User talk:Eusebeus/Archive 4

Happy New Year yourself...

...you old crazy doc! Good to see you kicking around still as well... Thanks for the note, it made me smile :) Don't destroy everything while I'm gone, I want something to wreck once I'm back more full time :) Snoutwood 06:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of AfDs that might interest you

Hi Eusebeus. A persistent vandal who often uses IPs as sockpuppets decided on a new strategy and set up a couple of articles that really need to go. If you have a moment, I was wondering if you could look at Aga Khani and Islamic Cults and comment on their AfD pages. Much appreciated -- Aylahs ^(talk) 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Your comment here is unacceptable based on even a cursory review of the user's contributions. You may be unhappy if someone chooses to participate primarily in AfDs, but that does not give you license to make irresponsible accusations like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs).

• I have no idea why you are supporting this individual. There is nothing in my use of the spa tag or in my questioning the pattern of participation that could constitute an "attack" to any rational individual. Rather, I pointed out that there is an individual who seems suspiciously like a sockpuppet, especially in that over 99% of this person's "contribution" is on AfDs, almost all of which are knee-jerk deletes. Per WP:SOCK#Forbidden uses of sock puppets, it seems quite possible that this individual may be a good hand/bad hand account, or even worse someone who is submitting multiple votes on AfDs, or maybe someone who is "merely" trying to avoid showing a connection between their votes and their other work. As WMMartin has shown no concern about the characterization, and doesn't seem to bother communicating with any other Wikipedian, your great interest in the subject seems rather curious. I will continue to point out my concerns and seek to get to the bottom of this potential deception. I sincerely hope that you will actively support efforts to maintain the integrity of our encyclopedia. Alansohn 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See this link for additional concerns re this user's actions. Alansohn 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron Delezio

I note that you have voted for the merge of the above article with Sophie Delezio (ie. effectively a deletion in this case) on the grounds that his "notability only via his daughter". I would be interested to know how you are in a position to know anything about this particular point. You consistently cast a "for" vote on deletions which to a casual observer might seem like bad faith. Albatross2147 22:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My Participation in AfD Debates

Hi,

This is to thank you for your intervention in the recent discussion by Alansohn on whether or not my contributions to AfD debates are made in good faith. I've added a paragraph to my user page, which I hope will clear things up. I've also added some comments to Alan's talk page, which I hope he will be able to take in good faith.

Just for the record, I'm happy to affirm that I'm nobody's sock-puppet. I can also confirm that until Alan made his comments I had had no contact or communication with him, other than to see his name in occasional AfD debates.

Thanks for your help and support with this.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD on a Notable School

Hi,

Have you seen this school: Birendra Sainik Awasiya Mahavidyalaya ? Though it needs adequate referencing, it looks like one we should keep. If you get a moment, perhaps you'd like to take a look at it...

All the best,

WMMartin 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent efforts on en-Don Quixote article (Jan 26/27 2007)

Hello,

I have just recently contributed many adjustments to the English Don Quixote article. Please have a look.

I've already gotten some feedback from the NovelsGroup folks reflecting that, although my changes and additions are in the main well recieved, I have also added unwittingly a degree of complexity [which, of course, is regretted; no wish to detract]. Looking forward to your responses.

I can help with this project. I'm a native Spanish speaker, and was educated in Spanish. Naturally, that means that El Quixote was required reading for me. For the moment, my intention is to refrain from edits until such feedback and time has passed for my work to have been evaluated, tweaked, what not. I'll be following the article talkpages.

I am also an amateur of history and etymology; I expend quite a bit of effort disambiguating myself when it comes to language, both English and Spanish. Ever the learner... <smile>

Yours,with greetings from Guatemala. Ricardo / PlasticDoor 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) rsvp

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.. This is related to the recent Catholic-link TfD. --Stbalbach 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of an article you commented on

This AfD is currently on deletion review. You commented in a prior review on the same article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Resubmitting Vernian Process Article

Hello, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at my resubmission for the Vernian Process article? I have a mock-up currently in my sandbox [[1]]. I have been recieving help from a fellow wiki member, and I'm pretty happy with it. I was just wondering if you have any suggestions or feedback? Thanks FACT50 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. And I will change those links to redirect to the appropriate places (as well as removing my personal link). You may want to take a look at my talk section as user "Emperor" has responded to your message as well. Thanks again! FACT50 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Schools and notability

Namaste Eusebeus,

I went to the WP:NOTE talk pages and read the two old discussions regarding trying to set notability guidelines for schools, its not very encouraging. This seems to be a battleground for the Inclusionistas and Deletionieros and neither side seems willing to give any ground. I have to say that I would probably be considered a running-dog Deletionist. I think there are many things that are verifiable and sourcable, perhaps even notable, but are just not encyclopedic. There is the whole rest of the web out there, isn't there?

But...The greatest thing I learned in college was when I was arguing an obscure point on a test question I had gotten wrong on some minor point relating to the Kreb's cycle (relates to energy creation and use in cell metabolism). The instructor let me go on for a while and answered my points and then said, Bill, is this the hill you want to die on?"

Well, I looked at her for a moment and then felt rather stupid and said, "No," and she said, "Very well then, lets move on."

She meant it in a joking way and it wasn't at all a putdown. She was a great teacher and we became friends after the class was over, but I never forgot that question.

When my daughter was in her pre- and teens there were times when she wanted to dye her hair green or do her school shopping at Goodwill and wear polyester Marcia Brady shifts or three full-length black slips to school or make soup out of one of every vegetable from the Albertson's and I would think, "Is this the hill I want to die on?" and decide that no, it wasn't.

Really Bad News friends? Riding with people who have been drinking? Yeah, I'll die on those hills, but few others are worth the fight. I was a single parent and I credit that teacher with my sanity and Amelia's unique perfection.

I bring all this up because I see so much time and energy being wasted over this debate and whatever I think about it, this hill is not worth dying on. I also feel that the issue is hindering the advancement of civility here, and if I have any ulterior motive, for this or WP as a whole, the promotion of civility is it.

I am thinking about proposing that all schools be considered notable, subject only to verifiability and as far as I'm concerned, a phone book entry would be sufficient.

You've been around awhile, certainly longer than me, so I want to ask you if you think there is a snowball's chance of this being accepted. I think the inclusionists have an advantage in this battle and the fact that 85% of the school AfD's are resulting in keep seems to show a broad consensus in general, if not in every case.

If you feel this worth persuing or have any other thoughts on the matter, let me know. If I do persue it I would like to have a group of people from both sides onboard to launch the proposal. I'm not trying to stack the vote, I just don't want to fight old battles over again.

I'm going to post this on a few other talk pages to get a sense of the mood out there. Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've since been told that the deletion rate is now around 50%, I was using old data. The civility issue does bother me though (not just here but throughout WP), as I feel it drives away people who might otherwise become valued members. Hard to believe it was much worse in the past. Perhaps that is a more worthwhile !point to make. --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments. I am learning my way around here and knowing what has happened in the past gives me better insight to what is going on today. And I hope you don't think I was pointing any fingers at you with my comments about civility. I just think that the level of discourse here and in society in general is so very low. I am opposed to the death penalty, but might make an exception for rudeness :)! There is an abruptness and a terseness that is in part inherent in written communication and in part a function of in-group Wiki-speak, that is off-putting to outsiders. I can be as snarky as the next person (and perversely proud of it), but I have seen it drive away people (see here) who might have had invaluable information. It is not for me to sit in judgement of anyone, I just would like to gently raise the bar of civility as a way of opting-in more people, especially non-internet savvy folks. You might take a look at my comments on Re Imagining the Adopt-a-User program for my thoughts on this. In fact, here's an invitation to join that project! Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me. --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

You guys really screwed us on Air Force Amy, now having a major part in an HBO documentary series somehow isn't enough to be "notable". Of course this is nothing to do with the fact that she's a hooker, or that deletionists have a grudge against the article. Kappa 06:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Peter Cremer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Cremer.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bouffes Parisiens

Thanks indeed. Given all the background, it wasn't surprising it all blew up. I was careless in the way I expressed myself. I should have stayed out of an ugly situation. On the other hand I hope my indiscretion has brought to light some of the frustrating problems we've been having. Regards. --Kleinzach 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility and Good Faith

Alan, some advice: you need to tone things down a bit. Your accusations of vote stacking, poor faith, and sock-puppetry have become a bit wanton and it seems to be too often your recourse with people who disagree with you. I recall certain other unfounded instances as well when you made such baseless accusations. Remember to assume good faith and recall that, despite your passion to convince, some editors will inevitably be in disagreement with you. I suggest you moderate your comments, although I wouldn't want you to diminish the enthusiasm with which you argue your beliefs. Eusebeus 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry was based on a misreading of an individual's contribution history, but the votestacking was rather clear-cut. The sequence of AfDs submitted by the user in question was in most cases his third attempt to delete these articles, most of which ended in rather one-sided decisions to keep the articles in question. Even you might acknowledge that the same person taking multiple cracks at deleting articles that passed previous AfDs is not exactly cricket. Other than that, I will try to take your advice to heart. Taking a second, and then a third, crack at deleting an article is evidence of rather extreme bad faith. I was glad to see that you have found topics that you feel comfortable editing, instead of almost exclusively passing judgment on AfDs. While the topics you appear to be editing are likely to be almost AfD-proof, the day will come when the first article you've worked on is put for AfD. It'll happen sooner or later. Its amazing what happens when an article you've invested much time and effort in is subject to review by a bunch of people who spend most of their time on Wikipedia voting delete on articles that don't interest them but who seem to get much delight from getting rid of your article. Alansohn 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your reply. But it seems that even here you are showing signs of incivility. I am *wholly appreciative* that your review of my contribution history passes some kind of muster, although clearly my involvement at AfD tinges my edits for you. And so be it. But you need to tone things down and keep a calmer head. I disagree with many editors, and many disagree with me. But unleashing sarcastic, bilious screeds against people (see above) is unhelpful. You may find I and others set the bar too high for deletion, but that is not license for unleashing borderline personal attacks against those with whom you have a philosophical difference. Your tone is too aggressive and combative and, frankly, incommensurate with your contributions here. WP works on consensus and disagreement is a healthy part of that. No-one in this context is the final arbiter. Eusebeus 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pushing to delete the same article three times, after participants agreed to keep articles the previous times, has nothing to do with consensus. Real consensus is built by involving people who have some vaguely equal measure invested in a matter and who have to live collectively with the result. Someone who has never edited a Wikipedia article cannot possibly add as much as someone who has made serious edits to even one article. I think there should be a threshold of several hundred mainspace edits before being eligible to participate in AfDs, so that those involved have some basic understanding of the investment made in working on an article. Unfortunately, there is no qualification whatsoever other than having a Wikipedia username, and many participants live up (or is it down) to their lack of knowledge. You are entitled to disagree. Let me know when your first article is deleted after an AfD and tell me how exciting it was to build consensus. Alansohn 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Scratch Sheet

Doc! Good to hear from you, mate! Ah, well, I decided that my real name would serve me best in the long run — so I've changed it over. And I'm a student at the moment, and that's taking up I can't tell you how many hours, so Wikipedia's taken somewhat of a back seat, I suppose. But I've been trying to keep myself up to date, what with the Signpost and all, I reckon. Seems like you've been holding the place together in my absence... :) All's well on your side of the 'pedia? Kyle Barbour 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Haydn Quartets Op. 76

Thanks. Most of the credit goes to User talk:Cstan09 who did 95% of the research, but was new to wikipedia so the articles were poorly formatted that some moderators were threatening to delete the article(s). I cleaned it up for him but he did the hard part of coming up with the vast majority of the article. He said he was satisfied with the cleanup, but he hasn't been back at wikipedia since then. DavidRF 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know....

Not to stir the pot but I have noticed your recent issues with Alansohn. I just wanted to let you know that he has done the same to me here. Honestly, I think his insinuations and bullying tactics when someone disagrees with him is just plain "disturbing". MetsFan76 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to give my input on the matter if its goes to a RFC. Alansohn has quite a long history of berating other editors who disagree with him and honestly, for lack of a better word, his "whining" needs to stop. MetsFan76 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His contributions are remarkable, however, his abusive actions overshadow them. There are plenty of diffs that can be used in a RFC which clearly show his horrendous behavior towards anyone unfortunate enough to disagree with him. MetsFan76 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if enough people get together (he has upset quite a few editors), then maybe something would work. I'm just not sure how we can change his attitude though. He won't get blocked/banned for this but maybe a good slap on the wrist from an admin might straighten him out. MetsFan76 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think he should be told first that there will be an RfC regarding his actions? I noticed that your remarks at AN/I didn't really do much regarding his behavior. If anything, it seems like its intensified. I'm actually trying to figure out where all his animosity comes from. Do you think it's worth just trying to talk to him or are we past that? MetsFan76 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for butting in, but a lot of the groundwork has already been laid here:

1. User_talk:Alansohn/Archive_5#Ad_hominem_attacks_on_Wikipedia_talk:Schools_and_in_edit_summaries.

   See also

2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive35#User:Alansohn_reported_by_User:ExplorerCDT_.28Result:Protected.29
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive38#User:Chriscf_and_User:Alansohn_reported_by_User:Northenglish_.28Result:_8h_each.29
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#Cedarhurst.2C_New_York
5. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alansohn.

Beyond a doubt, he does not play well with others. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Links 1-23 below were added by Eusebeus).

1. User_talk:ExplorerCDT
2. User talk:ExplorerCDT/Archive 2
3. Talk:Joyce Kilmer/Archive
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cranbury School
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute (2 nomination)
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&diff=87632069&oldid=87627947)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_12#Category:Orthodox_Jewish_communities
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Batman2005&diff=90159691&oldid=80965107
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipediatrix&diff=89481510&oldid=89480901
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Helical_Rift&diff=87620448&oldid=87610208
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&diff=87632069&oldid=87627947
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Helical_Rift&diff=prev&oldid=87434824
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Helical_Rift&diff=87620448&oldid=87610208
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helical_Rift
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gregg_Berhalter
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&oldid=90160022
19. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThe_Barstow_School&diff=89143330&oldid=89142165
20. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seattlenow&diff=125031471&oldid=125027241
21. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ardfern&diff=74959909&oldid=74902408
22. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CORNELIUSSEON&diff=124965515&oldid=124960189
23. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snalwibma&diff=116842960&oldid=116086388
24. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jrcla2&diff=138058154&oldid=138050465 --Butseriouslyfolks 17:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clayton_Middle/High_School --Butseriouslyfolks 17:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fort_Hill_High_School&diff=next&oldid=138661050 (deletion of comments at AfD, followed by disingenuous denial)
27. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Actions_of_Alansohn_in_relation_to_continued_WP:POINT_disruptions_on_Wikipedia_talk:Schoolcruft (- Enough said.) Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (moved from below)
28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony1#Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates.2FManhattan
29. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flaget_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=140369207
30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kwsn#Hey

My take on this is that it's a shame, because he is very productive and passionate about certain subjects, and those are generally positive qualities. Unfortunately, he appears to have neither the patience nor the tolerance to deal with differing viewpoints in the proper fashion, so he immediately resorts to extreme language. He's very combative and confrontational, like he's daring people to disagree with him. I'm pretty sure I've also seen him improve an article pending AfD and then berate the delete !voters for their opinions, even though it's likely that they were !voting to delete the original version of the article, but I don't time to look for diffs of this. I think some sort of probation is appropriate during which he should be monitored and blocked for uncivility. Hopefully, if the community puts him on notice, he can train himself to keep cool so we do not lose a productive editor. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Very thorough investigating! So what is the next step from here? While I do agree that he is extremely productive, his combativeness and downright rudeness completely overshadows most of his contributions. MetsFan76 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the principle espoused on my talk page, but it wouldn't be the first time, so do not be surprised. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At it again. <sigh> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clayton_Middle/High_School --Butseriouslyfolks 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he seems more focused on content now. Hopefully that will continue to be the case. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been away for some time but I noticed Alan's recent tomfoolery. So when's the RfC? MetsFan76 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Next week sounds perfect! And he has already charged me with sockpuppetry so I know the drill (heh heh!). It looks like he is going to the Wikipedia Meetup in NYC. Considering I live there, I'm tempted to meet him to discuss his rude behavior in person. MetsFan76 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I had seen the Cruftcruft adventure in WP:SARCASM (in fact, I was the first to call him on its cilivity problems on its talk page), but I was unaware of the ANI goings on. I think it's time for the RFC. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Count me in! I just added a new diff demonstrating his usual behavior. MetsFan76 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

French suites

Hi. Thanks for your message about the French suites. I don't quite know what you were trying to say. I know that the name was a later addition, which I put, and I believe it was added specifically as a contrast to the English suites being called that. But then, it was called 'French' because the suite is a French form, which was popular at the time. I heard Trevor Pinnock say before playing one of them that they were more Italian in style. By the way, I think the English suites name derives from something like 'fait pour les Angloises' written on one of the manuscripts. Clavecin 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been referenced and fixed up now, though I don't know who 'Marpurg' is (Rousset refers to him only by his surname). Clavecin 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't consider your edits vandalism: I just have a preference of keeping everything as 'clean' as possible so I like to delete things as far as possible. With regards to the renaming, I got in a bit of a confusion about it, but I think the general style is: Work, BWV X-X which is what I was trying to change it to, to get some consistency (the partitas title was 'Partitas for keyboard (825-830)' which I found particularly odd). With the BWV there, it's not necessary to specify 'Bach' because 'BWV' does that. But I admit I should really have looked up the specific style rules, just being a bit too lazy (also rather labyrinthine to find sometimes). Anyway, I won't be so quick to make moves in future. Clavecin 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of the writings of William Monahan

Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

David Sharp

Could you possibly provide a bit more detail about the copyvios you found in David Sharp? I don't really want to take the time to sort through all of those references and try matching bits of text. Please provide a list of which sections you found to be copyvio and from which sources. Thanks. --Spike Wilbury 04:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:AfD

No problem. I am a bit on edge right now. (I have an FAC with many objections to satisfy) so sorry for over reacting. Cheers — Selmo ^(talk) 15:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

James Appleyard

I noticed that the prod by yourself was removed before the deadline withot the author improving the article. Are you going to pursue this one? It seems like a vanity piece on an ordinary person. I will watch for your reply. --Stormbay 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Belgium

Hi, If you are still interested, please have a look at Belgium. It is currently FARC and needs some comments/support! Thanks Vb 06:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to reconsider your opinion on deletion of Clayton Middle/High School

Hi, Since your vote in favor of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton Middle/High School, I added information from three news articles about the school which establishes notability under Wikipedia standards (specifically the one you cited: WP:N). Please take a look at the revised Clayton Middle/High School article and reconsider your vote. Thanks! Noroton 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Irked

You have no idea :) There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them from the nearest freaking yardarm. I gathered the only way you found the WP:SCFT talk discussion was on a regular contribs patrol of the problem user in question. Not smart for him, as our project employs similar tactics with a number of known problem editors, and he's just got 'on the list' of a few people in the land down under. I'm actually in conversation with a local admin to see what channels are worth pursuing regarding the user's conduct. Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I have been in discussion with my local project members regarding the user as i've mentioned, and the unsigned warning on my talk page was the last straw from a WP:POINT perspective, hence my well documented complaint on AN/I eariler. If I wasn't so worked up, I would have just taken it straight to RFC and I know I could have had two supporting votes within minutes for the lodgement there. I've dealt with lots of people like this before, an example being this AfD as my most recent major triumph for common sense interpretation of notability criteria. There will be more like him after him, and the community has to be prepared to both understand that, make reasonable efforts to work with such people, but also as the essay in question specifically informs - know where to draw the line on these issues and take the appropriate procedural action. To steal from Kenny Rogers, you have to know when to hold em', know when to fold em', know when to walk, and know when to run (and I nearly considered including this in the essay at one point). As you know from the talkpage posts, schoolcruft is becoming an ever increasing problem for us in in Western Australia, particularly since WP edits can be used as part of their 20hrs of community service required by the government. So what can we do? Simple, just keep cruftians and inclusionists on their toes and take the appropriate action each time. If they refuse to behave in a manner consistent with community values, rules, policy, guidelines, and behavioural standards despite editors taking reasonable and appropriate attempts to educate them (the whole point of the essay at hand) - then they get dealt with accordingly (Just like this user). Also, I would check out User:Noroton/draft_proposal. The user seems to know our problem child well, and is trying to get up modifications to the notability standards relating to schools (sigh!). He has been politely cautioned against pursuing this specially considering many have gone before and tried this, and fallen flat on their face. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as you've just seen, I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there so i'm now going to just pepper it with appropriate references to the essay and see how it explodes. Give them enough rope as they say... Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your comment on the EastEnders pets AfD

As you might have not seen my reply on the AfD, I found your comment offensive, and suggest you read WP:CIVIL. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You may find it funny but manners don't cost a thing. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Yeah, it has been a while... I've been keeping busy at WP:CSD & WP:ANI lately. I agree, at this point a merge works best. I redid the redirect to avoid a double redirect; but otherwise looks good!--Isotope23 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mephisto Waltz

See [2]. The correct title of this film is THE Mephisto Waltz. You shouldn't have made the change you did. Please don't make edits unless you're 100% sure about them. ConoscoTutto 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Information Center / Christian Bartolf

I would like to ask (according to Seraphimblade's advise of today) if the two rewritten articles could be restored. You find them at the moment here: [[User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf] or outside Wikipedia: [3]. Thank you for your kind attention and soon responses. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

Tony Mumford

Hi there! Thanks for taking this forward. You'll notice I've reclassified this as a stub as it's a bit light on information.

Violentbob 17:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Schools Debate

Eusebeus, I was very disappointed by your comment at the deletion review of Father Michael Goetz Secondary School. You have written a very good essay on the issue of school notability and clearly understand that there are two views on this issue. While I have disagreed with your position on some articles, I recognize that you have an underlying philosophy on which you base your opinion. Now an administrator comes along and completely disregards opinions which you appear to recognize as valid in your essay, and you say the decision was "in process". If the process is to ignore comments from the community that you don't agree with then the deletion policy which reads:

These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.

should be scrapped. But there is absolutely no way that an intelligent, knowledgeable person like you can read that policy and say that this closing was "in process". I believe that if the tables were turned and an admin closed a discussion as "keep" by ignoring delete comments that recited "schools are not inherently notable" that I would not be so willing to sell out consensus to obtain a result on one article out of nearly 2,000,000. Congratulations on likely getting your way on one article, but at what cost! -- DS1953 ^talk 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The discussion of renaming VfD to AfD stated that "the deletion process is about consensus, not vote-counting. The name itself is creating confusion and setting inappropriate expectations." But I am not arguing for vote counting here. My position is that anyone who reads the arguments on this AfD and concedes that "schools are notable" is a legitimate belief, whether they themselves hold that belief or not, cannot possibly read the discussion and conclude that there was a consensus to delete. If there was not a consensus to delete, then the closing violated the clear mandate of the deletion policy. I cannot possibly be "in policy". Deletion review is not a content review; it is a process review. Giving an admin the right to ignore process only because you agree with the result undermines both the deletion process and the review process. I think that is a big mistake, much bigger than keeping or deleting any particular borderline article. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, I started to respond on your page but, like a typical lawyer, I can't be brief. I moved the answer to my own page so as not to clutter yours with my ramblings. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My latest response in again on my talk page. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode review MFD

Since you commented on the episode review MFD, I was wondering if you would like to also comment on the TFD nomination for the template the page uses, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 7#Template:Unreferenced episode. -- Ned Scott 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for your input at my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed, but I'll try to make improvements on the concerns your brought up. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's it to a T....

That's precisely what he did on the AfD we were involved in. I'll certainly comment, but as I've never commented in an RFC that someone else has started, I'm not sure where I have to comment other than the endorsement. Should it be semi-involved or involved? MSJapan 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Eusebeus, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Eusebeus, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Invitation to Join WikiProject Crime

Would you like to upgrade from an honorary member to a full member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography? Your work on Charles Luciano, Jack McGurn and Owney Madden was greatly appreciated. I feel you would be a great asset to our project.

My RfA

Form thanks: Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care!

Personal thanks: Thanks for the support and encouragement. And watch out for stalkers . . . -- But|seriously|folks  08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More on Schools

Eusebeus, are you reading about the same school I am reading about? I have held off commenting in AfD recently on some high schools that I think are borderline, but the Times of India (with 2.6 million paid subscribers, the largest English language paper in India) called Vidyashilp Academy "an institution which has pioneered a number of pedagogic innovations" and carried an interview with the school's managing trustee. Not many American or Canadian schools can claim that level of coverage. The fact that there are not hundreds of English-language sources that jump out on Google should not be too surprising since this is a high school and it is in India. As an aside, the school has an 18 acre campus with 1,000,000 square feet of buildings, which indirectly certainly makes a statement about the school. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime South

Thank you for your comments on the Anime South deletion review. The article in question improperly received a Speedy Delete with the G4 reasoning. The re-created page did not meet that criteria for a Speedy Delete because the article was substantially different from the deleted version and the revisions made clearly addressed all the reasons for which the page was originally deleted. In addition, the admin who initiated the Speedy Delete, Seraphimblade, was involved in a discussion on the list of anime conventions discussion page that originated the suggestion to delete the article the first time. After months of researching outside sources for the article and posting the totally newly-written article, it received a Speedy Delete by Seraphimblade within minutes of its creation. -Animesouth 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami Shankarananda Saraswati

This article has been updated with additional references pertinent to notability. Since the article was updated two others have decided to change their decision vis. delete keep. I invite you to take the opportunity to reconsider your position also. Yogidude 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cory in the House Episodes

I noticed you had redirected all of them to List of Cory in the House episodes. I request that you do not redirect episode articles without prior discussion, as this causes problems. There is currently a discussion here about the articles. You are invited to comment. I  ^{(said) (did)} 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, a formal review amounts to using ring shank nails in the episode articles' coffin. --Jack Merridew 09:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Greetings,

In regards to this article:

Robert Young (gerontologist)

First I'd like to say that I have been listed in thousands of sources. You can start by finding a hardcover 2007 edition of Guinness World Records. See page 2.

These appear to be independent sources (i.e. sources I don't control) to be:

http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-28-oldest-person_x.htm

http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/29/stories/2006082904102200.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14550820/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497251/

Also, since I am involved with so many groups (from Guinness to the GRG to the SRF to the NECS to the Max Planck Institute to Social Security) it wouldn't make sense to 'merge' the article. Putting all the information in one place makes sense.

Further, I am a self-made person. I achieved my positions BEFORE graduating. Obtaining the degrees is just a rear-guard action.

Have a nice day.Ryoung122 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I was nominated once previously. Several editors took the opportunity to heap vitriol and abuse on my head and while I would be happy handling some tasks that are admin-only as part of what I do anyway I have no interest in being subjected to the shitstorm that goes with the nomination process. Otto4711 12:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are aware...

...you might want to check this page out. I came to it after reading a post by that user at WP:AN, where he linked to an RfC, which in turn linked there. --Iamunknown 09:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Friends episodes

Please stop redirecting The One with the East German Laundry Detergent and The One with the Butt to List of Friends episodes. Stop deleting all the information from these pages. It is disrespectful to Wikipedia users.

Friends episodes

Then you might as well redirect all 236 episodes to List of Friends episodes. Have fun.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Through the Looking Glass (Lost)

Feel like changing to support? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but, you crossed out weak oppose, but then didn't add support. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. And the main Lost article is already an FA. Thanks, thedemonhog talk • edits 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs!

No problem, dear Eusebeus :) In fact, I'm more on a semi-wikibreak that a full break, so it's nothing to worry about. Again, as I told you before, please let me know if any other problems arise. A very friendly suggestion, if you allow me: I can't help but to notice that, although R:128.40.76.3 was certainly in breach of several different policies, my friend Jack and you also gave in to the frustration of the edit dispute and took part in it. Now please, don't take this badly, for I think everyone gives in to that temptation at some point; it's inevitable. My most kind suggestion is, please, don't let the stress of an edit war get the best of you. In the future, if you find yourself at a similar situation, don't hesitate to ask for my help in order to try and find an acceptable compromise and a solution instead, k, sweetie? Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 02:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One Tree Hill episodes

I would much prefur them to be merged with the season articles. I would have merged them along time ago, if I wasn't worried other people would moan. Russell >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

fyi: Chris Shiflett does porn (?)

nb: edits which doesn't appear to be justified by the "references" added.