User talk:PL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Happy Wiki-ing. 2 Comment on your user page 3 Comment style 4 Question 5 Need you to look over something 6 Side question 7 Theodore7 8 Please take the linguistic conversation to your talk pages 8.1 Qui est cet imbécile? 9 Award 10 So Bareste or Erika Cheetham?

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Comment on your user page

Hi, PL; I hope you'll excuse my leaving a comment on your user page. It belongs more properly on your discussion page, but I wanted my reply to the earlier remark to be visable in context. If you like, it would be entirely correct to move the whole thing here to your discussion page. Best regards, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you mean:

== I think you ought to stop referring to Jews as Swine ==

PL, you really should be careful in your Nostradamus entries. Referring to Jews as "Swine" and suggesting perhaps Nostradamus came from this generation of "swine" as translated in Spanish. What is this junk? Do your realize children and students use Wikipedia?

== Swine? ==

Clearly PL was not referring to Jews as swine, but was describing a pejorative epithet in use at the time, Marranos, which incidently has its own page. The passage in context is available in the page history, like everything else.

If the history of this page is correct, User:Theodore7 neglected to sign the comment above. I can't imagine what misunderstanding could have led him to think that PL was himself applying this epithet. It can't be an attempt to bully him with false suggestions of anti-semitism, because any reasonable man would know that wouldn't work. Maybe a computer glitch has somehow attributed the remark above to the wrong user. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. It's typical of that particular user, I'm afraid. Now you know the sort of thing I'm up against! --PL 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

PS, you may have noticed that he then added (still on my User Page, and still unsigned!):

I would not go so far as to say that PL, as you know quite well what you've been up to. Suggest you not insult the intelligence of others who are not blinded by your narrow views.

Seems that he's a bit confused about what 'insulting people's intelligence' actually means, eh?! ;) --PL 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment style

Hi, I just wanted to remark that you seem to always break up people's comments in order to add your own replies at the appropriate place. I know this is standard eg on Usenet or in email, but on Wikipedia it's unusual. It's a bit confusing (partly because it is unusual), and in general it would be better if you could reply in one chunk. (Sometimes it helps to number different arguments.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I normally do, as you can see from further up the page. I didn't in your case merely because your comments were fairly brief. --PL 16:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I commented on it because I've seen you do it several times, and I think it'd be better if you didn't. It's confusing. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

True, true. Guilty, Your Honour! But I stopped doing it recently because I, too, could see that it was getting confusing. If you don't believe me (and I'm sure you do!), just look at what has been done to our recent exchange on the Nostradamus Talk Page (which should give you some idea of the sort of thing we're up against!)!! --PL 10:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi. Are you really Peter Lemesurier? You don't have to answer, and you can just delete this comment if you are trying to keep a low profile. If you are him though, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the work that you have done, both in your books and on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you have had to deal with Theo on the Nostradamus page. He is up to similar antics on other pages as well, such as in the astrology article. Regardless of that, keep up the good work man. --Chris Brennan 07:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. Your comments are much appreciated. Don't worry, I'm used to it! But shh! Keep it under your hat, or I shall have to explain how it is that one of the alleged 'authorities' is editing an article based on... the alleged authorities! (It would be pretty odd, though, wouldn't it, if the only people in the world not allowed to edit articles in their specialist fields were... the authorities listed?!) ;)

Best --PL 11:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

PS I've now had a look at the astrology page and its history. Commiserations! --PL 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sympathy is much appreciated. Thank you. --Chris Brennan 04:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [1] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. I can sense your frustration. I have added my comment at the bottom, and hope it helps. You may care to contact not only Admin's Tom, but Rd232 as well, who is helping deal with the corresponding situation with the Nostradamus page. He will already have seen my several references to your problem on the Nostradamus Talk page as well.

Would you believe, Theo actually accused me of 'being very young', of not having read Nostradamus and of knowing nothing about the subject – when I am... er... 69 and have published seven books on the subject! Best --PL 09:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately at this point I would expect that Theo would make such statements. It is kind of comical though. --Chris Brennan 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side question

I had always wanted to ask you about something that you wrote in one of your books. I believe that it was in the Nostradamus Encyclopedia where you made a brief mention of an astrological treatise that Nostradamus wrote at some point. I can't find the exact passage right now, but I'm going to keep look for it and let you know when I find it. Basically I was just wondering if this text still exists because I'm curious as to the nature of it what sort of traditions Nostradamus was drawing upon in his astrological practice, or more specifically which authors. Most of my studies right now are focused on the history and transmission of astrology, and this has been one area that has always bugged me because none of the historians of astrology want to touch the subject. --Chris Brennan 17:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I still can't find the reference, but I did find some notes of mine where I noted a "1563 Traite d’Astrologie". Does this exist, or am I way off base here? --Chris Brennan 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. This is mentioned in Chomarat & Laroche's 1989 Bibliographie Nostradamus, which indicates that it was allegedly published in Paris and that it appears as No.4887 in the Dewhirst catalogue (originally by Houzeau and Lancaster), Brussels 1889, reprinted London 1964. However, Benazra's bibliography doesn't mention it at all, and neither does Brind'Amour's Nostradamus Astrophile (kincksieck/University of Ottawa Presses, 1993), which is the seminal study of Nostradamus's astrology (if you can get hold of it and if your French is good enough!). So possibly it's a 'ghost' publication!! Best --PL 10:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. --Chris Brennan 18:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore7

Hey there,

Why do you think that Theo should be banned? Such a block, I believe, would be against WP:BITE and User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Borghunter

Well, clearly you're more of an expert on this sort of thing than I am. It was merely a suggestion on my part, born partly out of frustration at having constantly to deal with his blank refusal to refer to the original French sources or even to negotiate (and, no doubt, at not being able to call the man a plain nutter)!

As I understood the situation, where somebody refuses point blank to stop flouting Wikipedia rules regarding sourcing, NPOV and copyright violation (which he has now done, despite warnings, dozens of times), removal is an option. Or is it merely 'blocking' (I gather from the page that he has already had to be blocked a number of times)? Re WP:BITE, Theo was indeed treated perfectly politely as a newcomer, but merely replied with personal aggression and refusal to co-operate, and has continued in this vein ever since. Re User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles (2), the only 'cabal' or 'elite' has been one that he has tried to set up himself, on the basis that he is 'an expert' and 'a scholar' and that nobody else knows what they are talking about (including myself, who have published no less than seven books on the subject!) or is even old enough to comment (I am 69!).

If you care to trawl through (a) his umpteen reversions and (b) his contributions on the Nostradamus talk page, you'll see what I mean – though that's not something that I would wish on anybody!

Granted, he is not a vandal as such, but the results of his approach do amount to vandalism, in that he constantly deletes what is there without discussion and is totally unwilling to accept any text other than his own wordy screeds, based on a couple of 'totem' sources with which he seems to be obsessed and which can no longer even be regarded as reliable (see the note on Leoni and Ovason on my Talk page).

Frankly, although I signed the suggestion that persuasion be tried, I have no confidence that it will have any effect on him whatsoever!

Hope this explains my suggestion. Best --PL 11:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I care to strongly disagree with your views on banning me Peter. Refusal to cooperate? The record will clearly prove otherwise. As a newcomer, you have misrepresented my views, have effectively been mean to me from the very start, and have started a campaign to "ban" me from Wikipedia. Is this what you call an open community? I've been a Wikipedian for one month, and in that time you have falsely accused me of plagiarism, now, I am a vandal too - all because I do not agree with your POV? You make accusations that are clearly false, and also state absolutely that I am "obsessed" - I suggest you re-visit your own intentions here, and please refrain from your attempts at Inquisition. Perhaps you ought to re-visit the meaning of that word while you are at it since you have called me - 1) a plagiarist; 2) referred to the results of my edits as "vandalism"; 3)and three, that you treated me "politely." I believe a simple visit to the archived Nostradamus Talk Page will show that you are far from "polite" or welcoming to me from the very first comment you made to me when I joined and added my encyclopedic information to the Wiki-Nostradamus Subject Page. Take a look yourself, and tell me, is having a balanced view on the subject of Nostradamus akin to being a liar, and a plagiarist? You shame Wikipedia with your negative POV, and very bad edits on the primary subject. I was never welcomed by you - in fact - immediately you practically assaulted me during my very first edit. See the Talk Page. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, and yes, an expert on Nostradamus and Astrology, I can clearly see that you have a very sharp, and defined point of view, and have, as such, seemed to have staked a claim on the Wiki-Nostradamus article. You clearly do not trust the reader, and after seven books on the subject, have come no closer to even understanding, or clearly addressing the judicial astrology of Nostradamus, nor, a balanced view of the primary subject. Moreover, from the start, you tagged me as your "opponent" when I am no such thing, and never considered myself one. However, I am versed on this subject - Nostradamus, and astrology, and clearly could not utilize the Wikipedia version on Nostradamus that you wrote in any serious article or book on the subject. That much, I do know.Theo 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we are, Borghunter – see what I mean? Never calling him my opponent (that was somebody else's phrase) is 'calling him my opponent': constantly quoting another's copyright work without acknowledgement (despite being repeatedly warned about it) 'isn't plagiarism': constantly reverting exactly the same text despite protests is 'co-operation': being told he is not a vandal is being accused of 'being a vandal' (!): suggesting the apparent presence of an obsession is 'stating absolutely that he is obsessed': persistently trying to 'sell' his own version of 'judicial astrology' at great length on the Nostradamus page (despite the fact that Nostradamus mentions it only twice [without explanation] in his Preface to Cesar and mentions astrology at all in only 41 of his 942 quatrains) is 'having a balanced view': and I (unlike Theo) 'don't understand Nostradamus's judicial astrology' and have 'no balanced view of the subject'. I rest my case! --PL 15:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Re my alleged initial 'impoliteness and meanness', I append my entire first post to him (though, as you'll see from the context, I didn't know it was to him at the time, so had no idea as to whether he was a newcomer or not!):

Unfortunately, you also included (if it was you!) a lot of unproven and disputed assertions of your own, including a huge amount of speculation regarding Nostradamus's astrology (on which you seem quite extraordinarily keen, even though actual analysis of his astrological output reveals -- as contemporary astrologers often pointed out -- that he was a very poor astrologer!) plus well-known (but, alas, entirely bogus!) non-contemporary traditions regarding his upbringing, education and 1555 visit to Paris -- none of which is taken from the well-sourced academic sources actually listed. May I respectfully suggest that you actually read these -- especially Brind'Amour's Nostradamus Astrophile (in French -- but then you have to read French to understand most of the basic research), which is the definitive academic study of Nostradamus's astrology by the former Professor of Ancient Studies at Ottawa University, or failing that Gruber (if you know German) or, failing that, Wilson or Lemesurier, then re-edit the article (which I have re-instated for now) as you wish in the light of such actual known and documented facts as they present? The Brind'Amour in particular, which analyses his actual horoscopes among other things, should fascinate you. While it is of course entertaining to include non-factual material and hoary old myths from popular literature, it is, I'm afraid, not suitable for what purports to be a quasi-authoritative encyclopedia whose readers may be ill qualified to sort out the facts from the speculation. A separate paragraph or two clearly identifiable as covering the various myths and Old Wives' Tales might be one way to do it... How about it? PL 11:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem all that 'impolite' or 'mean' to me! Stern, perhaps, but not unfriendly. I think I'd better not accuse him of paranoia!! ;) --PL 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take the linguistic conversation to your talk pages

PL, quick question. I wrote this yesterday to answer someone's misunderstanding of colloquial: ""Colloquial" comes from the Latin cum (combinatory form com, (mutated to col in anticipation of the first letter of loquor)) = with, and loquor = to speak, i.e., to speak with, i,e., "conversational"." The question: what the heck is the name of the process where the final letter mutates in anticipation of the first letter of the next word? I had thought it was metathesis, but now I'm not so sure. Thanks. Jim62sch 17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not too sure, I'm afraid, Jim. I usually try to avoid such terms as nobody else understands them! Possibly 'elision' is the closest. Welsh is even worse: sometimes it's the first letter that mutates: think about what that does for looking the word up in the dictionary!!

Re your last point on the other Discussion page, BTW, Nostradamus's language is seldom quite as obtuse as it's commonly supposed to be, especially if you mentally read it as though it were Virgil. If you want the odd example, I suggest you contact me via my website and ask for my analysis of a couple of your favourite 'obscure verses'! Best --PL 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You compare Virgil (the first 4 of whose eclogues I've tranbslated as actual poetry (and, although this will sound really arrogant, the translations are pretty good) with Nostradamus? Ugh!  :) I'll check out your webpage, but since I know a number of languages (including Latin and French), I've done OK with translating Nostradamus. Take care, Jim62sch 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Well, no, I'm certainly not comparing him with Virgil (the gods forbid!), but Virgil was regarded as the 'prince of poets' at the time, and it seems fairly clear to me that Nostradamus was trying (only trying, mind!) to write 'Virgil in French' (rather than Horace, say), rather as Du Bellay had seemed to propose in his famous linguistic manifesto of 1549. In this he felt free to omit the normal French prepositions, pronouns and articles in imitation of the fact that Virgil used few of the first two and none at all of the third. Ronsard, by contrast, was happy – classically orientated though he was – to write in normal French without looking over his shoulder at Latin for his syntax.

I trust you translated Nostradamus into proper, rhymed verse, BTW (see below)? --PL 11:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I went to your website and was surprised that I'd actually heard of you. (I hope that didn't sound bad or something). OK, I'm going back to check it out again. Jim62sch 01:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well jeez, clearly this is about the French Revolution.  ;)

En grand regret sera la gent Gauloise,

Cœur vain, legier, croit à temerité:

Pain, sel, ne vin, eaue venim ne cervoise,

Plus grand captif, faim, froit, necessité.

Jim62sch 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If, that is, VII.34 isn't just a re-hash of the Mirabilis liber's prophecies for France, based on Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gaul! ;)

My published translation, for what it's worth:

In great regret the French shall mope and pine.

Light-heartedness for foolishness they’ll hold.

No bread, salt, water, beer, nor drugs, nor wine:

Their noblest captive: hunger, need and cold.

As I say, you're welcome to contact me by email if you want some closer analyses... --PL

[edit] Qui est cet imbécile?

(-A ... Il est un véritable moron du premier ordre, non? Je comprends pourquoi tu es devenus frustré. Jim62sch 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Qui il est? Je me demande s'il le sait lui-même! Certainement pas celui qu'il se pense! --PL 11:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Peut-être la résolution à cette énigme est dans les étoiles, ou dans ses "bio-rythmes". Jim62sch 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

guys...WP:CIV applies everywhere on WP, regardless of language...the above discussion is inappropriate, even on user talkpages, and I'm saying that despite the fact that I agree with you... That said, I have a question...there's a special running on the History Channel (I think it's called "Nostradamus, 500 Years Later"), in which it's stated that Nostradamus was found dead, standing at his workplace. The article states that he died on the floor between his bed and a makeshift bench (whatever that means). Can we get a reliable source (i.e., not hearsay ;-) ) for either? Thanks, Tomer^talk 06:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'standing up' thing is absolute nonsense, of course (as is much else in the programme), and I've already complained to the producers about it. I should know: I took part in the film, as also in Discovery's and UK Channel 4's (to say nothing of the new, forthcoming Discovery one and National Geographic's). Trouble is, they always insist on 'balancing' the scholars with nutters and half-informed secondhand theorists. Can't imagine why: you don't insist on including flat-earthers in every astronomy programme! Consequently I don't propose to take part in such pick'n mix presentations in future.

It derives from the unsourced tradition that he was buried standing up – but then that, equally, doesn't reflect anything in his Will, and his present tomb is definitely horizontal (click on reference to 'tomb' in the article). Nevertheless, that doesn't stop the restaurant La Brocherie, which incorporates part of the chapel where he was originally buried, pointing to a vertical recess in the wall and telling their customers 'That's it!' You can see how it all develops, and why the article needs constantly protecting with cross-refences pointing directly to the actual evidence... :(

The 'between the bed and bench' thing comes from his latter-day secretary Chavigny, who was far from reliable. He altered one of his Master's verses to make it predict it, so you'll see what I mean! Hence the word 'reportedly' (closely following on Chavigny's name) in the article, which I have now amplified. --PL 09:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I wanted to award you with this barnstar to let you know that your tireless contributions to the Nostradamus article are much appreciated PL. Thank you very much for making the article what it is today and working tirelessly to keep it at that level. Keep up the good work! Chris Brennan 16:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanx, Chris! Hope everything is proceeding satisfactorily in your neck of the woods, too! --PL 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh... Same ol' same ol' on the astrology page I'm afraid. Every once in a while the actors change, but the story remains the same. It seems that you are often in a similar situation though, so I just wanted to let you know that it is appreciated. Take care. --Chris Brennan 20:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Bareste or Erika Cheetham?

On the begining of our conversation you said that the english version is Bareste, now you are saying that it is "Erika Cheetham". How should i understand you? By the way - i dont really overfocused on the idea of adding the my link to Wikipedia, the only thing i want to do is just make a best website among the internet and as far as i see you are the specialist. So, if possible could you advice me what this site needed to become the best or at least to siute wikipedia standarts? Sasha l 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sasha. Slight misunderstanding: the 1840 Bareste was in French: Cheetham does quote (fairly accurately) the 1568 edition's French, but the translations that I complained about are of course in English! I appreciate your point about improving your website, which is also repeated on the site itself. Difficult to know what to recommend, though.

The first thing would presumably be to check Bareste's French carefully against the online facsimiles listed, or at very least against Cheetham's French transcriptions. The second would be to find some really good translations and seek permission to use them. Unfortunately, there are very few of these around, if any. Short of using Lemesurier's published ones (which are in verse, and so not as 'literal' as I imagine you want them to be) most people use Leoni's of 1961 (see the ones under 'Nostradamus Repository'). These, too are still copyright, so it would still be illegal, but it might be possible to 'tweak' them sufficiently to make them 'your own'. If you decide to go down this route, let me know and I'll suggest how you might do it.

As for the other languages, I suggest that you get any translations that you are proposing to quote checked very carefully first by somebody who knows the language. Some of the foreign translations are even worse than Cheetham's English ones! --PL 08:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, i clearly inderstand that any translation, even the best one is only the interpretation. I put those ones on Nostra Wiki just as the base and opened it for editing with the hope that people collaborationly will improve it and make a totally new Wiki Transaltion(so thats why i've desided to use wikitech), but probably you are right and i should take a better translations as a base. Now i think that is good that you've removed the link, so i have a chance now to have conversation with you. Actually i was planing to invite you to join the project as a specilist even before i placed a link. So about the project Nostra Wiki(i tell you the plan, you might be interesting).

At the begining i wanted to make something like the italian site - this site is good for sources, it has a lot of faictual materials but there is one big problem - it has no response, so people cannot talk there, they cannot add their own materials and ideas, so it has almost no development. So i've desided to make the site as good as italian, but alive - not dead.

So now i'm on the very first step of collecting the materials. I've desided to do not take any of the interpetations(the are tons of this stuff on the internet), but only collect the originals(already done), facsimiles(almost done) and base translations(done partly - a can only be sure in russian version). About the other ones, i'll be glad if you advise me which edition i should take as the base accordinly to the situaton above. I already invited some russian researches (one of them is Ilya Razumov, the postcommer of Zima - you probably heard of them) so and you probably might want to also partisipate in the project if so you are always welcome on the disscussion page of the project. Thank you for the attention.Sasha l 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds an interesting project, Sasha, and thank you for your kind invitation. Unfortunately, though, I have my own work to do, so won't be able to do much more than offer you advice from time to time. You are right that all translations are interpretations, but some are much better informed than others, and most of the existing English-language ones are not well informed at all! However, if, as I said, you were to take the Leoni ones as a base, I could give you a few ideas on how to turn them into 'base-translations' of your own. They still wouldn't be fully accurate, but it might be a start on the basis of which improvements could be made... --PL 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK so let it be Leoni? Here is some links i found which do you think can be used as a source? Sasha l 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think any of them are any good - and most of them aren't Leoni's translations. I suggest you take your basic materials from the Nostradamus Repository site. Then I'll suggest how you might transform them. --PL

It's written here that the translation is based on bareste 1840. Is it ok?By the way how to recognize the leone version? Sasha l 08:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. The site you want is http://www.nostradamus-repository.org/ . It's all Leoni! --PL 09:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ok. i see now. thanks Sasha l 11:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)