userpage.]

Aw! I think I'm gonna cry. Naw, I'm smilling instead. Thanks, Doc. It's an added bonus that my first barnstar is awarded by you. :-)
--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting to get you back. You never lost your cool there, and you "held your own" against huge odds (a "zillion" admins). I think they let it stay so long because of respect. You earned it, chief! Many more battles to fight... Doc9871 (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome words. Love them, homes. As far as the many more battles to fight....Yikes! I'd prefer peace, love and understanding. By the way, I just commented on the Kate Winslet page again. I know! I know! I did it as chill and decent as I could, but I'm not sure your friend, Wildhartlivie and the rest of the Kate Winslet gang will let me add a touch. Anyway. Would you mind peeking and seeing if I could do anything differently?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the Edit Warriors Have started

I see they have started deleting your section on Sikhism under Vegetarian. :-) Thanks --Sikh-History 11:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. They've started. Pray for strength for me, please. Thanks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kate Winslet. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Davydov

I was about to leave you a message when you wrote me. Nice work on cutting down the sexuality section—it reads much better and, as you phrased it, is much less overbearing than before. Do you plan to go through the rest of the article? If so, your work would probably improve it, as the article is fairly uneven in spots. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad you're pleased. Does that go even for the mention of Poznansky's title? Also, I forget if there's one too many commas around the title. As for the rest of the article. I hope to read through it by the end of the day. Cheers, and a beautiful day to you!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should let you know that I'm hesitant to edit a Featured Article, and want to know what manner you think is best. Should I simply make my changes with the confidence that you'll revert me when I go too far? This is the best way that comes to my mind.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before on the article's talk page, this may be a Featured Article, but it is not a sacred cow. There's always room for improvement. Go ahead and make your changes, and I can always revert or amend if something does not look right. Jonyungk (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's admirable of you. However, I prefer if you would let me know your thoughts after I edit each section. I think considering your expertise on the topic, this is the way I would be able to work most effectively. What do you say?--Abie the Fish Peddler(talk) 18:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The lead section looks good, BTW. Keep going. Jonyungk (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Good to have an editing partner, Jonyungk. I've just edited the "childhood" section, though I wasn't yet able to do anything with this sentence:

As manager of this ironworks, Ilya "enjoyed broad authority within the Ekaterinburg region—from governing local factories to repealing the decisions of local courts"—and commanded a private army of 100 Cossacks.

It strikes me uncomfortably, maybe we could simply say, "Besides enjoying authority over the iron factories of the Ekaterinburg region, Ilya also commandeered, for a time, a private army of 100 Cossacks." Yes?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are those Cossacks again. Actually, one of the other perks Ilya enjoyed as factory manager was a seat on the local magistrate's bench. Any way we can work that in? Jonyungk (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But of course! If you would just give me a minute....Let's see...Hmmm.....Got it!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, how does the childhood section strike you? To me, it's a mess. What would be a good way to reorganize or rethink it?Jonyungk (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would split it into two, since half of it is dealing with Tchaikovsky's pre-childhood, or rather, his ancestry.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Let me ask you, though: If the section is split, should there be more about the background of Tchaikovsky's mother's side of the family? We have a lot about the father's side, then the info on the mother gets dropped in as almost an afterthought. That's part of what makes the section seem so messy. Jonyungk (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Unfortunately I don't have immediate access to the wealth of information that you do. Is there anything in the books, Poznansky or otherwise, regarding Tchaikovsky's maternal ancestors?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Poznansky had a little bit, which I have added, along with some information from Brown about her. Jonyungk (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the additions a lot, and the split into ancestry and childhood looks better than I thought, nice teamwork! I made some minor touches in the ancestry section, though I am open if you think they are too much.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The additions are okay, but when you have only so much material on hand, you can do only so much. You did surprise me with how quickly you pounced on the new material; that plus the fact you phrase things very differently than I do took me a little aback. It's sometimes best for me to stand back a while in cases like that, then come back to the passage in question later. Don't worry—you didn't do anything wrong. In fact, I wonderd earlier today whether I should have said something sooner so that you would have kept working. Oh well. I'm up to my eyeballs in the PR forTchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle (aka One of Those Boring Articles Abie Can't Get Into :) ), so whenever you get back to looking over Tchaikovsky, it'll give me a welcome break. Keep up the good work. Jonyungk (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, "aka". Hahaha! I think you're a cool person, but just to spite you, I'm going to read that article of yours...one of these days. And, yes, I hope to continue going through the rest of the Tchaikovsky article soon, my liege.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

-Just so I don't come across as an easily-bored brute, the reason I haven't been able to get inspired on those two articles (Tchaiko and Belayev circle, Tchaiko and the 5) is because they're composers but I'm not familiar with their music. Rimsky-Korsakov, I could see myself editing at a later date, because I know and like a few works, but the Belayev circle and the Five, I don't know the sounds well enough to be motivated to surround them with words. I'd much rather edit the Glinka article (though Tchaikovksy calls his a boring life).

-Regarding the Tchaikovsky article, what do you think of this sentence?: "There, Pyotr Tchaikovsky's mother became proficient in French and German, as well as becoming fairly adept at piano-playing and singing." Still seems awkward to me. Would you mind giving it a shot?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the sentence in the morning. It's funny because that was the one sentence I liked better yesterday in my original version. I'll give it another look. Jonyungk (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I've self-reverted, and, I bow.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky article: section on "The Five"

Any chance you have info to elaborate on Cui's criticisms? Also, I'd like to double-check the intention behind the first sentence: Is it meant to say that Rubinstein was in opposition to "the Five", or is Tchaikovsky the intended subject?--Abie the Fish Peddler(talk)

Do you mean quoting one of Cui's reviews?

In the first sentence, the intent is that Rubinstein was in opposition to The Five. Tchaikovksy comes in at the second sentence.Jonyungk (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean quoting one of Cui's reviews. If it's possible, I think it would be great to get a sense of the chasm in live words from that setting.

Thanks for verifying the intention of the Rubinstein/Tchaikovsky sentences.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You've done it! You've found the perfect instance of Cui's criticism and Tchaikovsky's reaction. I'm filled with the same sweet melancholy I received by reading Beloved Friend a letters compilation. Thanks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, what do you think of this sentence: Rather than standing in opposition to the conventions of the nationalist music, Tchaikovsky's compositions, even from his school days, had attempted to bridge the chasm between the nationalist and Western musics which had split the Russian music scene.[45] I know what the person who wrote it is trying to say here but I think the sentence itself is out of place and could easily be discarded. What do you think? Jonyungk (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of that sentence. I've just now tried again to simplify it. You think it's better completely gone? I won't revert its deletion.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it fits with what comes before or after it. Seems like it would be simpler to go straight from the review of the graduation contata to Tchaikovsky's working with Balakirev in 1869 (the 2nd sentence in the following paragraph). Your thoughts? Jonyungk(talk) 18:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, my mind is somewhere else right now. I should probably refrain from editing until I have fresh eyes again. Probably in a few hours. Until then...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, I added the sentence in again, albeit in a transformed fashion. Hopefully, it will please you. My reason for readding is that it gives some context to the abrupt Balakirev/Tchaikovsky collaboration which follows.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than the awkwardness of where that sentence is placed, my concern is that you appear to be using that sentence as the context for Tchaikovsky working with Balakirev. It was not the reason they worked together. Tchaikovsky and Balakirev started corresponding and the collaboration arose from that. This is explained in more detail in Tchaikovsky and The Five, hence the link. If you think it needs it, I can add some information along these lines, but I don't want to add too much as the article's pretty long already. Jonyungk (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added the info. Jonyungk (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I love the info. I hope you like my trimming. Also, would you mind checking that I haven't displaced any references? I tried to be mindful, but without the texts, you know how blind one can feel.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There was one place I rewrote where you broke one sentence into two and the result seemed awkwardly phrased; otherwise, the trimming is fine. You did not displace any references. Jonyungk (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kate Winslet

I'm confused. The version that was promoted as GA is here. Rossrs (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I changed it to, albeit after a botched edit, either my clumsiness or a missed edit conflict. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Confusion is my middle name. I'm glad you like the pelican, and I didn't think the comment was too poetic. It's fairly apt. Regarding Kate..... probably easier to read if you comment under each paragraph. Give it a try and see what it looks like. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Animal Crackers scene

[Moved to Animal Crackers's talk page.]

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Mature composer

TO JONYUNGK:

I am satisfied with the last section. Nice teamwork. On this section, I think it needs a setting, range of years, in order to give it a context. Also, the image I think should be moved to the left, to account for Mily's new home. Just my opinion. A good day to you, by the way. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good day to you, too. I moved the image and did some minor rephrasing, but please be careful in your editing, as you're fragmenting sentences again. As for a range of years, remember that you have to be consistent throughout the article. If you add a range for one section, you have to do it for other sections, as well, and I hven't seen other composer articles with ranges in them. Doesn't mean we can't do it here, but let's think about it a little more. Jonyungk (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the sloppy editing (fragments); I'm getting ready to go to sleep. Before I do, though, I wanted to clarify. When I mentioned the range of years, what I meant was that I think that somewhere within the first two sentences there should be some hint of a timeframe. My reason being to make sense of the second sentence which says: "Some of his best-known works from this period..."

But what period is that? There is no clue until later in the section. I hope I'm making sense.

Other than that, the section looks pretty awesome to me. The word "pianism" is kind of fun, but it doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic and I think it could be improved for this article, but, of course, that's just my opinion. Until next time.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. A word on the years covered would not be bad. We don't mention the Fourth Symphony or the opera Eugene Onegin, and they both should be included. I'll play with the section and see what I can come up with. BTW, the word "pianism" is fine and encyclopedic—it's better than using the word "playing" twice in one sentence—so please leave it alone. Jonyungk(talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"You'll see..."

Love ya too, Abie - but it's really a bad idea to strike another editor's comments ever again, okay? It's extremely bad form. You askthem to strike or remove their comments - you don't do it yourself - you can get in trouble for that. I like you, but no two editors get along all the time about everything. You may have gotten yourself into an interesting situation at Kate Winslet that you're not even aware of; and you all can deal with it. I'm not a regular editor there. Good luck on that article! Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I liked your first response better. :-( --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not mad, Abie; just giving you advice. Chin up! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Trust me, I'm not angry with you! You just must understand that striking another editor's comments, however well-intentioned, is against policy, and can be taken the wrong way. You must ask the editor to strike or remove, every time, and not just sometimes. If striking comments like this were okay, any editor could go around striking comments anywhere without any consent. I just don't want you to get into trouble, and to understand why you can't strike comments like that. Are we happy again? Cheer up, you Fishmonger you! All is well... :>Doc9871 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Abie, Doc's right but the comment you made showed some real integrity, and I think you deserve credit for that. Saying something like that to someone you respect is very difficult, but you said it because you thought it was the right thing to do. That's commendable. Rossrs(talk) 08:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I commend Abie for that as well; I never would have "Barnstarred" him if I didn't like him and expect him to stand up for what he believes in. I sent him an e-mail explaining further - he'll be okay ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: And I want to further reiterate that the spirit in which Abie acted is 100% correct; just not the particular method. My method was faulty in posting that on the article's talk page, and I apologize for that. Doc9871 (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you're better soon

Sorry you're wikibonked. Hope you're feeling better soon. Jonyungk (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Abie come back! You can blame it all on me..." I can't feel any worse for "dressing you down" the other day. So come back already, will ya? I hope anything I did didn't turn you sour; especially after you took on like 6-8 administrators recently, lost the battle, and still edit here! Hope you're not mad at me, Abie. Cheers...Doc9871 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words, Rossrs! Very welcoming of you. My little upset has reminded me of the novel I'm supposed to be writing. The writing juices have been flowing the last couple of days, and so I want to keep my winning streak streaking, if that makes any sense. I wish you happy editing. And I'm sure I'll bump into in the future.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk)
  • Thanks for the kindness, Jonyungk. Editing with you has emboldened me in my personal writing. I think I've done all I can for Wikipedia at the moment. But I'm sure I'll bump into you again. Good luck with the Russians! Cheers!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk)
  • Doc, Doc, Doc... It's true that the saddest I've been on WP is when you got embroiled in Wikipolitics. It just seemed so beneath you, but then again it's not really any of my business. The good thing though that came out of it is that I remembered what my main focus should be: writing my novel. I hope to have it on the shelf at your local bookstore in 2011. It's about the sea and an old man. Er, no, that doesn't sound quite right. Rather, it's about this great man who made money bootlegging so that he could woo back the wealthy girl he loved in his youth. His name is Gats-Wait! That's not it either. At the moment I can't recall for the life of me what it's about but I do know that I love it, I love working on it, and I'm ready finally to not treat it as a break from WP. I'm ready to devote the bulk of my concentration to it. It's been a great experience editing on WP, great laughs, a couple tears, and many grumbles and shakings of my fist. Overall, I feel like it's been a nice exposure for me, and I've learned some about editing, consensus, flow, etc. Thanks for being a part of my experience. There's no way we won't bump into each other again. Cheers! And, rather than "Baby, Come Back" (LOL), this is the song I feel represents me. Keep defending the liberty, friend. :-D Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin GA Review

The WP:Good Article Review of Charlie Chaplin has been put on hold for seven days to allow time for the article to be sourced. Reference sources can be found on the "Find sources" notice on the talkpage. Further comments can be found at Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 02:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has a number of issues, mostly referencing. Despite widespread notification, there was little response, and the article showed no real signs of improvement in the seven day hold period, so I have failed it. SilkTork *^YES! 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Edward Said memorial lectures

The article List of Edward Said memorial lectures has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly not notable enough for its own page. Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia of all information. No reliable secondary sources are used.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Edward Said memorial lectures

I have nominated List of Edward Said memorial lectures, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Edward Said memorial lectures. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat •One hammer)} 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blu -a character in the Brazilian comic strip, Monica's Gang

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use thesandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administratorsto request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)