text:
Frederick Hervey, 1st Marquess of Bristol

Frederick William Hervey, 1st Marquess of Bristol (2 October 1769 – 15 February 1859), styled Lord Hervey between 1796 and 1803 and known as The Earl of Bristol between 1803 and 1826, was a British peer.

Early life
Frederick William Hervey was born on 2 October 1769, the son of Frederick Hervey, 4th Earl of Bristol and Bishop of Derry, and his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Jermyn Davers, 4th Baronet. He was the younger son but, as his elder brother John Hervey died during their father's lifetime, he succeeded to the title on the father's death in 1803. He also had three sisters, Lady Mary Erne, Countess Erne, Elizabeth Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire and Louisa Jenkinson, Countess of Liverpool.

Adult life
Hervey was admitted to St John's College, Cambridge, in 1786,. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1805.

Hervey served as an Ensign in the 1st Foot Guards from 1788 to 1793, and in 1798 was captain in a volunteer infantry regiment at Bury St Edmunds and Major-commandant of the Ickworth yeomanry which were both raised during the French Revolutionary War. Hervey was a member of Parliament for Bury St Edmunds 1796–1803.

In 1806 he inherited the estates of his uncle, Sir Charles Davers, 6th Baronet.

In 1826, he was created Marquess of Bristol and Earl Jermyn. He was succeeded by his son Frederick William (1800–1864), M.P. for Bury St Edmunds 1830–1859, as 2nd Marquess.

Personal life
Hervey married Elizabeth Albana (1775–1844), daughter of Clotworthy Upton, 1st Baron Templetown and Elizabeth Upton, Baroness Templetown, by whom he had two daughters and six sons:
 * Lady Augusta Hervey (29 December 1798 – 17 March 1880) married Frederick Charles William Seymour, son of Adm. Lord Hugh Seymour, and had six children.
 * Frederick Hervey, 2nd Marquess of Bristol (15 July 1800 – 30 October 1864), the great-great-great-grandfather of the present Marquess
 * Lady Georgiana Elizabeth Charlotte Hervey (8 September 1801 – 16 January 1869) married Rev. Hon. John Grey, son of Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, and had three children.
 * Major Lord George Hervey (25 January 1803 – 3 February 1838)
 * Lord William Hervey (27 September 1805 – 6 May 1850), the great-great-grandfather of the current second in line to the marquessate
 * Rt. Rev. Lord Arthur Charles Hervey (20 August 1808 – 9 June 1894), Bishop of Bath and Wells
 * Lady Sophia Elizabeth Caroline Hervey (26 April 1811 – 1 October 1863)
 * Rev. Lord Charles Amelius Hervey (1 November 1814 – 11 April 1880), cricketer and clergyman
 * Lord Alfred Hervey (25 June 1816 – 15 April 1875)

Death
He died on 15 February 1859 from gout. He had given the land for the Woodvale Cemetery at Brighton, where he was originally buried in the cruciform Gothic Revival tomb which still bears his name, but his body was later taken to St Mary's Church, Ickworth—the church closest to Ickworth House, where the Marquesses are traditionally buried. Cremated remains are now stored in the gable-topped mausoleum. It stands near the eponymous Bristol Ground, originally a pauper burial area within the Extra Mural Cemetery but now part of the Woodvale grounds: it has become a memorial garden attached to Woodvale crematorium.


text:
Web annotation

Web annotation can refer to online annotations of web resources such as web pages or parts of them, or a set of W3C standards developed for this purpose. The term can also refer to the creations of annotations on the World Wide Web and it has been used in this sense for the annotation tool INCEpTION, formerly WebAnno. This is a general feature of several tools for annotation in natural language processing or in the philologies.

Annotation of web resources
With a web annotation system, a user can add, modify or remove information from a Web resource without modifying the resource itself. The annotations can be thought of as a layer on top of the existing resource, and this annotation layer is usually visible to other users who share the same annotation system. In such cases, the web annotation tool is a type of social software tool. For Web-based text annotation systems, see Text annotation.

Web annotation can be used for the following purposes:

 * to rate a Web resource, such as by its usefulness, user-friendliness, suitability for viewing by minors.
 * to improve or adapt its contents by adding/removing material (like wiki).
 * as a collaborative tool, e.g. to discuss the contents of a certain resource.
 * as a medium of artistic or social criticism, by allowing Web users to reinterpret, enrich or protest against institution or ideas that appear on the Web.
 * to quantify transient relationships between information fragments.
 * to save, retain and synthesize selected information.

Annotations can be considered an additional layer with respect to comments. Comments are published by the same publisher who hosts the original document. Annotations are added on top of that, but may eventually become comments which, in turn, may be integrated in a further version of the document itself.

Web Annotation standard
In the Web Annotation standard, "[a]n annotation is considered to be a set of connected resources, typically including a body and target, and conveys that the body is related to the target. The exact nature of this relationship changes according to the intention of the annotation, but the body is most frequently somehow "about" the target. (...) The (...) model supports additional functionality, enabling content to be embedded within the annotation, selecting arbitrary segments of resources, choosing the appropriate representation of a resource and providing styling hints to help clients render the annotation appropriately."

- Robert Sanderson, Paolo Ciccarese, Benjamin Young (eds.)

The basic data structures of Web Annotation (Fig. 1) are
 * target (the element being annotated, e.g., a web document or a part of it),
 * body (the content of the annotation, e.g., a string value), and
 * annotation (the element that serves to relate body and target of an annotation)

The body can be a literal value or structured content (a URI). The target can be identified by an URI (e.g., fragment identifiers) and/or a selector that defines a domain-, resource- or application-specific access protocol, e.g., offset-based, XPath-based, etc.

Web Annotation was standardized on February 23, 2017 with the release of three official Recommendations by the W3C Web Annotation Working Group:

 * Web Annotation Data Model
 * Web Annotation Vocabulary
 * Web Annotation Protocol

These recommendations were accompanied by additional working group notes that describe their application:

 * Embedding Web Annotations in HTML
 * Selectors and States

The Web Annotation data model is also provided in machine-readable form as the Web Annotation ontology. Note that this ontology defines the Web Annotation namespace, and that this namespace is conventionally abbreviated as. This is the abbreviation for Open Annotation, a W3C Community Group whose specifications formed the basis for the Web Annotation standard.

Web Annotation supersedes other standardization initiatives for annotations on the web within the W3C, e.g., the earlier Annotea project discontinued after 2003.

Related specifications
Web Annotation can be used in conjunction with (or as an alternative to) fragment identifiers that describe how to address elements within a web document by means of URIs. These include

 * RFC 5147 (URI fragment identifiers for the text/plain media type)
 * RFC 7111 (URI fragment identifiers for the text/csv media type)
 * RFC 8118 (URI fragment identifiers for the application/pdf media type)
 * SVG fragment identifiers
 * XPointer (for addressing components of XML documents)
 * Media Fragments (for addressing components of media files)

Other, non-standardized fragment identifiers are in use, as well, e.g., within the NLP Interchange Format.

Independently from Web Annotation, more specialized data models for representing annotations on the web have been developed, e.g., the NLP Interchange Format (NIF) for applications in language technology. In early 2020, the W3C Community Group "Linked Data for Language Technology" launched an initiative to harmonize these vocabularies and to develop a consolidated RDF vocabulary for linguistic annotations on the web.

Comparison of web annotation systems
Many of these systems require software to be installed to enable some or all of the features below. This fact is only noted in footnotes if the software that is required is additional software provided by a third party.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Web annotation


text:
Talk:Projective geometry

Main elements
We need some main concrete elements in this article:

 * some mathematical content about "What" is projective geometry. i.e. perhaps the basic axioms of projective geometry, and some important theorems. In particular, the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry. Possibly some words about pole and palar, pascal hexagram stuff, degauss's theorem, and the projective coordinates.

 * some history of projective geometry. (i.e. its origin from artists wanting a realistic drawing, now know as 'descriptive geometry'.)

 * modern projective geometry: higher dimensions and other abstract development that has nothing to do with "projections". Lattice theory...? and projective geometry and crytography...

Xah P0lyglut 14:36, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)

We have already projective plane, projective space, homogeneous coordinates, Desargues' theorem, Möbius transformation, incidence (mathematics), all of which relate in some way to projective geometry.

How about an article about cross-ratio?

Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This Entry Needs Work
Most Wiki articles on bits of mathematics are good; this one is exceptionally bad. I am especially dismayed, given how much good material there is in print on geometry and its history. Starting with the work of that wonderful writer, Howard Eves. Much of this entry rambles and is unclear. One could conclude from reading it that geometry is not a precise subject, when in fact it is the Mother of All Precision. The entry is also curiously silent about the duality pervading so much of projective geometry. Too bad Eves turned 90 the year Wikipedia came on line; he would have made a wonderful contributor!

 * I will fix this up a little, adding in a formal axiomatization and, given time, some details on the geometric construction of fields. The axioms currently on the page are apparently specific to projective planes, whereas the field is far more general (and axioms simpler). -- Mark, 19 May 2006

I have written the first paragraph under "Description." While the axioms stated there are taken from a problem in Eves (1997), the fastidious first order theory business, very much in the spirit of Tarski's approach to geometry, is my own. The bit about Lawrence Edwards's The Vortex of Life fascinates me, because I am a fan of D'Arcy Thompson (he and A. N. Whitehead were friendly at Cambridge, by the way). But the summary description of Edwards's thinking needs work.202.36.179.65 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think all that takes the article off topic. This is a classical branch of geometry, not an excursion into morphogenesis. Charles Matthews 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Classical geometry and morphogenesis are closely related; from taking the measure of the earth (Geo-metry) to Desargues' particularly artistic orientation, geometry has always been about the forms of the world we live in. The wonder is that the real, malleable, complex forms of nature are describable geometrically - whether this is the path of the planets or the shape of a shell. Would you not agree? Hgilbert 14:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Whether it is wondrous or not (and I lean toward not) is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether the section has a place in this article. Since the section is not about projective geometry, but is rather about some attempts to "apply" (in a loose sense) projective geometry to something outside of mathematics, I think it has no place here. To be honest, I am surprised that the section has survived here since December; its style doesn't even conform to that of other articles in applied mathematics. If you really think that Edwards was an important thinker, write an article about him and his book, remove the present section, and then include links to your Edwards article both from here and from the Morphogenesis page. Michael Kinyon 00:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The work of Edwards is 100% projective geometry, not loose in any way. Some of it belongs to pure mathematics (see his Projective Geometry) and some to applied mathematics (which is actually also mathematics - I hope you agree). If the discovery of a mathematical description of a conchoid or hyperbolic space is mathematics, so is the discovery of a mathematical description of an egg or (conifer) cone, shapes that are exceptionally difficult to analyze without projective geometry (and in particular without Klein path curves). The article is probably in need of much supplementary work - there should be mention of Poncelet, of Klein's work in more detail, of Pascal - and if it was more complete, this section would not stand out. I would suggest balancing the article by filling out the missing pieces rather than eliminating the one area that is reasonably fully treated.

An article on Edwards' work is a good idea; someday when someone (perhaps I) has time it should be done. Separate issue, however. Hgilbert 01:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The section about "Forms of the Living World" sounds kind of like mystical pseudo-science stuff. Maybe it should be replaced with a section about how projective geometry is used in Multiple View Geometry and Computer Vision.

 * The important thing here about Edwards' work is that he discovered his curves as an exercise in projective geometry, before applying them to natural objects. His book implies that his work represents a "rounding-off" of earlier worker's discoveries in projective geometry. From this, his contribution to PG does appear to be significant. But it should focus on the importance of his curves (which I am not competent to judge). -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this make any sense?
There is a sentence in this entry that puzzles me: The whole family of circles can be seen as the conics passing through two given points on the line at infinity - at the cost of requiring complex number co-ordinates. Does this make sense to anyone? Hgilbert 02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand it to be true. Apparently these two points have even been given pet names by some mathematicians. Broadly, if you consider the equation for a circle, for example ax2 + by2 +c2 = 0, and interpret a, b ad c as complex numbers, then the plane becomes kind of four-dimensional and is called the unitary plane. In here, weird things happen and a conic becomes a kind of imaginary surface and the line at infinity becomes a kind of imaginary plane. The conic "surface" meets the real plane in a real conic curve and the imaginary plane in two imaginary points. Sorry if I may not be 100% accurate - I don't fully understand it myself, either. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Simple: a circle is (x-x0)2+(y-y0)2=R2.
 * In homogeneous coordinates (X-x0Z)2 + (Y-y0Z)2 = R2Z2.
 * Now the points (1,i,0) and (1,-i,0) lie on all circles. Pyth (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?
A line in R3 can be represented in P2 space by the equation ax+by+c=0. If we treat a, b and c as the column vector l and x, y,1 as the column vector x then the equation for the line can be written in matrix form as[...].

Yes I agree, confusion, I think it is now better. I think if I was now asked in an exam "What is P2 space"? I would write "the set of subspaces that can be defined in R3", and leave it at that, I would probable fail. I think it is going to be very hard to write a good article on this topic, this is where art, engineering and maths meet. Charles Esson 00:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Could someone rewrite this article with Latex-commands? 08:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Done the bit I wrote, I think the section called "description" is too abstract, the rest contains no equations.Charles Esson 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't some effort be made to make the subject accessible
I don't know, in an effort to plug all the holes mathematics has been turned into a lot of mumbo jumbo. I made an attempt to describe the line at infinity in P2 space. Perhaps this is not the place.

I see that this page has been marked as important for mathematics so I will expand my argument. I added the section 'Visualize P2' in an attempt to show what I meant by "make the subject accessible".

I will use the article "introduction to projective line" to try and show what I see as the problem. The introduction to that article reads.

"In mathematics, a projective line is a one-dimensional projective space. The projective line over a field K, denoted P1(K), may be defined as the set of one-dimensional subspaces of the two-dimensional vector space K2 (it does carry other geometric structures). The projective line may also be thought of as the line K together with an idealised point at infinity."

To break that apart

"In mathematics, a projective line is a one-dimensional projective space." Yes you have to say that. "The projective line over a field K" Yes and like your average reader has studied modern algebra. "denoted P1(K)" No doubt in some texts. "may be defined as the set of one-dimensional subspaces of the two-dimensional vector space K2" and I would have thought of K3 and K4.....,what does this add? "(it does carry other geometric structures)." And they are? I think the one dimensional subspace bit has become a lot more important to mathematicians than any geometric interpretation.

I would argue that this page should be an introduction that stays away from material that will only be understood my someone who has done a maths major and that the sub pages ( projection line, projection plane, cross product) should go deeper. It is too an important topic to have it hide behind language only understood by a very small group.

Rant mode off. Charles Esson 23:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes Axioms of projective geometry
Axioms are the foundationa used by mathamaticians to describe the structure, not the structure. I think they belong in a section of their own marked axioms, not in a section called description. (Veblen and Young 1938, Kasner and Newman 1989 from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ProjectiveGeometry.html, it is interesting to note that that wolfran chickened out and gave this set of axioms and nothing more).

H.S,M Coxter Gives eight.
 * 1. CA If A and B are distinct points on a plane, there is at least one line containing both A and B.
 * 2. CA If A and B are distinct points on a plane, there is not more than one line containing both A and B.
 * 3. _A Any two lines in a plane have at least one point of the plane (which may be the point at infinity) in common.
 * 4. _ There is at least one line on a plane.
 * 5. CA Every line contains at least three points of the plane.
 * 6. C All the points of the plane do not belong to the same line

 * 1. V There exists a point and a line that are not incident. ( same as 6)
 * 2. V Every line is incident with at least three distinct points. ( same as 5)
 * 3. V Any two distinct points are incident with just one line. (same as 1&2)
 * 4. _ If A,B,C,D are four distinct points such that AB meets CD, then AC meets BD. ( new)
 * 5. _ If ABC is a plane, there is at least one point not in the plane ABC. ( new)
 * 6. _ Any two distinct planes have at least two common points. (new)
 * 7. _ The three diagonal points of a complex quadrangle are never collinear. ( and this is self evident? )
 * 8. _ If a projectivity leaves invariant each of three distinct points on a line, it leaves invariarnt every point on the line.

Coxter is however honest and states "The precise choice is a mattter of taste"

This article starts with three
 * V G1: Every line contains at least 3 points ( same as 5 in young)
 * V G2: Every two points, A and B, lie on a unique line, AB. ( same as 1 and 2 in young)
 * C G3: If lines AB and CD intersect, then so do lines AC and BD (where it is assumed that A and D are distinct from B and C). ( Coxter's 4)

Albrecht gives four. Albrecht says this is an ingenious way to say that any two lines in a plane meet before knowing what a plane is and that this axion is sometimes atributed to Pasch but his version is different. Albrecht replaces 2 with -any two lines have a point in common, that is 3 of Veblen.
 * VCT For any two distict points P and Q there is exactly line that is incident with P and Q. ( 1 and 2 of Veblem)
 * _CT Let A,B,C and D be four points such that AB intersect CD, Tne AC also intersect the line BD. ( 4 of Coxter Albrecht attributes it to Veblen)
 * VCT Any line is incident with at least three points. ( seems a common theme)
 * ___There are at least two lines. (Veblen 4 and 6 because 4 gives you a line and 6 says you have to have another)

Seems to me Albrecht has done well, knocking Veblen and Young from 6 back to 4. The question; what is Coxter on about? has he seen something Albrecht, Veblena nd Young missed or is he just verbose. Charles Esson 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Coxeter (projective geometry), Hilbert (Geometry and the imagination) and Greenberg (Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry) all give different sets of axioms too. Apparently, Bachmann used yet another set based on incidence, reflection and orthogonality. In a mathematical sense Coxeter is correct in saying that it is a matter of taste, since all these formulations are logically equivalent. Within certain limits, one may pick and choose which propositions one wishes to state as axioms, and which one then goes on to derive from them - all the various axiom sets of PG may be derived as theorems from any other set. But in a philosophical sense Coxeter misses an important point - some ideas are more fundamental than others, usually the ones that may be expressed most simply. It is an important philosophical issue to identify the fundamental ones. AFAIK this remains an open problem. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I have now split off the axioms into a separate section, and added some fragments of the above. Could probably still be improved on. -- Steelpillow (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What is projective Geometry?
Can't write an article if you don't know what it is about.

Algebraic projective geometry redirects here; maybe the headings can help us sort it all out.

Projective Geometry Albecht Beuelspacher and Ute Rosenbaun 2000 cambridge press.

For David Hibert a geometry is a collection of theorems that follow from its axiom system. Albecht side stepped the issue stating " It is an extremely good language to describe a multitude of phenomena inside and outside of mathematics".

Ok so you can abstract something to the point were it is of little value. Lets go back to Algebraic Projective Geometry by J.G. Semple first published in 1952.

A summary: A collection of axioms and theorems makes many geometries possible, we like euclidian geometry because we can use it to build things. We like projective geometry because it is more symmetrical because of duality and because homogeneous coordinates makes the show linear. Projective geometry transforms conics into conics. Projective geometry can be converted to euclidian geometry by introducing the line at infinity and the circular points.

To quote ( page 7): "We thus have two geometries, projective geometry and euclidian geometry, which fit naturally together and between them include most of the classical geometric theorems." To complete the set you need to consider affine geometry.

After the introduction the wikipedia article "affine geometry" has a section called "Intuitive background" perhaps that is the way to go.

Projective Geometry H.S.M. Coxeter 1974 The heading looked promising: What is Projective Geometry Summary: If you discard the compass and use the straight edge what remains; projective geometry.

Ok lets be shot of the mathamatic books. They have lost the plot.

An invitation to 3D Yi MA etc.

"Perspective projection with its roots tracing back to ancient Greek Philosophers and Renaissance artists has been widely studied in projective geometry ( a branch of algebra in mathematics)".

So do go down that path; present projective geometry as a branch of algebra and Perspective projection as one of the many possible applications. I think that is the right thing to do. We still have problems. You could look at projective geometry as part of modern algebra ( you have no idea how dry that is) or part of linear algebra which is a little more interesting; and much more used.

Ramblings by Charles Esson 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed intoduction
Ideas welcome

Describe projective space as per Geometry of multiple Images Oliver Faugeras page 78. State that projective geometry can be built up Syntheticly or Algebraicly Synthetic long histroy, couple of milestone, link to perspective art. Algebraic Homogeneous coordinates, who when.

Charles Esson 12:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * projective plane
 * Axiomatic projective space
 * Real projective plane
 * Complex projective plane
 * Erlangen program

 * I think that the rigorous synthetic, algebraic, and group-theoretic approaches are best for later. I'd prefer that the introduction focus less on rigor and more on intuition. Specifically, that the points and lines of projective geometry can be modeled as lines and planes through the origin in R3, that this matches human visual perception (with the eye at the origin), that the points and lines of the usual Euclidean plane can be embedded into the projective plane by placing the Euclidean plane as a plane in R3 that does not go through the origin and then looking at it from the origin, and that projective geometry models the familiar visual phenomena that the horizon looks like a line and that lines that are parallel in R3 are seen to meet at a vanishing point on the horizon. —David Eppstein 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Planar Geometry
There is no wikipedia article on planar geometry. That would help with sorting it all out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charles Esson (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Found it I think Plane geometry Charles Esson 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 * There isn't? What's wrong with Plane (mathematics) or Euclidean plane? —David Eppstein 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't think they really cover the topic, Planer Geometry is about transformations of the plane; the reason why I think it would help here is you could move the P2 stuff I wrote ( which is an example of a Planer Geometry ) to Planar Geometry reference it and aim this article directly at the mathematics.Charles Esson 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a lot more to geometry than transformations. But if you want transformations of the plane, there's Euclidean plane isometry, Projective transformation, Möbius transformation, Inversion (geometry), or more generally Transformation (mathematics). —David Eppstein 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I see your point. Also found 3D projection. My problem; if you look at Perspective (graphical) no mention is made of the mathematics. If Projective geometry is left to the mathematicians you get the description this article enjoys. The trouble is I am no computer science professor, but I note you are -:) Charles Esson 12:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

False irony
Someone has written, in the context of the projective variation on Euclid's 5th postulate, "which makes the designation of Projective geometry as non-Euclidean ironic". I disagree. Projective, affine (including Euclidean) and hyperbolic geometries each have different forms of the parallel axiom. It is precisely this difference which makes PG "non-Euclidean", just as Euclidean geometry is "non-projective". There is no irony. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Taking a deeper look at this bit:

 * "G2: Every two points, A and B, lie on a unique line, AB. [Axiom 2]

 * "Axiom 2 is thus seen to embody a form of Euclid's 5th postulate (which makes the designation of Projective geometry as non-Euclidean ironic): given a point and a direction, there is a unique line containing the point lying in the given direction."

 * This last statement, after the colon, says nothing about parallelism (Euclid's 5th postulate) - it mentions only one line. Nor does axiom 2 embody parallelism, it embodies its dual - and the duality of PG derives as a consequence of several axioms. In other words, the whole paragraph is quite wrong from beginning to end. I'll just delete it, unless I can think of something useful to replace it with. -- Steelpillow (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Visualising P2
Is this correct: "P2 is used to map a plane into a plane" ? AFAK, P2 is the projective plane (in contrast to the real Euclidean plane R2). Am I wrong? [sorry about the lazy font] -- Steelpillow (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed it to what I believe to be correct. Feel free to educate me. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Axioms of projective geometry
Discussion moved to Talk:Projective_space. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice and flowery, but where are the facts?
The introduction says that "Projective geometry grew out of the principles of perspective art established during the Renaissance period, and was first systematically developed by Desargues in the 17th century..." This has no references or citations. Although it is a very nice sentence, without being verified it needs to be removed. Unless someone can come up with a verifiable source for this quote in the next 21 days then I propose that it be removed. Any objections? Δεκλαν Δαφισ  (talk)  23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I have waited almost two months and there were no objections so I have made the edit. Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, you shouldn't make it a minor edit, anyway. And it didn't need to be removed. The history is not that controversial, and could certainly help someone locate the subject, knowing nothing about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is supposed to contain verifiable fact from reliable sources, and not supposition. Since no reference was given for the statement it is not verifiable. In fact, as a mathematician working in affine and projective geometry I have never heard that "Projective geometry grew out of the principles of perspective art established during the Renaissance period", so it isn't even common knowledge. Would you prefer that Wikipedia's pages be filled with unverifiable tit-bits? If you can find a reference for the statement then please feel free to re-introduce the statement along with its verifiable source. Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  11:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * p.s. You are right: my last edit of the article did not constitute a minor edit. I have re-read the guidelines and shall follow them more closely in the future. Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  11:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * You were justified in removing this after a citation needed template had been sitting there for quite a while. I have improved the wording and given a reference. The first book on perspective geometry, by Desargues, was actually called La Perspectiva, by the way!hgilbert (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unferenced details
With regard to the edit which removed some unferenced claims, does anyone actually have any verifyable sources for this information? It would be quite nice if someone did. Δεκλαν Δαφισ  (talk)  12:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarity and accessibility
The information in this article is interesting and informative, especially to somebody who knows some math.

But put yourself in the position of a random, reasonably intelligent reader, who last took math in high-school. Having heard or read somewhere of Pascal's Hexagon Theorem, said reader looks that up, and discovers that the body of knowledge that theorem belongs to is called "projective geometry". Intrigued, the reader clicks through, only to find: In mathematics, projective geometry is the study of geometric properties which are invariant under projective transformations. This is OK, if a little bombastic, up until we get to which are invariant. To even a very educated layman, this clause is likely to be gibberish.

I'm not sure I have a solution: the given definition is, after all, 100% true, and does have a link to an article about projective transformations. (I fear a rabbit-hole there, but have not checked). I admit that my desire to serve a less-informed reader is a policy and style preference with which others might reasonably disagree.

The "Overview" section is even worse from this point of view. I would be deeply impressed if any less-mathematical reader made it as far as the last paragraph of the overview, which is the first paragraph providing any accessible information to the lay reader.

Do any other editors share these concerns? A repair would require a fairly intensive rewrite, and a lot of good work has been put in here. ACW (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It is certainly unfair to characterise as "gibberish" something that at worst is "jargon". The lead section currently concentrates on one approach, namely that derived from the Erlangen programme. It is a mistake in Wikipedia style to do that, but those who know the subject would easily see that it comes from a respectable textbook tradition (Coxeter, I suspect) and therefore the article does start with a verifiable definition. I'll do some editorial work. What people sometimes mean by "accessibility" is a smudging of actual clarity, you know. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done what I can with the early parts of the article. Readers quite unfamiliar with the subject should really take the hint at the end of the first para of the lead, and look at projective plane. It would be unreasonable to study n-dimensional Euclidean geometry without knowledge of the plane, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Charles Matthews has improved the lede enormously. Remaining concerns (and I do have some) are comparative quibbles.  My use of the term "gibberish" was hedged by "to even a very educated layman".  In that context I stand by the claim; I agree that if I had simply said it was gibberish, that would have been very unfair indeed.

 * So the speed-bumps here are now much smoothed, and the following is a quibble. I am considering whether there would be a gain in moving the characterization by invariants down a couple of paragraphs.  The crucial analogy is that ordinary geometry is to the Euclidean isometry group as projective geometry is to the group of projective transformations, and while that's absolutely central in a mathematical sense, there may be something more welcoming to put in the first paragraph.  Perhaps, "In mathematics, projective geometry is a kind of geometry which considers only the way points and lines intersect, neglecting angles and distances.  It makes fewer assumptions than classical geometry..."  Well, OK, that's headed for a train-wreck (which is why I didn't just edit it in).  But perhaps you see the kind of thing I mean. ACW (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I have added more words to the initial para. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, Charles Matthews has remedied 95% of my original concerns. All I have left are minor quibbles, with which I decline to dilute my praise and thanks.  Nicely done, sir.  ACW (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

angle
The discussion of angles in the introduction is misleading. The claim that angles are not preserved under projective transformations is incorrect in a setting where angles make sense, for instance in real projective geometry. The reference to perspective drawing allegedly "proving" this is confusing. It would be much better to mention length as a basic Euclidean invariant not preserved by projective transformations. Tkuvho (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, the discussion above shows that it was thought to be an improvement to include a discussion of non-invariance early on, to reduce the abstraction. Since angles aren't even invariant under affine transformations, in a clear-cut sense, any changes ought to be well explained. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I was thinking of Mobius transformations as operating on the upperhalf plane, when the angles are preserved. Never mind. Tkuvho (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Steiner / Waldorf Schools
I'm unsure if this merits inclusion somewhere in the article but I first came across projective Geometry while at a Steiner School at about age 12-14 (don't remember exactly). It was taught initially from the perspective (ho ho) of artists, vanishing points at infinity etc then proceeded to delve deeper into the mathematics. I still have some gloriously drawn and coloured images from my excercise books. No protractors or any of that Euclidian nonsense; HB and coloured pencils with a straight edge were all that was required. Some of the theoroms we proved were apparently quite complex & advanced, according to a friend with a maths doctorate I met in adult life.

My main point in making this comment is that there may be some way to write an easier to read but still rigourously truthful introduction by bowldlerising some of the Steiner / Waldorf School's teaching materials for the subject. I am an electronics engineer and lack the expertise to make any coherent edits, just thought I'd point the way for someone who does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.88.119 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Obtaining a surface level grasp of the subject
As someone who does not have a background in mathematics, I found the article not very helpful in obtaining a surface level grasp of the subject matter and would propose that a section be added for those of us with only a cursory level of interest. As an example of such content explaining the difference between Euclidean and Projective geometries:

Imagine you're drawing a scene with objects like buildings and trees.

In regular geometry: You can measure angles between lines (like the corner of a building) and they'll stay the same no matter where you stand or how close you are to the scene.

In projective geometry (think like drawing in perspective): Angles can appear to change depending on your viewpoint! Objects further away might seem closer together, making angles look different compared to how they would be if you were standing right next to them.

Why? Projective geometry focuses on how things appear in relation to each other, not necessarily their exact size or angles, especially when considering perspective. It's like a different way of looking at the world, where angles can be "tricked" by our perspective. Rlneumiller (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I moved this comment to a new section, since the one you were replying to was from 17.5 years ago when the article looked like this. –jacobolus (t) 17:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I know my answer is going to be unsatisfying, but the description given misses a crucial point: there is a collapsing (projection) from three to two dimensions involved. Any presentation of a three-dimensional scene on two dimensions ignores angles and makes many lines that do not intersect into intersecting lines.  What you are referring to as "regular geometry" (at least as I understand it; otherwise, you stay in three dimensions and this fact dominates everything) just leads to affine geometry, which preserves angles in parallel planes, but not of, say, the corners of a cube that is directed towards the plane of depiction (90° angles can become 120° in this example).  The article probably can be written to introduce the idea more accessibly, but doing so is more involved than suggested.  —Quondum 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By collapsing, do you mean a perspectivity or do you meant the algebraic definition of a projective space in terms of a vector space? Neither is limited to 3 dimensions. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All I meant was that the description given above defies interpretation. Nevertheless, it is a challenge to word the lead to be both accurate and accessible.  —Quondum 18:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good technical writers are worth their weight in gold, and the accurate-concise-readable trade-offs are an important part of their work. Absent funding from wikimedia for paid editors, the question is "Can we make it better?" rather than "Can we make it perfect?". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would start with Descriptive geometry, which reflects the historical origins of Projective geometry. That is where the concept of perspectives is relevant, although it is related to perspectivity in prjective geometry..
 * In projective geometry there are no angles or lengths, only things like cross ratios. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be worth starting with a section about motivation/context with a very concrete example or two, including nice pictures. I think our current text in the lead and overview section is disjointed and largely incoherent to someone who doesn't already know what projective geometry is about. One illustrative example might be showing how a checkerboard looks under projective transformation, which we can imagine as the result of turning a camera around which is initially looking straight at a plane tiled with squares. –jacobolus (t) 16:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead is definitely too long: most of the material belongs in Overview, History or your proposed Motivation. I would leave it with little more than }. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to mention that in projective geometry there are no concepts of distance, angle measure, circles, perpendicularity, [...?]; give some very brief nod to the history; say why it is called "projective"; etc.; but I agree that the current lead seems too long, and could benefit from a substantial rewrite. Many of the current sentences are too vague, e.g. the second sentence "This means that, compared to elementary Euclidean geometry, projective geometry has a different setting, projective space, and a selective set of basic geometric concepts." is not concrete or specific enough, which just confuses readers. The idea of "points at infinity" is important, but not the single most fundamentally important thing to emphasize above everything else (as done in the 3rd sentence).
 * I'm surprised that it isn't described here how points in projective space can be identified with lines through the origin in a space of higher dimension, with projective transformations of the projective space corresponding to linear transformations of the higher dimensional linear space (modulo uniform scaling). –jacobolus (t) 18:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should mention "points at infinity" in the history section and should also mention the definition in terms of vector spaces; however, I don't believe that either belongs in the lead. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Some things I think the lead should do include (1) say that projective geometry is relevant to cameras and visual art and historically developed out of study of perspective, (2) explain concretely what a projective transformation is, and (3) say something to the effect that all of the theorems of projective geometry can be proven within the context of Euclidean geometry and originally were, but later projective space was independently defined. –jacobolus (t) 14:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) Projective geometry is relevant or the related descriptive geometry is relevant?
 * (3) And vice versa? Or is that TMI? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Projective geometry was historically called "descriptive geometry", and I don't believe that our current article descriptive geometry necessarily accurately describes (current or historical) usage of that term, but I am not an expert on this topic. The "vice versa" part should definitely be described in this article. Not sure about the lead section. I'd love to see a clear and accessible discussion somewhere on Wikipedia about how Euclidean geometry can be established within hyperbolic geometry, inversive geometry, projective geometry, (...?), and vice versa. I'm not sure what the right place for that is though. In any event, this particular article in my opinion must somewhere clearly describe projective transformations, the cross-ratio, the geometrical relation of projective geometry to the geometry of linear spaces and to spherical geometry, some of the most important theorems of projective geometry. Not sure quite which of these parts should go in the lead. I wonder if we can hunt up a good accessible introduction somewhere in a book / paper to borrow the collection of basic ideas and high-level organization to start with. –jacobolus (t) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be enought to show the derivation of
 * Affine from projective
 * Hyperbolic from projective
 * Euclidean from projective
 * Elliptic from projective
 * Projective from Euclidean
 * I wouldn't say more about the above in the lead than a short "several other important geometries can be defined in trms of projective geomewtry; see section foo." The topics you list are clearly desirable, but it's not clear that any belong in the lead.-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree this doesn't need any detailed discussion in the lead section per se. The lead section could just say something along the lines of "Several theorems of projective geometry were originally established within Euclidean geometry, and projective geometry can be seen as an offshoot of Euclidean geometry where the metrical concepts of distances and angle measures are ignored; conversely, Euclidean geometry can be established in terms of projective geometry by defining metrical concepts in terms of projective ones." (Or maybe tweaked for clarity/accuracy. I wonder if we can find a clear summary statement in a reliable source.) –jacobolus (t) 20:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree this doesn't need any detailed discussion in the lead section per se. The lead section could just say something along the lines of "Several theorems of projective geometry were originally established within Euclidean geometry, and projective geometry can be seen as an offshoot of Euclidean geometry where the metrical concepts of distances and angle measures are ignored; conversely, Euclidean geometry can be established in terms of projective geometry by defining metrical concepts in terms of projective ones." (Or maybe tweaked for clarity/accuracy. I wonder if we can find a clear summary statement in a reliable source.) –jacobolus (t) 20:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Antecedents
The article mentions Desargues, but omits earlier figures who did important work, e.g., Dürer, Pappus. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Projective geometry


text:
Campbeltown

Campbeltown (Ceann Loch Chille Chiarain or Ceann Locha) is a town and former royal burgh in Argyll and Bute, Scotland. It lies by Campbeltown Loch on the Kintyre Peninsula. Campbeltown became an important centre for Scotch whisky, and a busy fishing port.

The 2018 population estimate was 4,600 indicating a reduction since the 2011 census.

History
Originally known as Kinlochkilkerran (an anglicization of the Gaelic, which means 'head of the loch by the kirk of Ciarán'), Campbeltown was renamed in the 17th century as Campbell's Town after Archibald Campbell (Earl of Argyll) was granted the site in 1667. Campbeltown Town Hall was completed in 1760.

Economy
In addition to the benefits of distilling, and whisky tourism, there were two major employers in 2018, Campbeltown Creamery and CS Wind UK, who provided "a substantial portion of the Campbeltown area’s high skilled jobs and are a vital part of the local economy," according to the Scottish government. A report in October 2019 had raised warning signs for the economy of Argyll & Bute; the report also suggested that up to 70 jobs at CS Wind UK could be lost but did not specify a time frame. Both companies confirmed the prediction of job redundancies, leading the Scottish government to hold an emergency summit in November 2019 to discuss steps that might be taken for improving the local economy. Participants included Argyll & Bute Council, Highlands & Islands Enterprise, trades unions and local employers. After the summit, a "working group" was formed in late November 2019.

The number of dairy farms supplying Campbeltown Creamery reduced from 147 to 28 and the number of dairy cows fell from 6600 to 2500. Consequently, the Creamery became unviable. A plan by a small number of local dairy farmers to take over the running of the Creamery failed in early December 2019. The milk produced in Kintyre is now transported by road tankers to Lockerbie and Mull of Kintyre Cheddar is no longer available.

By early December 2019, CS Wind UK had declared 22 jobs redundant. The Scottish government was working with the company to search for long-term solutions. Preliminary discussions did not produce optimism about the future stability of the company. The Unite union indicated that while CS Wind had been profitable, it was not receiving an adequate number of orders to sustain full employment. The plant was shut down in 2019 and production shifted to CS Wind's cheaper Vietnam plant in Phú Mỹ.

Whisky
Campbeltown is one of five areas in Scotland categorised as a distinct malt whisky producing region, and is home to the Campbeltown single malts. At one point it had over 30 distilleries and proclaimed itself "the whisky capital of the world". However, a focus on quantity rather than quality, and the combination of Prohibition and the Great Depression in the United States, led to most distilleries going out of business. Today only three active distilleries remain in Campbeltown: Glen Scotia, Glengyle, and Springbank.

Campbeltown is a "protected locality" for Scotch Whisky distilling under the UK's Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009.

The folk song titled "Campbeltown Loch, I wish you were whisky" is based on the town's history in this industry.

Climate
As with the rest of Scotland, Campbeltown experiences a maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters. The nearest official Met Office weather station for which online records are available is at Campbeltown Airport/RAF Machrihanish, about 3 mi west of the town centre.

The lowest temperature to be reported in recent years was -12.9 C during December 2010.

Culture
Campbeltown boasts a museum and a heritage centre. The museum has a varied collection of items from Campbeltown's past, and prehistoric items excavated from sites around Kintyre, such as axeheads, jewellery and combs. The 19th-century building, by John James Burnet, also houses the Registrars office and Customer Service Point for Argyll and Bute council and has plaques or exhibits related to famous Kintyre people: for example, William McTaggart and William Mackinnon. Near the museum is the cinema known as the Wee Picture House, a small but distinctive Art Nouveau building of the Glasgow School dating from 1913 and believed to be the oldest surviving purpose-built cinema in Scotland. These buildings are on the waterfront, as is a 14th-century Celtic cross that also served as a mercat cross.

St Kieran (Ciarán of Clonmacnoise) lived in this area before the town existed. A cave named after him can be visited at low tide, as can the cave on nearby Island Davaar where pilgrims and tourists go to see a 19th-century crucifixion painting.

Campbeltown also hosts the annual Mull Of Kintyre Music Festival, which has seen acts ranging from up-and-coming local bands to well-established groups such as Deacon Blue, The Stranglers and Idlewild perform.

The Kintyre Songwriters Festival, a fairly low key annual gathering aimed at promoting the wealth and variety of original music across the area, which started in 2009. The festival is held during the last weekend of May and is open to anyone interested in performing.

On Friday 16 June 2006, First Minister Jack McConnell flew to Campbeltown to officially open Campbeltown's new 'Aqualibrium' Centre. Aqualibrium, designed by Page\Park Architects, replaced the old Campbeltown swimming pool, which was previously closed due to safety concerns; the centre houses Campbeltown's library (with the old building being the museum only), swimming pool, gym, conference centre and 'Mussel Ebb' Cafe.

The Kintyre Camanachd are a local shinty team that belongs to the Camanachd Association.

The local amateur football team, Campbeltown Pupils AFC, are members of the West of Scotland Football League Division 4 which largely comprises clubs based in the Greater Glasgow and Inverclyde areas, requiring the Campbeltown team to make a round trip of over 200 miles for away fixtures most weekends.

Argyll FM is a local radio station based in Campbeltown on 106.5, 107.1 and 107.7.

In May 2012 Campbeltown and Dunoon were jointly named in a report by the Scottish Agricultural College as the rural places in Scotland most vulnerable to a downturn. The "vulnerability index" ranked 90 Scottish locations according to factors associated with economic and social change.

Transport
Campbeltown Airport is near the town, and has a scheduled service to/from Glasgow International Airport on weekdays and some summer Sundays.

The town is the westernmost town in the island of Great Britain (if the port of Mallaig is not counted as a town). It has the population of a large village, but lays claim to its town status based on its port and its central close grid of streets. Its position near the end of a long peninsula makes for a time-consuming road journey, and to some extent the area relies on sea and air transport, like the Inner Hebrides. However it is linked to the rest of Scotland by the A83 (to Tarbet) and A82 (from Tarbet to Glasgow). Bus service is provided by West Coast Motors, who also operate services to Glasgow for Scottish Citylink.

Ferries sail from Campbeltown to Ballycastle in Northern Ireland, operated by Kintyre Express. The service, which runs to Ballycastle every Friday to Monday during summer months and on Mondays and Fridays during the winter months, commenced in 2011.

In 2006 a foot passenger ferry operated by Kintyre Express ran between Campbeltown and Troon every Monday, Wednesday and Friday with a crossing time of one hour in calm weather. By 2007 this ferry no longer ran, although the vessel can be chartered privately.

Starting 23 May 2013, Caledonian MacBrayne began operating a ferry service across the Firth of Clyde to Ardrossan, calling at Brodick on Saturdays.

Campbeltown was linked to Machrihanish by a canal (1794 – mid-1880s) that was superseded by the Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway, which closed in 1932. The railway, which was originally built to serve the Machrihanish Coalfield, ran from Campbeltown railway station to Machrihanish railway station.

Language
Campbeltown is one of the few communities in the Scottish Highlands where the Scots language predominated in recent centuries, rather than the previously widespread Scottish Gaelic, an enclave of Lowland Scots speech surrounded by Highland Scottish speech.

Notable people

 * Alexander Beith, minister and author in Gaelic and English. Free Church Moderator
 * Hugh Henry Brackenridge, American writer, lawyer, judge, and justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
 * John Campbell Mitchell, landscape artist
 * T. Lindsay Galloway, civil and mining engineer and coal master of Argyll Colliery
 * James Gulliver, founder of Argyll Foods
 * Sir William Mackinnon, 1st Baronet, Scottish ship-owner and businessman
 * Norman Macleod (Caraid nan Gaidheal), Scottish divine and miscellaneous writer, served at the parish of Campbeltown, father of Norman Macleod (below)
 * Norman Macleod, Scottish clergyman and author
 * Angus MacVicar, author and broadcaster
 * Neil McBain, professional footballer and football manager
 * Paul McCartney, musician, singer, songwriter, ex-member of the Beatles and an ex-leader of Wings, owns a farm (named High Park) near the town
 * Jill McGown, British writer of mystery novels
 * Duncan McNab McEachran, Canadian veterinarian and academic
 * Dan McPhail, professional footballer who made 437 appearances in the Football League
 * William McTaggart, landscape artist
 * Denzil Meyrick, author of Kinloch novels
 * John Neil Munro, journalist and author of biographies
 * Rodney Pattisson, English yachtsman
 * George Pirie, artist who was associated with the Glasgow Boys in the 1880s
 * Kieran Prendergast, diplomat and a former Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs at the United Nations
 * Bob Pursell, footballer who played for Liverpool F.C. in the early 20th century
 * Peter Pursell, footballer. he won one cap for Scotland in 1914
 * Very Rev James Curdie Russell, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland minister of Campbeltown
 * Angus Stewart, Lord Stewart, lawyer and Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Supreme Courts of Scotland
 * John Stewart, Australian politician
 * Gerald Tait, Olympic sailor
 * Lawrence Tynes, placekicker in the National Football League. Grew up in Campbeltown when his father was with the US Navy
 * George Wylie, member of the Wisconsin State Assembly and State Senate

Town twinnings
Campbeltown is twinned with Kümmersbruck, Bavaria, Germany.

title: Campbeltown


text:
User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2005

Germany
Hello Gidonb! There's a reply for you regarding your post as of Jan 29 on my talk page. Heimdal 11:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello Heimdal. I replied, but never got a response. Only more vandalism on Germany. Please also see my reponse to User:Victor_Hugo. Regards, gidonb  14:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sbarro article
My pleasure. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Offensive images
Hi Gidon: Please see Images and media for deletion for vote on offensive Nazi propaganda "image"

 * Thank you. IZAK 09:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Anytime. BTW a simple link would have done the job. gidonb  01:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Gidon: See Images and media for deletion about the offensive Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg This highly offensive anti-Israel "caricature" spoofing Jaws that depicts the POV that Israel is the the aggressive "shark" and that the Palestinians are poor little innocent "victims". Thanks. IZAK 22:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Israelis
Hi Gidon, please see current discussion at Template talk:Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 07:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"Thank you for your understanding"
I actually see your point, but I just want to let you know that saying "Thank you for your understanding" to someone who has not already agreed with you or expressed an understanding is pretty condescending. I'm not sure if English is your first language or not, so I wanted to let you know that. I do see why you think adding that English is a Germanic language isn't relevant to a general article about Germany, but the "Thank you for your understanding" before you know my position on the matter I can do without. Moncrief 02:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is not my first language, Dutch is. Although I did not know of any wrongdoing, I will take your word for it, and thus apologize. gidonb

Heads up!
Heimdal is calling you out on the Germany talk page. He's thinking about starting arbitration proceedings against you for vandalism if you don't explain what you think is "extremely biased" about his version by Tuesday. Just wanted to let you know. Infamouskitty 03:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for letting me know. I am back home, so I could address some of his remarks. Because of his very rude language, behavior and threats I usually feel disinclined to start a direct discussion with this person. I hope that the other participants understand. Further, all my edits to the article were explained in the edit summary and in line with the previous critique about the bias and length of this article. I will see what I can do to further illimunate them. gidonb  12:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Germany
Sorry, for my mass revert. Your edits did not look good but I guess I was wrong. Andries 07:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry gidonb, no offense intended. I did plead ignorance, and I do recognize you as a good editor. My statement about your bias was informed by the allegation that you insisted on inlining an image of Holocaust victims into the Germany page at one point (it should be clear to you that this will just not fly, over time). You must understand, however, that you are in a bilateral conflict with Heimdal. His faith is just as good as yours, you simply disagree on a few points. I recommend you work this out in an rfc. You were acting from a position of strength, since your version was protected, twice. You seemed less than eager to earnestly discuss issues as long as your version was safely protected. What we want, however, is an article that has a foundation in a consensus, so the community will be prepared to defend it, so we won't have to defend it by protection. It will be tedious to work out the issues, but it will be just as tedious now as it will be in two weeks. A couple of reverts do no harm: the article remains unchanged, but people learn to collaborate. You should be prepared to compromise. I imagine you will be less adamant about removing reference to the Geman sound shift than you are about including the Holocaust death toll? So why don't you just yield the sound change tidbit, and leave it to others to decide whether it has a place. etc. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * however, if you completely disagree with me, you are of course free to request protection at RfP. If another admin decides to reprotect, I will not act unilaterally again. dab (ᛏ) 10:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe your last action eternalizes the issues at the Germany page. I am getting fed up with it anyway, just like the others. Too many insults, including from you, too little cooperation. Nobody seems to care anymore about what is going on. Perhaps a lost case. The holocaust will be deluted again, other genocides ommitted, the history flooded with details. When some administrators work unevenhanded, what remains left to do? It only proves what Heimdal claimed about you to begin with. And stop calling me names, this is rude behavior. gidonb 10:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * well, if I did call you names inadvertently, I do apologize sincerely. But I am not aware that I did. I have no agenda on the Germany page except getting it unprotected. You do understand, of course, that the Germany page does not focus on genocides? It gives brief references, to all sorts of topics, including genocides. If your version doesn't stand a chance of surviving without protection, it is apparently unsuitable for Wikipedia. Of course your version will be "diluted", i.e. it will be "edited mercilessly", just like you agreed when you posted it. If you think that unprotecting a page "eternalizes" issues, I am honestly not sure that Wikipedia is the right place for your contributions, eternal change is one of its key principles. I do not want to bother you, and I'll leave you alone if you don't reply, but unless you explain how I am supposed to have insulted you, I am afraid I cannot take the accusation to heart. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * also, if you think I acted unevenhandedly as an admin, I invite you to leave a note on WP:AN/I to get the attention of, and input from, other admins. regards, dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If you by your own admitting know very little about this page and its issues, why do you bother to deal with it? The problem of the Germany page is that Wikipedians are not free to contribute and the content seems to be dictated by one person (see many references this point on its talk page, including its history). Whatever one writes, it is reverted without explanations. The eternal change is what I demanded, and you just ruined. Since I agreed to the compromise and fixed the error on the Holocaust page (it was in disagreement with the source it referred to) and all other compromise proposals, I am not being taken serious and furthermore you have the cheek to suggest I should leave Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your intervention, Dbachmann. gidonb 11:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * well, you are welcome, although I don't know what you are talking about. pages should only be protected in an emergency, and there doesn't seem to be an emergency. My 'intervention' ends there, your edits have the same status as everybody else's. dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course you don't know what I am talking about. By unprotecting before we came to some understanding, you undermined the effort to resolve the basic problems of the page. You also did not bother to react to Heimdal frequent insulting me. From your frequent postings elsewehere, I understand that you were mostly concerned with the interests of the person who approached you and who claimed you operate on his behalf. I will stop the the discussion at this stage, reserving the right to make a statement at the link you provided. I doubt whether it will be useful after your latest action. Also I strongly dislike these "you said this I said that" discussions. I am a man of peace. gidonb 20:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * as is evidenced by your continued paranoid bickering against me on Talk:Germany? This is really childish. If I did something wrong, come up front and ask for community feedback (aka RfC). If not, just get over it. I am a bona fide editor, and acted with a good conscience. Your venomous side remarks are just a show of bad taste. You want the page protected? Do as I told you, go over to WP:RfP, and ask for protection, announcing the move on talk. If you do that, I may ask for unprotection, but I'll not unprotect by myself. If you could forgo your sulking, this would just be Wikipedia business as usual. And no, I am not on Heimdal's side, see talk. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

IDF Chiefs of Staff
Hello Gidon: As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I think you are missing only five articles in this series ;-) Cheers, shavua tov and good luck! gidonb  12:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC) I correct that statement, you are missing only three.  gidonb  12:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I am glad you liked the translation. I have to finish some personal work tonight, but I will be happy to get to it tomorrow after work. Danny 01:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck! gidonb 01:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the solid input, although the David Elazar article could use some help. IZAK 07:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Pollard article
I had only intended to remove this quote from the article: , which was clearly vandalism. I must have opened the article to edit before you made your changes, and I didn't intend to call your quote deletion vandalism. Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandalism! ElBenevolente 21:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. I felt I had to set the record straight. I am relieved to know that I am not the only to pull the trigger sometimes too fast. gidonb 01:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel
Shalom Gidon: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikiportal/India, Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany
Done. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you! gidonb  17:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gidon. There is still more to go on Dado, but I will get it done this evening.

 * Hi Danny, take it easy and good luck! gidonb  23:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
Hi, I received this request: "Banu Qurayza I'd be interested in your thoughts, and if you have time, your help in editing.Briangotts 02:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)" Are you able to take a look at it, it's also being "disputed". Thanks. IZAK 03:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Izak. Sorry, but I can not help you with this one. I know far less on this issue than what is stated in the article. gidonb

Yigal Amir
Please stop reverting this artice. I know he was convicted of murder by the Israeli court. But some people in Israel consider him as a hero and not as a murderer. The court is not always right, the court can make some mistakes sometimes. Please avoid using the word "murder" in this article. --Haham hanuka 15:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Gal Vardi
This article doesn't have any supporting information, how do you know that it is all fake? You should list it on VFD with this info. - Stoph 23:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The person never existed, unless it is the name of the author or some buddy of him. The text is nonsensical. Somebody is obviously pulling our leg. gidonb  01:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose I too quickly assume good faith - Stoph 01:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Jews VfD
Your solution was not quite correct. It was a 24. anon who made the 2nd 68. anon edit, using the previous 68. anon edit's IP address as a sig, of sorts, but the first 68. vote was recorded correctly as having been made by someone w/ a 68. IP addy. Hence my question, "what is going on here?!" If anything, the 2nd 68. vote should be unstricken, and 24. should be blocked or at least warned against vandalism. I'm too close to the whole thing, having been arguing with him for some time now on the List's Talk: page. Thoughts? Recommendations? Tomer TALK 08:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Tomer, if my edit was not correct, please improve it. I edited to the best of knowledge and if you know better, I would like you to correct it. gidonb  08:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello. I was going to bed.  :-)  I'm up now.  I'll check on it in a bit.  Tomer TALK  19:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I urge you to reconsider your vote; see the talk page, specifically the latest discussion between Tomer and User 24 about breaking this down into several smaller lists. freestylefrappe 20:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Freestylefrappe, that is one of many good ideas I can come up with to improve the list. But even then, this list could serve as the root to all these more spcialized lists plus the country lists, also giving some examples of all. Therefore, if you agree with these ideas, I will urge you to review your vote. gidonb  21:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"independent court of justice"
What is an "independent court of justice"? Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Please see on your page. Please polish the language as needed. gidonb  20:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You should look at the Whistleblower page as well; it seems to have a spurious entry. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of violating the three revert rule
That's a violation of policy. --Joodoo 05:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Only if the edits are according to our rules. They are not. gidonb  05:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Read the policy. Three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. --Joodoo 05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I just asked for independent advice. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt. gidonb  05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that since your edits are vandalism, the three revert rule does not apply. gidonb  05:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You are now violating the No personal attacks and Assume good faith policies. You will be blocked from editing if you continue in this manner. Last warning. --Joodoo 06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This is only my understanding from reading the rules, I do not accuse you of anything. As I told you, I have asked an independent party to look into the chain of events. gidonb  06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I regret these accuations which seem to violate the rules you are referring to. All I said is in good faith and not a personal attack. gidonb 06:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't worry about that editor; it was just another sockpuppet of banned User:Alberuni. By the way, you might be interested in this: Votes for deletion/Kempler video. Jayjg (talk)  20:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Tibi-and-Teebi
Not sure, but I think they may be two different persons. Shem(talk) 21:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You are right. Thank you for pointing this out! gidonb  02:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should put short exchange-dabs at the top of each article, in case someone else has wondered the same thing? "For the physician, see," and "for the Israeli politician, see," etc. Shem(talk) 08:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea to me! These are two Palestinian physicians with exactly the same name, but they transcribe it differently. gidonb  08:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Care to clean up Teebi's article?  Between the two of us, it could at least become a respectable stub. Shem(talk) 08:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have put it in text form and added titles. You are welcome to reduce the PR level if you like. Regards, gidonb  02:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Vacation
nice to hear u had a good time. maybe this is the place to discuss some things sometime. greetz Aleichem 02:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Aleichem, thanks for asking about our trip. We were away for 24 days. Since it is hard to kick a habbit, I did edit a bit at en.wikipedia when I happened to be near a computer. At nl.wikipedia I continued to vote, revert vandalism and answer questions. We can discuss anything you like. I am concerned with the sudden increase in POV-pushing at nl.wikipedia. Best regards, gidonb  03:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW, I never knew that you disagreed with some of the edits at Red Cross, before I put the POV warning on top of that page. gidonb  04:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * i am suspicious with everything lander does. Aleichem 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * PS as u speak english better than i do, would u plz be so kind to read Camille Huysmans over to see there are not too many mistakes in it? tnx. Aleichem 22:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I started working on it, but still am not finished. I was very puzzled about several facts. To my disgrace I have to admit that I know very little about Belgium. I am sure this would have been different if I had grown up in the Netherlands. From a distance, however, I only sort of kept up to date with the happenings in the land of cheese and windmills. gidonb  01:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

racism
hi there, any pb's on the dutch wiki? this night was awful. form 13:20 yesterday till 07:00 this morning i was busy with looking at tech pb's being solved. now everyting looks ok. fr: and jp: had pb's too Aleichem 09:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Ivor Linton
Hi Gidonb, I recently noticed that you wrote "WARNING: THIS ARTICLE MAY BE A HOAX **** " at the top of the above-mentioned article. Although it is important to voice concerns about validity of claims made on Wikipedia, writing "WARNING: THIS ARTICLE MAY BE A HOAX ****" at the top of an article is not the way to do it. For this purpose, there are the Talk pages (which I see you also used) as well numerous Templates.--Carabinieri 14:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Carabinieri. You are right. I ran into this article, felt I had to warn readers but could not find the template right away and really had to move on. Accidently I forgot all about it until I found your message. Although I live in the US, I happen to be more active on the Dutch Wikipedia than here. Nevertheless, I did exposed several hoaxes at the English Wikipedia, recently even a set of hoax articles and edits which went by unnoticed for quite a while. I guess I am more of a subject matter freak, than of format, but I do agree that the latter should also be done right. Best regards, gidonb  23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Heya. Although vigilance against hoaxes is of the utmost importance, in this particular case you're wrong. It was quite difficult to find independent info on the existence of Mr Linton, because of Wikimirrors muddling the waters, but this article, which refers to original source documents from the Israel Diplomatic Archives, clearly indicates that Linton was a real person. Check the bibliography. I hope that I can convince you to change your vote. DS 13:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dutch frontpage
i reverted ur addition to the dutch frontpage. gtz Aleichem 16:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * yep for that last reason, gtz Aleichem 06:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand. Please explain your changes to my edits as you do for for all registered users. I also feel a little uncomfortable about the fact that you started reacting here in English (or on nl.wikipedia in English) to my edits on the Dutch Wikipedia. It feels as if I do not belong. I am sure you meant well and perhaps only would like to practice your English. We agree about Lander. gidonb  01:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd
Hi Gidon, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli settlement
What are you trying to accomplish with your edits at this article? It seems like vandalism to me. Marsden 17:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Why vandalism? I did not erase any text, just hid the utterly mistaken text to deal with the article's accuracy problem. 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Blanking of page, followed by insertion of your own POV in order to make a point constitutes an obvious breach of Wikipedia guidelines and I consider it vandalism. Please stop replacing all previous content in the article with your own absurd POV-spin. Whether you do this knowingly or not is not my concern, you know how to edit articles and the vandalized version I reverted was this: Cybbe 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Calling my in detail explained edits, which deal with a serious problem in an article, "vandalism" is totally against the rules and the community spirit of Wikipedia and ruin the good atmosphere in which collegues to this project are suposed to work together at improving various articles. Please stop this undesirable behavior as soon as you can! gidonb  19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the existing name (Israeli settlement) makes much more sense, that is the common term - I've restored it to that name until consensus on some other name can be reached. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It may be common, but from a social science perspective it also plain wrong. However, I do respect your decision since I did not mean to impose my perspective, but wanted to solve a discrepancy between basic concepts taught from elementary school onwards and the concepts used at Wikipedia. I guess my case did not get trough. gidonb  03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand; like the term "Occupied territory" itself, it's another case where common use seems to have defeated NPOV. I would appreciate it if you still kept an eye on the article, though, some people are still trying to insert POV into it. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I will do my best. Lately I have been spotting mostly problems at the articles related to the Rabin murder. Is this video guy allowed to accuse me of murder? Also, after I stopped checking for a while, I noticed the the holocaust was deleted from the Germany page again. En.wikipedia is somewhat of a mess. Too much POV-pushing and too legalistic. Believe it or not, on nl.wikipedia things are actually improving somewhat. Lately the public has diversified a little and there seems to be somewhat more of consensus against pov-pushing. They are short of moderators however, and want me join that team. I am in no hurry but may join sometime in the future. That would mean I would have to cut back here, because I am already spending too many hours on Wikipedia. All the best, gidonb  03:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews
As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Arab-Israeli Conflict
Hi Gidon, please take a look at History of Arab-Israeli Conflict. Is it needed since it is basically a somewhat exanded version of the Arab-Israeli conflict article? I put a "merge to" sign on it. What do you think? Thanks. IZAK 09:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mormon_jew
Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Kempler video and Rabin murder conspiracy
Hey Gidon, no hard feelings, there was an article in Ynet.co.il about the inciteful stuff that I put on my web sites against Shimon Peres. When ynet wrote that it gave the whole Israeli media the green light. Stuff is happening, this may not last many more weeks. Regardless, keep up the good work on wiki and take care. David Rutstein. Kempler video 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC) channel 2 had TV program that found 3rd hole in Rabin's shirt. Amir demands retrial based on new evidence. Tom Segev, Haaretz newspapers, demands investigation. Rabin's head bodyguard demands reinvestigation. Many media outlets are now pushing conspiracy. Including entire right wing, religous media. Maariv just did big expose on conspiracy with Barry Chamish. This thing is over. I do have a Knesset member lined up that will push in Knesset and of course we are talking worldwide media.Kempler video 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC

Revert war on Israel and West bank
Take a look at the antics of User:Aabaas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aabaas recently in Israel and West Bank articles. Thanks IZAK 07:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * In these summaries he confesses to POV pushing. He should be warned and perhaps blocked. Bye, gidonb  13:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Your attention requested
Please see Talk:Jordan. Tom e r TALK 06:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Crazy changes by Gilgamesh
Unfortunately, User:Gilgamesh is now imposing his own views by changing the transliterated Hebrew names of articles with redirects to unreadable Hebrew names and fonts, as if his criteria are the only ones to reckon with, when there are in fact several. My computer, as I am sure many others' as well, does not pick up his type of fonts, and thus he is messing up articles such as Safed, Hadera, Holon, Afula, Arad, Israel and many others defacing them and making them unreadable on the web. He is going to DESTROY the normal usage of Wikipedia's Hebrew transliterations to satisfy his own needs without there being any consensus. Common usages are being thrown out in favor of obscure and pedantic academic usages familiar to only a handful of unkown academics. He should be called upon to stop BEFORE he rushes to do further damage without any consensus being reached. All his changes should therefore be reverted. See all his recent contributions via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilgamesh I thank you for your interest, and urge all readers here to act. IZAK 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions
At the present time there is a serious discussion taking place, aiming at some consensus that will result in "official" Wikipedia guidelines about how Hebrew should be used and written in Wikipedia articles. Because of your past or ongoing interest in these type of articles with Hebrew words in them, your attention is called to Naming conventions (Hebrew) TO  MAKE  YOUR  VIEWS  KNOWN  AND  TO  ADD  TO  THE  DISCUSSION  BEFORE  THE  "DOORS  ARE  SHUT"  PLEASE  SEE  THE  RELATED  DISCUSSION  PAGE  AT Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)  Thank you! IZAK 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yigal Amir
Please DO NOT revert articles without a reason. My edits were made to remove POV. --Haham hanuka 17:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * So were my edits. Please do not use the minor edits option when you substantially change the contents of an article. This is against the WP rules. gidonb  17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: User has been warned for his behavior in this particular case by an alert moderator and since has been permanently blocked. gidonb 02:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish history stub
Hi Gidon: Please see, and cast your vote at concerning Category:Jewish history-related stubs. Thanks. IZAK 10:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry Izak, but the move seems a good idea. Its only purpose is to make the categories consistent. gidonb 10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, and I did change my own vote after they explained what they wanted to do. IZAK 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello!
Thanks for that revert! See you around :-) --HappyCamper 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You are most welcome. Deleting racism brings me special joy! ;-) gidonb 00:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormon view of the House of Joseph
Hi Gidon: Here is another mish-mash for you to take a look at: Mormon view of the House of Joseph. Best wishes, IZAK 18:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA! :-)

תודה רבה, גדעון...Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D  Tom e rtalk

You are most welcome. Thank you for the nice thank you note! gidonb 06:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

New vote for Tanakh moved
Gidon: You can find the NEW vote to rename Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh --> Category:Tanakh now located at Categories for deletion Thanks again. IZAK 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Tel Aviv
Gidon, Please, when you make more than 1 or 2 changes to a page, like Tel Aviv, make those changes by clicking the preview button, not the save one. By clicking save 18 times you clog the history and make it VERY hard for an editor (like me) to track the changes made to the page in an attempt to help improve. Thanks for understanding!!! Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello Sebastian, I am sorry to hear that you got confused by the number of edits. This time I made fewer edits - again well explained - so I hope that you'll be able to keep better track! Regards, gidonb 23:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You did great this time and I greatly appreciate it! Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: Kindly reply in my talk page too, so WP will let me know that I "Have a message". :)
 * Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If some states regard a city as a capital of another state that fact has to be stated in an article about that city up front. Not to do so is both POV and unencyclopædic. I happen to disagree with their designation of Tel Aviv as Iserael's capital but it cannot be left out from the opening of the page because millions of people worldwide hear it referred to as being the Israeli capital daily. (The BBC did it only last night yet again.) At one stage it was even described as the Israeli capital on the official website of the Athens Olympics. Any removal of such an important fact about the city will be reverted on sight. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Just some background: Why did you decide to turn to me with your personal opinions on this matter? Are you certain you understood my edits and did not confuse me with someone else? gidonb 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You have reverted a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. That merits a block. I won't do it but stop reverting or you might find yourself blocked. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * No I most certainly did not. This is a false allegation. Please stop making false allegations. I await your apologies. Please write them wherever these false allegations are made. 67.176.185.74 01:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know if this is you, but here is the log:

 * 1)  17:56, 28 December 2005 Gidonb (Please all stop politicizing this article. This matter is already discussed in the text. Discussions on the status of Jerusalem as capital of Israel - pros and cons - should be held there.)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 17:50, 28 December 2005 Gidonb (PLEASE ALL STOP THIS FIGHT. This issue has been
 * 3) (cur) (last) 13:36, 28 December 2005 Gidonb

My mistake, it is 3 already. In any event, I WON'T block you since it would be unethical. But somebody else may choose to. Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Your call for others to block me is also unethical. As are your false accusations. gidonb 01:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the edits twice. I await your apologies. gidonb 01:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * APOLOGIES??? You should be thankful I'm letting you know! Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: I am taking your user page off my watchlist. If you have something to say, use my talk page as I am using yours. Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to set this straight for the record, my third edit of which Sebastiankessel alleges is a revert, was a removal of mistaken information that had nothing to do with the battle which pro and anti Jerusalem as the capital of Israel regrettably fight out at the Tel Aviv page. This matter is discussed on the Tel Aviv talk page.

 * Distressed? Dude, if this issue gets you distressed then you should reevaluate your priorities. I will not offer any apologies for actually trying to help you. If you don't like it, so be it. Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Making false accusations consists of no help. I tried reduce all POV on the Tel Aviv page and you just increased it, falsely alleging that I had broken a rule - while you know this is a perfect lie - and trying to mislead others into blocking me. You totally blew it this time and anyone who will check out the facts will see it for her/himself. You should be ashamed of yourself trying to smear the reputation of someone with such a perfect reputation in dispute resolution and POV and hoax fighting as me. gidonb 02:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Dude, you're paranoid. Smear reputations? Mislead others? No admin will block you without checking facts and if they do it solely on THIS message, shame on them. If I wanted you blocked, I would've done it myself, posted it on WP:ANI or proclaimed it in the Tel-Aviv page. If you think admins will track every user talk page to see who might've violated 3RR you're sorely mistaken. Good bye. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Since you are clearly part of this POV war over the Tel Aviv pages - which I tried to reduce - and you did not apologize for your false accusations, I have asked that your brute behavior in this affair will be investigated. gidonb 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a clue about what you mean. G'luck. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. gidonb 02:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tanakh / Torah / Old Testament
Hi Gidon: Please see my discussions with User:Fischersc at User talk:IZAK, your input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi IZAK, I don't know if I can contribute much right now. As you know I am in favor of using shared categories. This should be accomplished three-sidedly, as the contents of the Tanakh/Old Testament differ for Catholics/Orthodox (between them differences are minor), Protestants and Jews. I would like to refer everyone to the Dutch model, where I actually gave up using the categories Tanakh so that a common language could be reached. Beyond the desirable sake of finding a common language in a shared project and a little alteration when writing articles (as an art style), I do not see why the Tanakh but not the Old Testament should be called Hebrew Bible. This would be Christian POV. gidonb 12:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2005