Jump to content

User talk:Eusebeus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Thank You

I appreciate your reply, and I have posted a deletion review. I am trying to remain alot calmer now, and will handle this issue through the proper channels. This was just one of many things that was hampering my various projects this week. So I have been on edge a bit about them. Thanks again --FACT50 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the warm welcome. It's nice to meet someone here who realizes that I am more than some guy trying to spam his project. It gets pretty old talking to people that treat me like a 12 year old (and are more than likely younger than me anyways). I do have one question though, about how long do deletion reviews take to be resolved usually? Thanks again, and I'll try my best to contribute as much usefull info as I can to the articles I take interest in. --FACT50 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Appologies

My appologies for the caps. I tried to get a deletion review, but couldn't figure out how to post it? I'm sure this doesn't matter to you, but imagine how upset you would be if you spent the last three years creating a new genre of music, to not only be disrespected, but outright ripped off. On top of that have a bunch of people on wikipedia tell you that what you have spent years creating is not notable because it doesn't meet the notability guidelines set by wikipedia. And the main reason was because of the fact that I choose to give away my music, and concentrate on the art of actually creating art, instead of dealing with record labels (who will try to screw me at every given opportunity). So according to these "notability" guidelines, I will never be a notable artist? Yet I can have my very ideas ripped off, and the bands that do it have valid wikipedia pages? So yeah imagine how pissed off that would make you? --FACT50 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OH HELL NO!!

HOW DARE YOU!!! You deleted links to the article Vernian Process in the List of Steampunk works article, by claiming they were SPAM... Yet those links were originally posted there by someone who had nothing to do with that project. In fact the only reason I created a wiki article for that project was because I saw that someone else had mentioned my project their first! So how can you possibly call that SPAM?? Not to mention the fact that there are a number of bands in that list that have nothing to do with the Steampunk genre. Yet they are still linked. In fact V.P. was the very first Steampunk oriented music project.

AN/I discussion becoming more about you

Hello again... I know I've already told you about this, but WP:AN/I#User:Monicasdude is becoming more and more about you, and I wanted to make sure that you have a chance to speak your mind there. Just making sure :). Snoutwood (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

About the Daniel Zimmerman Article

While I am not discussing that article any more on that discussion page, I did want to bring this to your attention. Wikipedia:Importance - I would argue that the page meets the first 2 criteria (of which only one has to be true to be considered to be important enough for inclusion). This article expands on both the 2004 House Election and the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute notable alumni pages. Articles that meet the importance guidelines are not required to have the subject be "notable". I acknoledge my ignorance on the guidelines about writing articles pertaining to myself and appologize to the Wiki community for doing so. DanielZimmerman 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Aw, shucks. Thanks a million, mate. Are you leaving? We wish you'd stay... Snoutwood (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dualabs

What was that about? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Left a message at User talk:Tony Sidaway - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Response there as well. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

Your page was vandalized, check it out. The modifications made were not consistent with the interpretation of your name in Greek, and were therefore reverted! :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bayreuth Circle

Thanks for your note. Problem is, I think that the Bayreuth circle is a non-topic, hence my edits. There was no organisation as such. The term was originally used in respect of the audiences at Bayreuth at the end of the 19th century, espcially perhaps in respect of the original subscribers to Wagnerˇs project. Then Nazi propagandists used the term in an updated sense to promote Hitler as a leader of German culture. Then Holocaust industry historians seized on this latter use. It is all a lot of fuss about nothing, or at most about a group of almost non-entities. In my view, it doesn´t even deserve a Wikipedia article....I only made my edits when my suggestion to delete the article was voted down.....--Smerus 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your further comments - but I have more than enough on my plate at present without becoming an administrator! Basically I suggest the article should be rewritten so as to distinguish between the 'Bayreuth Circle' as:
  • a casual name used by cultural historians for supporters of Bayreuth in the last years of the 19th century
  • an informal name used by cultural historians to refer to Winifred Wagner and her personal circle of friends and relatives
  • a term used by Nazi propagandists to enable them to place Hitler in the 'inner circle' of German culture by playing on his acquaintance with Winifred Wagner and her family
  • a term used by holocaust industry historians, often confusing the three above uses, as 'evidence' to link Wagner with Hitler and vice versa.
  • (and there may be some other definitions as well....)
I am up to my eyeballs at present with academic and professional work. However if you or others wish to commence rewriting the article I will be very glad to comment/contribute. All best regards --Smerus 17:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:AGF

Please do not resort to bad faith personal attacks on AfDs. I do not want to go into mediation over this. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles

Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion. I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote? - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University

Hi. I see you've weighed in on this AfD. I just noticed that TheronJ has substantially cleaned up the article, and I think St. Clements University is worth another look. Regards, William Pietri 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations, citations

In view of what your robust comments here (salutes are rare and very welcome!), you might be interested to see this. We read: If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally; I've already done the latter. -- Hoary 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GAs

Hi Eus,

Frantic with real-world work at the moment, so just sneaking in a bit of WP here and there. GA sucks, I'm afraid, and there's a concern among a number of people that it dilutes the few editorial/review resources we have away from the only processes (IMV) that really matter: FAC, and FAR/C. Perhaps PR too, but it's moribund, isn't it.

I'd prefer to end the GA thing altogether: it just doen'st mean much, and if it's made to mean something, it will duplicate the FA process.

Perhaps we need a page with advice on referencing ....? It seems to be a weeping boil at the moment. Tony 01:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

College-Ready Math-Science School

The article about College-Ready Math-Science School may have been unclear about when the school opened, but I edited the article to make it clear that the school is already open, albeit at a temporary location. It will move to the groups of the university in 2007. Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College-Ready Math-Science School ? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. As I stated in the request itself, I respect your decision to oppose me based on my short tour of duty, but I hope I can earn your trust. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A Tree Full of Secrets

I prodded A Tree Full of Secrets for two reasons. The first is that bootlegs are generally considered to lack the notability for an article. Yes, I agree that Pink Floyd had a lot of great ideas and songs that never made it onto albums. These are worth noting and discussing on WP. But articles about bootleg albums are about bootleg albums, not about the material they contain. "Tree" is not the first bootleg to compile PF rarities, and it wont be the last. The second reason I prodded the article is that besides a tracklist, it's devoid of any useful information. If the article explained the sources and history of the material to any degree, I would have a harder time deciding to prod it (as I did with Interstellar Encore, for example). BTW, thanks for going through the prods. I occasionally do, but it can be tedious. I also prodded several more bootlegs that day; several others I just added to [Category:Bootleg albums]. You might find it worthwhile to go through those. Cheers --Alcuin 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to tell on those. They all have some degree of notability, but only because each is tangentially related to another band or artist. I think merge tags might be more appropriate. The articles are well written, I just can't imagine people reading about, for example, The Sparrows unless they're looking for the history of Steppenwolf. -Alcuin 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Andrew Jackson Jihad

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HeartattaCk

I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Haydn Symphonies

OK. I like the idea of a template. I reformatted 83 and 88-96 to match your stuff. One question, at what point does the harpsichord & continuo become an anachronism for the scoring and should no longer be included (with the exception of #98's throwback in the finale)? DavidRF 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I finished 97-104 just now. I think there are a few earlier ones that could use the reformatting as well, but I'll leave that to you. DavidRF 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Publications record a no-go"

Hi Eusebeus, I am curious about your comment "The extensive publications record is a no-go since that is the company's field of business." Can you ellucidate? This is the first time I have heard of this constraint. Can you point me to any policies or guidelines so I can educate myself? My understanding to date has been that notability within a field, as long as non-trivial references from reliable sources can be provided, is sufficient. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.Dgray xplane 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

El Greco

Thank you very much for your detailed review.--Yannismarou 08:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC fun

Just dropping by with a note of empathy for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. I see the article is an FA now. The "inactionable objections" like yours always make for an entertaining read, as it seems that WP's fate is to have 10%+ of all FAs be about video games, television episodes, minor fictional characters, and so on. This "article relativism", as I call it, bothers me, but nobody seems to be fighting that battle. :) –Outriggr § 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I like the idea of gathering some support for this FA argument and presenting a case, yet I am mostly resigned to not getting tangled up in the administrative/bureaucratic side of Wikipedia. (Such things are more my day job.) If there's one thing WP doesn't like, it's perceived elitism, and I don't want to play with those matches. I'd sign the petition though, so to speak... –Outriggr § 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Zanta

Note that Zanta has been restored, and place on AfD for a proper deletion debate. -- Zanimum 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blog-triggered Blocks

You said: "Per the stuff over at ANI can I ask you to revisit your block against User:Femmina whether by your own hand or through third party review?"

It is my opinion that this account is a troll. For example, the user page has the following paragraph: "Help the GNAA fight for freedom. For a world without blogs. For a gay universe." Now, if you wish to unblock the account, I will not contest it. If you are not an admin, I will support you (or Femmina) requesting another admin to review the block. That is, I would not consider such action to be the start of a wheel war and would not revert the unblock. However, it remains my opinion that this user is a troll. --Yamla 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Eusebeus. -- Femmina 07:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Taran Rampersad Deletion

I spent a few moments today on my User:TaranRampersad user page and made the Taran Rampersad article more informative. I don't care whether the page is deleted or not, but I would like to see it deleted for the right reasons - not for lack of effort which was a few minutes in Google. . Feel free to take a look and comment. I am *not* participating in the debate of the deletion of the biographical stub. --TaranRampersad 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cabalism

You made reference to a small cabal of admins on Timecop's talk page. I am very concerned that a cabal of admins could exist and I take this concern very seriously.

However after looking through what happened it does not seem that way. Cabals do not function by having discussions where all can see, they also limit participation to members of the cabal. The decision to block seems to have been made on a noticeboard for all admins and regular editors to see.

Perhaps I have missed something, why do you think cabalism is involved here? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a figure of speech, not a direct accusation of skullduggery. If you review the WP:ANI discussion it seems clear that a few admins have overreacted to the accusations made at Digg.com, which were without foundation but directed at a target that does little to endear him/herself to the community (eg offensive user boxes, etc...). However, that is a far cry from trolling and I feel the actions taken are unjustified and far from consensus driven. Eusebeus 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Cabal is a sensitive word here, best to say what you mean. The user was not banned for the war on blogs, which has continued to function since the block. It was not soley based on the userboxes either. A wealth of evidence has been provided in the form of diffs, block log, warnings from other users, and Timecop's own userpage that trolling was taking place. Also it was not a few admins, that is the admin noticeboard, it is the place that all admins are supposed to watch for discussion. Many admins may have seen it and not gotten involved, but it was clearly visable, and was intentionally made visible.

Beyond those who took place in the recent discussion, 6 different admins have indef blocked this user in the past. Even the admin who most recently unblocked Timecop supported the block. Do you really think that many people who the community has trusted with adminship would all get together and ban a user who does not deserve it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

El Greco

I tried to adress the concerns you raised in your detailed and valuable review in Talk: El Greco. Please, check the article. I'm open for further suggestions. I think about asking for a last perr-review before moving to FAC. Thanks!--Yannismarou 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been many exhibits of El Greco during the last decade (NY, London, Athens, Madrid); so, I do not know to which one you are referring. Maybe London, where the catalogue was edited by Davies, but I'm not sure. Concerning your last question, what I can say is that I rewrote this article from scratch. This means that, of course, this article is not my ownership (per WP:OWN), but I do have worked a lot on it and I do care about its quality and its status. And trying to improve it, I have asked a series of Wikipedians like Yomangani, Celithemis and Ganymead to go thorugh the article and upgrade it. I do not fully understand what you mean with "my priorities"; while rewriting the artile, I tried not to have priorities of myself, but priorities of the article, and I strove to create a comprehensive article. So, I could say that my priority is to make El Greco one of the best articles of Wikipedia.--Yannismarou 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I will check in the web the last exhibits. Now, about the structure, of course, personal style plays a key role. I have written 4 FA biographical articles, and I prefer to start with bio, and then assessments-legacy. In this article, since we have to do with an artist and not an ancient Greek politician, I thought to organize it like that: bio, technique-style, assessments-legacy. This was my initial thought which evolved during the rewriting. Thanks!--Yannismarou 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Don Quixote looks like a challenge. Well, I like to work on my own on the articles I choose and I start rewriting from scratch. Don Quixote is not the case. They say that people with strong personality and "hot temperament" have a problem in co-operation. I don't know if I qualify for any of the above categories, but, if you think I can help with Don Quixote, I'm willing to do it. There are, of course 2 problems: 1) I have not read the book (it is a shame, I know, but it may also be a chance to do it now), but only a summary of it, 2) I'm good in expression and (Greek unfortunately) prose, but I'm not a native English speaker (but you are!). I think I can help with the reasearch (I believe this is a domain I'm good at) and the structuring. Towards the end of the week I'll have more free time (Friday-Saturday), and then after Christmas (I plan to leave for 3 days), but after me coming back, on the 27th of December, I'll (hopefully) have much more free time. So, contact with me again if you wish, and we'll discuss in detail about how we can organize the collaboration. In the meantime, I'll read the article and collect (in my mind!) its major flaws (according to my IMO). Regards!--Yannismarou 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments to Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Johann_Sebastian_Bach

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Neil916 (Talk) 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do calm down. Johann Sebastian Bach is a good article; nothing said in that discussion can change that. The only thing it may change - and the only reason I bother - is that it may either kill GA or convert it into something worth saving.
Do remember: The comments even of illiterate ignoramuses would be worth considering (not accepting, but considering) because we want, as far as possible, to be comprehensible even to illiterate ignoramuses; people who have access to Grove don't go to Wikipedia (not for Bach, anyway). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I edit it - I did break down and reformat the references, so I could count them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

hi

I see there's much discussion going on. I put a little stub of a start of a reply on User talk:Pmanderson. I can't debate too much. Sorry.

--Ling.Nut 05:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)== 9/11: The Big Lie ==


I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mary of Burgundy

Thanks for your reply dated 18 Dec 2006 on my Talk page about Mary of Burgundy and the Joyous Entry. (This is the first time I've logged in since then!) Was the term "Joyous Entry" always used for the formal designation of the heir after the Charter of 1355 by the Duke of Brabant? And how did it come to be applied to the possessions in the Low Countries of the Duke of Burgundy? You suggested that I add a note on the page for the Joyous Entry, but I still don't understand enough about it to explain it! Thanks! Laura1822 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

 Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Don Quixote

I look at the article again and again, and it is a mess! But, as I told you, it has indeed a great potential; both this article and Miguel de Cervantes (what an amazing personality!).

As fas as I am concerned I'm ready for work on this article. I even bought the book, and I am reading it. Just tell me if it is still among your plans the collaboration proposal, and if (and when) you have time to go into the article. But it really needs a lot of work. My initial findings are that: 1) the lead is tiring, with redundancies, and loses its target, 2) the article treats the book but not the character, 3) the article goes straight to the importance of the book without treating its interesting history (the publishing of the two volumes), 4) there is no comprehensive literary analysis, 5) most sections are listy.

As fas as research is concerned, I have this Greek edition with a nice and detailed introduction, Britannica (CD edition of 2002) with rich material about the book and its writer, and my Greek encyclopedias (Helios and Papyrus-Larousse-Britannica). And there is always Internet and Google Book-Scholar. Unfortunately, my Spanish is still poor (I started classes the autumn); so my access to Sapnish sources is difficult; almost impossible. But it seems that you have a good level of knowledge of this language.

Anyway, if you feel ready for work, don't hesitate to tell me! In the meantime time I may do some tweaks in Miguel de Cervantes which is maybe the worst mess I've seen in Wikipedia!--Yannismarou 12:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in-long term FA status should be the goal. It is difficult to me to follow all the details in the Spanish article, but with my very poor Spanish I catch a few things. I think, e.g., that a section like "Estructura, génesis, contenido, estilo y fuentes" is missing from the English article. Anyway, within the next days I'll have a look at the lead and I may also try to create a section (or a draft of it) for the English version like the above Spanish mentioned. I'll keep you informed for any initiatives. And, by the way, happy new year (I forgot that!)!--Yannismarou 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is difficult for me to present a comprehensive plan and structure from now. It usually comes up during the rewriting! That is what happens to me often! Anyway, checking the article again, I can think of the following vague structure:
  • Lead
  • Genesis and Structure
  • Content - Plot
  • Assessments (it could be a rewriting and expansion of the current "Importance" section)
  • Influence
  • Editions and Translations
  • Films, TV Series and iconography (not sure here)
  • Opera, music and ballet (maybe merged with the previous, if we create a main sub-article, so as not to over-expand)
  • Citations, notes, references or combinations of these
  • Further reading - bibliography
  • External links.
I'm not yet sure about whre the 4 last sections ("Use in tourism", "Spelling and pronunciation", "400th anniversary", "Historical Relevance") of the current article should be placed or if they should be trimmed. Well, these are my main thoughts about the structure.--Yannismarou 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eusebeus/Archive_3&oldid=1138924225"