User talk:Eusebeus/Archive 7

Elgar's Enigma Variations=

17:23, 1 April 2010 Eusebeus removed from this article the passage about Pathetique-theory and wrote: 'removing the "Pathétique" Reference as WP:OR from a WP:SPA with WP:COI - self published works do not satisfy the standard of WP:RS. DO NOT RESTORE until better sourcing is found'.

Eusebeus, I am sorry to say, but you are wrong in this. The Pathetique-theory is not 'original resource'. It was published in 2007. See the reference in the article:

• Westgeest, Hans (2007). Elgar's Enigma Variations. The Solution. Leidschendam-Voorburg: Corbulo Press. ISBN 978-90-79291-01-4 (hardcover), ISBN 978-90-79291-03-8 (paperback).

'Single purpose account'? The only thing I did, and what I was forced to do, was restoring a passage which one particular person, called 82.173.128.227, apparently doesn't like and which he deleted several times in order to defend his own theory from 1976. He even removed the reference to Westgeest's book! Is that providing neutral information??? And fair play?

'Conflict of interest'? A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. I only tried to keep the passage about Westgeest's Pathetique-theory in the article, where it belongs. It is a neutral account of an important theory (I am sure the one which people are looking for since 1899), which was published in a book in 2007.

Please look at what the person called 82.173.128.227 did to the Pathetique-theory (and to his own theory) in: Revisions 9 January 2010, 9 February 2010, 22 March 2010 and 24 March 2010 And in the Dutch Wikipedia art. 'Enigma Variaties': Revisions 11 January 2010 Now that's what I call a COI  !81.205.147.164 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (Reubke)

(X-posted from User:DavidRF David I wikified Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (Reubke). Never heard it, never even heard of it, but I highly doubt this chordal sequence: i, bII6, viio7, i4-3, v, VI6/4, viio7 (spelled enharmonically as a diminished seventh of Abb minor) and finally V Am I reading that correctly - the enharmonic spelling of A double flat minor?? Surely not. Eusebeus (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about the funny chord progression. I've never heard of the work or the composer either. I just moved it from Piano Sonata in B-Flat minor because that was far too generic a page title. A user named "Lisztener" created the page and most of its content. A quick google search says that "viio7" is the "leading-tone diminished seventh chord" examples and a check of Diminished seventh chord shows all sorts of double and triple flats, so its possible, especially starting with a key that already has five flats. But to tell you the truth, I knew nothing about the chord before the google search. You'd have to ask a harmony expert.DavidRF (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I will address this on Talk:Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (Reubke) momentarily. --Yano (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Julius Reubke received his early musical training from Hermann Bonicke in Quedlinburg. Among other works, he produced his "Trio in E flat" during this time. He entered the Berlin Conservatory in 1851, where he studied piano with Kullak and composition with Bernhard Marx. He was considered the school's most gifted student and composed works fluently written in the keyboard style of Chopin during this time. After a short period of teaching piano at the conservatory, he went to Weimar to study with Liszt, where he became one of Liszt's favorite pupils. His two most important works, written in 1857, were the "Piano Sonata in B flat minor" and the "Organ Sonata in C minor." Both works were admired by members of the Weimar circle, and Liszt regarded Reubke as a composer of promise. He moved to Dresden in 1857 and joined the Dresden Tonkunstlerverein, participating as a pianist in their concerts. He died in June of that year. His organ sonata, an instrumental setting of a psalm text, is considered one of the truest manifestations of Romantic thought, and it represents one of the high points of nineteenth century organ literature. His early death left his considerable promise unfulfilled. ~ Lynn Vought, All Music Guide MusicTex (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

December 2008

Please do not add what may appear to be defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Arch Coal. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please ensure that you do not defame people or organizations, intentionally or unintentionally by making unsourced characterizations. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodward effect AFD

Just FYI, I updated myself from Delete to Keep. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but to just review the new sources. It could still go either way, and I have no preference in any event. It's a fairly big shift in material for an article of the size, so I just want to make sure you see it. I don't know if it's a shift in value, and am up in the air on that (like you can see from my comment). rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodward effect

See recent changes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward effect. I don't think this is a fringe view: one that most experts think is idiotic. My reading is that most people who understand the concept are very skeptical, but are unwilling to completely rule it out - they don't want to look stupid if the theory is proved and the technology turns out to be practical, although they are fairly confident neither will happen. My guess is that the theory about mass variance may or may not become accepted, but will never have any practical use. I can say that because I have no scientific reputation to protect. But the real question is not whether the idea is true, but whether it is notable. Given the references, I think it is. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• After rewriting the article, I am starting to think the theory should be treated in the same way as Baron Münchhausen's claim to have escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. But the number of references and fact that people are still running experiments makes it notable.
  • I thought the Baron lifted himself back onto his horse by this method. Anyway, a strong metaphor and one I use often. I have struck my vote. Eusebeus (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël

Joyeux Noël, Eusebeus. --Pixelface (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Star of Diligence for user TTN??

Hi - you gave user TTN an award -- TTN is a long-time vandal, endlessly going around and deleting entire articles. TTN recently deleted the article on the award-winning Pilot (Malcolm in the Middle episode) citing reason as: "Still nothing here" and redirecting to the list of Malcolm episodes. TTN has been systematically destroying the Malcolm episodes. TTN is tearing down Wikipedia instead of taking some effort to improve it. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. He's a defender of the wiki against those who incessantly fight all encyclopedic standards and the most basic requirements. Take it to Jimbo or the village pump if you don't like the fact that Wikipedia still ostensibly is an encyclopedic project. 78.34.133.5 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus that was cheeky...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think this was the best award. Cheekily, Jack Merridew 07:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, Eusebeus, there are rules and policies here. Please justify TTN summarily deleting Pilot (Malcolm in the Middle episode), without consensus and without an adaquate edit summary. As the person who did the REVERT, restoring the article ("Hullaballoo Wolfowitz") wrote, "I believe edits like that must be treated as vandalism" and I agree. You call TNN a "defender of the wiki" - seems you're probably either friends with him, a deletionist, or both. Look at the number of articles created by TTN compared to the number he deleted or edited. I believe he created six. He's tearing down the work of others, sadly. Please remember "encyclopedic standards" are slightly different for online media compared to printed -- paper isn't wasted, and WP founder Jimbo agrees. Unfortunately I have better things to do than to patrol for WP vandals like TNN, so in that case he usually wins. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

John Paul II

Not sure how you feel about these type of articles, but I am impressed by folks trying to get some important figures up to FA and feel I can help a bit, though as an atheist much religious material sails over my head really. But anyway, these chaps could do with some tightening of prose, I had a bit of a go and will have another crack at it later, but thought if we all chip in it may be of value. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

JRB37

Any luck on those page number for the Kammen cite? Foofighter20x (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another one popped up that was yours... Foofighter20x (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Any guidance on how to rework the prose? I looked over the MoS and can't find anything with the language used or tone of voice... is it too mechanical or something? That's one criticism you guys had that I just didn't get. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia style guidelines require keeping the intro to no more than 4 paragraphs. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ('Obviously' not news??) WikiScrubber (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park episode list

I saw your work on the episode list for Farscape episodes against considerable resistance. I was proposing to merge the episodes of South Park season 1 into a more manageable list of episodes, would you mind giving an opinion on the talk page concerned. Alastairward (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance (geopolitical)

Check out the more encyclopedic rewrite. Remember, this is still really a "stub" for a larger article which having the stub there enables. -74.162.128.218 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Just to let you know that you've been mentioned by me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neon_white.27s_unhelpful_commentary_at_WQA. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Use_of_the_word_.22Spastic.22

www.pinkzebrashop.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.144.53 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I guess you were just archiving that discussing as I clicked 'edit' and added this. I didn't notice the change to the page between my reading it, and my adding the comment.

I'm not happy with the outcome, as no action has resulted; whilst I have no intention of causing argument for the sake of argument, I do feel strongly enough about the issue to request further input. I feel that enough people agreed with my views, within the discussion, to warrant further debate. Where would you suggest I could ask for further advice? --  Chzz  ►  17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to have cut out your comment. I doubt you'll find much consensus and just a lot more back and forth, so the best thing is probably to let it go. I don't think the comment was intended in an uncivil way. If you feel very strongly, you can always consider AN/I. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Haydn Symphonies

I see now that the largest opponent to all the small sections was exposed for running a sock farm that you are putting all the little sections back. I actually don't mind merging them if they are really small. It looks a bit silly if the lead is just a single sentence. Surveying other composers articles, composition date usually goes in the lead section. Instrumentation could be the lead sentence of the movements section. My two cents.

The Haydn 98 note on the keyboard solo should be easy to find. Its the one thing that's always mentioned in the program notes about the work. Gotta be in Steinberg for sure. The Landon London volume is always checked out of the library. I'll add that when I get home.

I wish score excerpts were easier to find. I get spoiled by NMA for Mozart and wish they had that type of thing for more composers. For what I have done, I usually just get the notes out of Hodgson, Landon or Steinberg and use lilypond to create the image. Often some of the other language wiki's (e.g. german, french or dutch) has an image, too. That's how I found the ones for #70 and #47. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yea I am going back and restoring those sections mostly b/c eventually it would be nice to include the details of the composition that are provided across HCRL and others. So I foresee expanding in most cases. Thanks for correcting my error on 39. I had written on 26 that it was an early departure from the da chiesa style, an ignorant slip up I only caught today.

I suppose, but something has to go in the lead and for most non-Haydn articles that's composition date. As for the note on #26, the old text was worded oddly, but I took it to mean that the movement structure didn't fit the three usual norms: italian, standard-4 movement (minuet-3 or minuet-2) or Sonata da chiesa. I think there's only a few real departures and those are #18, #25, #26 and #30... well and I suppose also #60 (and maybe #45 if you count the coda as something different). Anyhow, the unique movement structure is worth a note if you can think of a better wording.

On another matter, I keep thinking we should set up a Haydn sub-project to centralise our discussions. Probably just be you, me and Antandrus, but that s fine company to keep. But at least there would be a single place for these discussions that go back now some three years almost! Interested? Eusebeus (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Tell me what page to watch. You thinking of a special wiki-sub-project or just using the talk page for List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn? DavidRF (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah a triumvirate ain't a bad thing at all...well, not so much this one but this one (well, Peta has sorta been inactive a wee while...) ...lotsa featured articles, mentioned in a Peer-reviewed journal etc. hehehe Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Now that's obscure. Eusebeus (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They are very nice plants. But quite unforgiving to grow...I don't think they'd handle Montreal winters very well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing handles Montreal winters very well. Next winter I'll be in Spain hopefully. Btw, do you agree with the gloss regarding your arbcom election that has been provided over here? You greatly help reduce the friction between the various sides here (hence my urging you to run for arbcom, for what that was worth, despite your totally unacceptable inclusionist tendencies ;-) ) and I am unhappy to see your name get dragged into this kind of stuff, albeit tangentially. Eusebeus (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed that - I do generally try and find common ground with people. Funnily enough, the divisiveness of the two sides in the trench warfare at AfD (which I thought was vast and insurmountable) was surprisingly easy to defuse with most editors involved, and rather dwarfed by some other grudges I have seen in the more central bureaucracy (or is that quagmire) where I have seen numerous ongoing exchanges and pile-ons suggesting the rather strong influence of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". An arb nomming and another opposing, that could be funny. I will have to see if I can find some common ground there I guess.

PS: The arb voting was very enlightening on a number of counts, and I only figured out one oppose just recently...from (I think) a very oblique link...) Spain does sound rather fun...Madrid (great character, was surprised by how much I liked the place), or Barcelona (liked it, but smething a bit homogeneously cosmopolitan about it like SYdney or SF, still I love Sydney the best so maybe tht is not such a bad thing) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cas, thanks. I owe you one translation/copy edit of your choosing. Eusebeus (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

dmetric returns?

Do you really think the sock puppet is back? Maybe I assume good faith too much. DavidRF (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, unfortunately. The use of socks to "enforce" page changes is unacceptable and if these actions persist, I'll actually bother to file a CU plus lay out the evidence in solicitation of further blocks against the sock accounts ("Tcourt" at Haydn 30 is certainly one). As for the larger point, I remain opposed to the inclusion of discography sections in the articles as unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Issues about things like the use of timpani and continuo in different recordings is more relevant, but this is one of the reasons why a Haydn/Mozart daughter project might be useful for centralised discussion. One thing is clear: we cannot countenance additions being made by sockpuppets, and the dmetric farm was one of the largest I have seen in my 3 years here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)

Hi, Sheree Silver, which you participated in a deletion review for a while back is undergoing another AFD, located at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Feel free to comment. Spring12 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended or upset you with my observations, I was just double-checking the consensus was read correctly. Spring12 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Haydn-30 reference

The new reference only includes a page number, not the actual reference. Could you fix that? Probably just a "typo". Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On Haydn-27, you quote HCRL with the following two sentences:

Robbins Landon's description of the movement, "as Italian an andante as was ever composed in Naples or Palermo" is fanciful.[2]There is nothing particularly Italianate in its style.

These seem to contradict each other. I had to return my copy of HCRL to the library, so I can't read what he wrote right now. Is there a typo in here? Could you please rephrase this a bit? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmetric

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmetric. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

After seeing your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the deletion discussion for Chronology of Star Wars, an article which has been nominated for the same reasons. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 07:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals (2nd nomination)

I would like to thank you for your participation on the AFD for this article, which is important to the quality of wikipedia (whether your opinion is in agreement with mine or not). I'd like to ask you to revisit your vote, considering user:Paul Erik has begun sourcing the main article to the point where I believe it establishes the topic notable enough to be discussed in major publications like Billboard, and The Hollywood Reporter, and there are likely more sources out there to be discovered. My opinion is that the main article is clearly notable, while the subarticles should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, as some may be notable, and others not. I'd appreciate you considering your vote again, based on the new sourcing. Thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why wait?

Perhaps you should just comment here.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert

Were you aware that an RfC on Tennis expert was recently launched? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:WAF

My understanding is that you amended the reference to WP:UNDUE ino WP:WAF with this edit. This principle is currently under discussion at WT:WAF and I would be grateful for your comments about its introduction and subsequent removal.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination)

I have rewritten Andy Wisne in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. You wrote that "If I'm wrong and he really is notable, then presumably someone other than himself will inevitably be inspired to write about him." Your comment inspired me to rewrite the article. I hope you can take a look at it and reevaluate your position at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Haydn symphony notes

Thanks for the kudos on the Haydn symphony quotes. As you might have guess from the edits, I've picked up a reasonably priced copy of A. P. Brown's "Symphonic Repertoire" volume pertaining to Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven/Schubert. Lots of interesting stuff in here. He writes quite a bit on *every* Symphony by those guys... (a few of Mozart's in the 20s get glossed over). Brown is really big on PTSK sonata-form notation which is pretty cool once you get the hang of it, but perhaps a bit arcane for wiki-articles. Anyhow, if your favorite symphony from those four needs more details, let me know and I'll see if Brown has anything interesting to say. DavidRF (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Dizzy article

I restored and modified the article. My recent edits also show everybody that the character is even more important than other characters that still have articles of their own. He's prominent in merchandise and even has his own video game.

BTW, two rv were done while I was working... Actually I'm still not done. Please, start a new discussion after I'm done if you still feel like erasing it.

--20-dude (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm done. Please, notice that the merge proposal actually ended up in Keep, which means the article should have never been deleted, as it was against concensus.--20-dude (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations

This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here [1].Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For collabortaing in the Spanish wikipedia, I'll check your translation of the 27th. Cheers! OboeCrack (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your spanish mixes some things from catalan and french. For example we never say " La historia d'este compositor". d' no exists in spanish. But the musical looks fine! OboeCrack (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have finished 26 and will now do 49. Eusebeus (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done OboeCrack (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've translated until symphony #30! In Nos. 26 and 27 you made common mistakes. Key is translated as tonalidad, not clave. And Horns is trompa, not cuernos. The rest are expression mistakes I've corrected. Good job! OboeCrack (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Adoptee seeks Mentor

Hello,

I saw your post that you are available to adopt Wikipedia Users, seeking adoption. I do seriously need a Mentor, and would like it if a Mentor can undertake the position of Mentoring, seriously and be available to answer emails.

If this sounds like an interesting match, please contact me. Thank you for your efforts in helping all Wikipedia users.

--irshgrl500 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, I have just been adopted but I will contact you again should my "adoption" not work out. I appreciate your help on Wikipedia. --irshgrl500 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Haydn subtitles

The nickmnames of the symphonies appear in differents ways: in some they appear in italics and in other in bold with "", and in others just with "". Please try to adopt the same pattern for all of them. You should discuss it with another users and then change them. Thank you in advance. Cheers! OboeCrack (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I will call you on this....

right then, my comrade Hesperian wishes for this article on a rather idyllic or godforsaken place depending on how one looks at it really to go to FAC --> North Island (Houtman Abrolhos) <-- pending a look at the prose. Not too long an article and will do Hesp a great favour to start teh ball rolling on a bunch more banksia articles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for dislodging some creative constipation there as I think it will give Hesp the nudge along, but a more pressing task arises. I just noticed Valkyrie at the bottom of the FAC list here at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Valkyrie/archive1#Valkyrie, which would be great to get through FAC - I am finding copyediting this heavy going, and it would be great to start getting some more ancient mythology articles up too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. Eusebeus (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the candidacy has been withdrawn, which I feel is a shame. I am hoping to maybe assist in some prose-massage which may induce the nominator to renominate anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

You marked the WQA on this user as resolved, saying he apologized (didn't really see anything like a real apology anywhere, but OK). It is clear, however, that this is not resolved, as the person is now being highly uncivil to others on the talk page of the article in question, violating AGF by claiming that someone is a sock of another user without any proof, and forum shopping on ANI and the FRINGE noticeboard of all places, all with all the same behavior I reported. Clearly something more needs to be done, because if anything he's gotten worse. DreamGuy (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To wit...

Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Is_baiting_underrecognised.3F - join in the fun. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Cas, I've corrected your spelling :O. Eusebeus (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated - I usually only use the expression in relation to those mighty nocturnal members of the Strigiformes...as in "to whit, to woo" (I just don't understand their infatuation with uttering infinitives though...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Subsequent to your metaphor(s) elsewhere which were quoted on the page, I did propose the observation here for folks to acknowledge or dismiss. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I meant to inform you that I reposted a WQA comment of yours (that I liked) to another WP page, but I see that someone else beat me to it. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I am happy that my comment was deemed useful. We have dealt with this stuff on other occasions (here for instance), so far without much result other than people like me intervening to make the point such as the one you x-posted. Frankly, the civility stuff is an insuperable issue; insofar as strangers who interact in a narrow virtual space will inevitably suffer disagreements and given the unshackling of restraint induced by anonymity, it is amazing that the civility policy works as well as it does frankly.

The real problem is when incivility comes in forms other than garden varieties of "you are an asshole, go fuck yourself". These are typically passive-aggressive editing tactics (e.g. replying insistently to every !vote in an AfD) that are designed to rile people up. They may not be directly rude, but the consequence is no less a serious breach of civility. Editors like Badly Drawn Jeff, Monicas Dude, Kurt Weber and Pumpkin King were examplar of such atrocious behaviour. Eventually, they leave or are forced out, but the amount of vexation and trouble they cause before being tossed is unacceptable. Anything that you can do, Cas, to improve the mechanisms for dealing with this would be beneficial. Eusebeus (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I realised this was going to be like herding cats, but I was intrigued that if we could get quantity and hence a broader section of editors posting than all the usual suspects it might provide a better snapshot - also asking people to give their broader impressions. It might be this ends up being more about practice than fussing around with any policy as such, though I am intrigued about old conundrums such as a user's own talk page for venting etc. Totally agree abvout the subtle stuff in general. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder...

...if I should just go ahead and de-list all the other "Good Articles" I have ever written, and save myself the irritation of having someone completely ignorant on the topic from riddling them with tags, and hurling a C-class rock through the window as they back out of the driveway. Of course if I did do, I'd be accused of "OWNership" and POINT disruption, I'm sure. More seriously, is this something that is even possible to reform? It seems like not a crazy idea to have an article review process which has, as its core, a content accuracy and neutrality assessment by people who actually know something about the topic. Or maybe I'm about to wake up from my long sleep and realize this place is fundamentally insane after all? I may need a visit to the Psikhushka ... Antandrus (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I tried a while back to see if their was an appetite for reform after stumbling onto a dispute over a science page GAR. The GA crowd were asking for sourcing for the most basic assertions (like gravity), and after lengthy debate the conclusion was that GA is a waste of time. It collects people whose earnestness seems to blind them to how rude they are by "judging" articles in a field in which they have no - not even little - competence or expertise and when this lack of qualification is pointed out to them, they wikilawyer and somehow position their high horse even higher. So my advice is, to put it bluntly (and to quote a film I like, to fuck it. I'll delist for you if you like. ;) Eusebeus (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that you boldly deleted the unref tags. I'm beginning to wonder if these fly-in assessments are best treated like vandals. Wait until they're bored with the article, revert, and move on. If I cared about GA I'd revert past the delisting; but I don't think I do at all any more. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Tx. They're not vandals in that they mean well, just usually uninformed. Disinterest in GA is both understandable and salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "blindingly stupid", here's a chuckle: [2]. Antandrus (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. To be fair there are four different assertions being made there: that it's "significant", "human", "sense", and "organ." I really think that you'll need at least four citations to get that past GAR. (Maybe five, to show that it's "a" and not "the" significant human sense organ). Eusebeus: I know that they differ from vandals in that they mean well; what I meant was that the ultimate solution to cleaning up the article after they pass through might be the same, revert, don't antagonize, and move on. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My favorite recent _fact_ tag by GAR: Oedipus Rex is set in Thebes. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, I remember that, like the memory of a bad toothache. You know, if I'd seen this at the time, I might have just hit "rollback." Then again, the 'wait a day or two and quietly remove them' method is a far superior tactic. I could probably cite Sun Tzu on that one (oops, primary source). I just discovered to my great surprise that someone quoted me on their own sweeps page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps -- down near the bottom in italics. Didn't seem to do any good though. Antandrus (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

These examples are priceless. We could perhaps start a debate at GA to request that ideal practise suggest reviewers be nominally informed about a topic. That could help eliminate some of the worst displays of supine ignorance such as you reference above and improve the overall value of GA. Eusebeus (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are being unfair.

I wrote, "I do not mind it when BWilkins and High King tell me they see no personal attack. True, I thought that they misunderstood my explanation, but I know they were giving their honest opinions." and I meant that. I also wrote, "Nathan, Shuba and others have only expressed dismissive contempt. Is that what this space is for?" It is unfair for you to claim that I am upset because I am not being told what I want to hear. Maunus and Orderinchaos have not told me what I wanted to hear, but I have expressed no complaint against them.

When someone comes to WQA they should expect to be treated with respect and courtesy. Some people treated me that way, and I appreciate it, even if they did not tell me "what I wanted to hear."

Do you really think Nathan responded the way anyone at WQA should respond to an editor who has come to them in good faith?

The problem with Nathan is not that he thinks I have no basis for a complaint. It is that his response to my complaint was to misrepresent me in a snide manner.

You really cannot tell the difference between the two? I know you think my case has no merit. I have NO problem accepting that. You can even criticize me for calling Nathan a snide toady in public; you can say no matter what the provocation you should not act that way. Okay, if that is what you think, I can accept that too. But if you claim that I have called Nathan a snide toady simply because he said things I do not want to hear, you are being unfair. A person can disagree while assuming good faith, and a person can disagree without assuming good faith. I think the difference is important, especially at WQA. I assumed good faith, but Nathan's first response to me showed only a lack of good faith. That is what I responded to. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Glazunov 7

I think I was unclear- the Naxos reference wasn't to establish the number of movements (agreed, uncontroversial), but the tempo headings for each individual movement! (Hopefully can find and check a better reference for that soon, maybe the university library's copy of the score of the symphony.) Thanks- Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, ok. I personally don't think we need to provide a reference for such a readily available fact as the tempi markers either, but if you wish, just pull up the score on oclc and add it in - there should be no need to go get it physically. Eusebeus (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Prose massaging (again...)

Yeah I know I know, Christopher Smart's asylum confinement was recently nominated at FAC but its (unsuccessful) candidacy seemed to have stalled for want of a copyeditor. I am having a lookover for Ottava but some input to nudge it in the right direction of succinct and crisp prose-hood would be much appreciated and methinks Ottava would be mightily greatful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• No go Cas: I find OR rather confrontational and disagreeable with a healthy side of ownership, so I'm not keen getting anywhere near. That's a good (if familiar) read, but I have to wonder why on earth is has been separated out of the main article? His "madness" and subsequent confinement is about 90% of what is important about his life and seems to me should be at the principle bio page. All part of our enthusiasm for splintering things into microtopics I suppose.... Eusebeus (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay fair enough, I can see your point, although the parent article is plenty meaty enough as is now I look at it. I am rather a neophyte in the area so not the best to judge. Intriguing subject though, and it looks like Malleus has chipped in with some good kneading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New page development

Hello,

I have developed and page about an Organization which I would like to publish. I have kept all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia in mind before completing it. I needed to have a review on it with some assistance in citation, reference, signature etc.

Waiting for your approval.

Thank you

Satyajeet Darak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peswriter (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Pacific Garbage Patch

You sure that your edit to Great Pacific Garbage Patch to "clearer" version is one that is supported by the sources and NPOV? Per the request on the talk page re: hyperbole, I reviewed most of the sources and was not able to find any that specifcally backed that claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Exceptional means unusual, not typical. It is in this case the mot juste. Eusebeus (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Eusebeus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last One (Aqua Teen Hunger Force).
Message added 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

warrior4321 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

my error

and my thanks for catching it. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Place Ville-Marie

Hi there,

I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,

-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's a rooftop bar. Google to find it's address and you have the number of floors. Eusebeus (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The rooftop bar seems to be a three story addition to the building. 117Avenue (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling All Caslibers

Cas, Cool-headed opinion for heated article debates (assuming all that encroaching summery warmth hasn't affected the noggin) still your style, I'm assuming, & I've got an eye on a pseudo-BLP/Battleground prob. Fine for now, but may require the kind of this-is-why-you-were-elected lookover. Sort of you area too. Anyway, it's a heads up mate. (Wait, do I owe you the favour still? Would this mean more time in the translation trenches?) Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. My halo has fallen off and I fell on my sword. I suspect your contrib history will lead me to it...might give me some ideas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

• Discussion
• Poll

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For {{this}} devasting rhetorical flourish. I certainly have been called a wanker before, but only rarely with such aplomb. The point is yours, sir. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked......in the original pre-wikipedia meaning of the writers' kind

Okay, I am a little stumped. Trying to describe this lovely bird (reputedly good at 'retiring' canaries and budgies in unprotected little cages) and its gradual change in morphology and plumage from north to south:

Was originally:

The overall plumage lightens (from black to a greyish black), body size increases and the bill slightly shortens as one moves from north to south. The amount of white plumage in the tail increases, but on the wing decreases

but Sasata felt it was awkward so I tried:

The more southern the population of Pied Currawongs, the lighter the overall plumage (from black to a greyish black) is, the larger the body size, and the shorter the bill. The amount of white plumage in the tail increases, but on the wing decreases

I have been staring at it a wee while and the words are refusing to sit nicely. Can you see what I am (unsuccessfully to date) trying to show? All input appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll give this a whirl when I have a moment. I think I can crack it. Eusebeus (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I had to work this one up for FA to accompany this photo which I am most pround of - I took it of a friend of mine - we'd unwrapped some sandwiches for food near a picnic area and the birds surrounded us with Hitchcockian relish....and they are quite sinister-looking..Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Grecian Urn

"I don't think its peacocky to observe that it is a very famous and influential poem. "

WP:OR would require a reliable source. There is little in terms of reliable sources making the above claim, especially with many of the famous critics responding to the poem pointing out various flaws with the poem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now now....

Now now Eusebeus, I humbly request you refrain from swearing per our civility rules and please substitute doo-doo or some other nicer word...(had to find something to cheer myself with on that page as god knows it has been somewhat taxing to read.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Refactored. Sorry about that. Eusebeus (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually being facetious... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

About Girolamo Frescobaldi...

Hello,

I edited Girolamo Frescobaldi's page last night. I have to do this for a university project. I understand you want to revise what I did, but I would request that you change it after Dec. 3 when I get my grade. I need to undo the edits you have made in order restore some of the information within the article that you have deleted, in order to receive full credit for my project. I would appreciate if you respected my request. I apologize for the inconvenience I have caused.

Blackney615 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Blackney615

cockatoo

I would be grateful if you caught sight/noted/espied of any spots of grammatical turpitude before I fired it off down the production line...much appreciated...just need some fresh eyes on it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, much obliged :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

"Pots and kettles"? "Drive-by" A bit harsh, it seems to me, for a place which is trying to promote civility. Not that I disagree with the closing of the discussions. Anyway, changed the tags to NWQA per the criteria under volunteer instructions. Gerardw (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks for that. Real helpful, respectful and worthwhile. I'm seriously at my wits end with the constant baiting, but you've shown me the right path is not open to me. Hiding T 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hiding, I respect both you and Gavin , but you know that this debate has been going on a long time and I doubt really that you need WQA to hep sort things out. My comment was not intended to be unhelpful and I will retract if you think it needed. Eusebeus (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You do what you like, but I am afraid I find the comment unhelpful. Yes, I probably should not have resorted to reponding in kind, but after three years I eventually cracked, mea culpa. I'm fed up of my character being called into question in every post Gavin makes. It does not stop, see this accusation and compare to the edit I make, in which I clearly do not remove the requirement for secondary sourcing and dilute the requirement for indpendent sourcing. I wrote WP:IS for crying out loud. I've really had it. I can't help but feel this is baiting. You explain to me how I deal with it and remain within the bounds of WP:CIV when someone constantly insinuates, and casts aspersions over my character. You think I am just as much to fault, and yet I feel compared to some editors who deal with similar trolling, JZG springs to mind, I have been the model of restraint. I am entirely at my wits end with Gavin, as is Masem. Gavin has called an RFC at WP:N asking whether material which has been in the page for over four years should be added to the page!?, and has accused me of recently adding this four year old material. He has even refused to retract such accusations when I have pointed the error out. You may well agree with many of Gavin's opinions, but I don't happen to play politics like that. The way we do things is more important than the goal, that was the whole reason behind the civility policy, to stop us becoming USENET. You'll have to explain to me how Gavin came by your respect, because although I am always happy to assume good faith, and always strive to demonstrate good faith, the policy states that I should not continue to make a good faith assumption in the presence of contrary evidence, which the above accusations and actions clearly show. Given Gavin has rejected mediation, I no longer know where to turn. Regards, Hiding T 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if the accusation has annoyed you Hiding, but the fact remains: you have removed or been a party to the removal both the requirement for both secondary sourcing and independent sourcing - see this edit [3], which you refer to as "grammar", but I view as watering down of the guideline. It is hard to understand why you have done this because these inclusion requirements are the basis of WP:V, which I believe you are a supporter.
The problem, as I see it, is that it is not clear why you are making these changes, and as such the problem lies with you. Whilst you are free to make as many changes as you wish without having to provide any explanation at all, the fact that you have not explained what you are trying to achieve makes it difficult to understand. At least I explain my changes on discussion page and make my reasoning explicit. The downside to this approach is that I attract a lot of opposition when I declare my overall intentions, but it is the only way to make long term progress, and avoid accusations that I act in bad faith. I really think you need to do the same, so your intentions become explicit, and there can be no misunderstanding. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies Eusebeus, I hadn't meant for your talk page to become yet another arena for me and Gavin. I'd appreciate your answer to some of my points though, thanks. Hiding T 15:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't my intent either. Sorry about starting this here. Gerardw (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't worry about it. If we can help things along, I am happy to lend my user page to the cause. Here's what I think, in brief. The NFICT issue is obviously a difficult one. As you know, I stopped participating b/c I felt I was not advancing the debate and nor my point of view. But both your voices - Hiding and Gavin - are very important to helping move things forward. Even if you don't agree, it is extremely important in my view that you maintain a strong and civil dialogue between you because ultimately your discussion will prove central to reconciliation and finding a solution that can accommodate all sides. So, I don't think Gavin is baiting you Hiding, and while I can understand your frustration, I think, in the main, you both are maintaining a reasonable tone that brings insight and candour to this thorny issue. Eusebeus (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Rosenzweig (composer)

I have nominated Michael Rosenzweig (composer) for deletion. I would be grateful if you could let the community know your opinion about this. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Don Giovanni

Thanks for trying to help with this. Please see Talk:Don_Giovanni#New_section:The_Music_of_Don_Giovanni. Best. --Kleinzach 23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hope you have a great new year too! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You D bag, how dare you protect Dianne Feinstein and her piece of shit husband. You douche, scumbag piece of trash. People like you are ruining america

Bailey Quarters

Hi, an edit of yours was mentioned by another editor at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey Quarters

The other editor opined that you were were 'satisfied' with his undoing of your edit and I thought you might want to speak for yourself. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayreuth canon

Hi, I noticed on your user page that you seem to be interested in the Bayreuth Festival, judging by the articles on which you've spent time. Might you spare a few minutes reviewing Bayreuth canon, which is at FLC? Any input is appreciated. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Article circumscription

Here's an interesting one -I picked up Illegal logging in Madagascar to review at GAN, but then paused to wonder at the scope. Is it too narrow or is the circumscription a good one? What do you reckon...?Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Cas, nice to hear from you. I can see what probably struck you as the problem with the article (other than it is too long). The purview means it tends towards WP:SOAPBOX. I would probably expand it to be "Logging in Madagascar" (Or Timber Exploitation in Madagascar) and then include the illegal practices therein, especially since the ecological and environmental problems of logging do not care whether a tree has been cut down legally or not. Btw, can you keep an eye on the GPGP article? Someone wants to dumb it down; they'll come for yours next, replacing plumage with feathers and endocrinology with that gland stuff. Eusebeus (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha - yeah, was thinking along those lines of scope definitely, and the ink is a prudent ones. Will check the other, at least it is being translated :)

Another challenge - think of some concrete categories/parameters here - i.e. broad encyclopedic topics currently underrepresented, but can you circumscribe some that are absolutely unequivocal? Gotta run but I can explain later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit oblique. Can you explain? Eusebeus (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - back to point #1 - I think we've now opened a can of worms. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re #2 - the wikicup is here - i.e. a fun competition to promote article writing. Although I love cruft, I recognise the difficulty in hearding cats editors into sprucing up core encyclopedic material. Now in this competition one scores points for FA/GA/DYK contributions. The issue at foot is to try and think of 'bonus' categories which score more points, to induce folks to improve some really core encyclopedic articles - J Milburn and co. who are coordinating the wikicup are (justifiably) cautious, so the idea is to think of dead-set concrete categories that would be impossible to interpret in some silly way or other. Thus my suggestions of unambiguous categories thus far:

• Any sovereign state (i.e country)
• Any capital city of a country
• Any ocean
• Any continent
• Any element (there are over a hundred of them - I think it would be a great milestone to get all featured)
• Any food item (has to be a type of food like pork, barley, rice, corn etc. - cannot be a brand of item like twinkies, cornflakes etc.)
• Any past or present head of state of a country (prime minister, monarch etc. Also includes pontiffs)
• Any group of organism of class level or higher (we have a stack of GAs/FAs on species, but precious few on the bigger groups)
• Any Nobel Prize Winner
• Any musical instrument or class of instruments in a classical orchestra"
• Any World Heritage Site

thus the challenge to try and come up with core encyclopedic topics that belong in some concrete and unfudgeable category. Amusing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am looking fro someone to adopt me as I am having serious trouble trying to to layout and edit an article myself on Wikipedia. Thanks!

~ Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmes1172 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You may not have noticed....

this...Antandrus will probably see this as well ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Boxing clever

I have a feeling speculating about the "public perception" of the Composers Project is likely to lead to nothing but a huge and pointless row. However, if you want a hint as to my personal opinion, read the text by Lore Sjoberg pasted at the top of Giano's talk page. In my experience, "Randy in Boise" tends to be the most fervent advocate of the infobox. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd forgotten that. Thanks for the laugh. Eusebeus (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I must say I like them for the taxonomical articles, but not sure about some others - coffee is interesting - note the box has "colour = Dark brown, beige, black".... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to change that to "colour=coffee-coloured". --Folantin (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Have to admit I've had a pretty good chuckle over all this since coming home from work tonight. -- What made me laugh the hardest was to see your edit to my (first ever?) attempt to use an infobox -- for an oil field article. Snooty? Who me? (LOL) I once tried to get a personalised license plate here in California that said "ELITIST" but alas, it was already taken ... Oh, yes, and Folantin is spot on about Randy. Antandrus (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:-) Eusebeus (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach Bm

(Originally posted here) Hi Gerda, First off, thanks for you good work and please don't take offence if I revert you - just par for the course... :) I just wanted to clear something up: are you aware that the B Minor mass is in large measure a compilation of earlier extant compositions? I think this might explain some of your confusion over BWV 191, the 1733 missa and the ultimate assemblage of previous works that make up the Bm Mass. Eusebeus (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Last note for today: your question left me rather puzzled. Quoting myself: "I would like precision here BECAUSE it is part of the assembly of the Bm - that in my personal opinion is the summary of Bach's greatest music ..." - I must have a language problem here, didn't I say that Bach ASSEMBLED the greatest music he had written so far? Kyrie and Gloria completely, other parts here and there, and just a few composed new, Confiteor, Incarnatus. - One more for the collection: Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille, BWV 120. To be improved and continued, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quit right - you did say that. Please accept my apologies. So, I will update the 191 article to reflect that the 1745 work is a essentially a copy/parody of the 1733 Missa Brevis which Bach would shortly thereafter incorporate into the Bm Missa tota. That should make it sufficiently clear. Second, for the DYK, thanks for the shout out, but as I observed at the DYK page, X was an unexceptional abbreviation for Christi. I would recommend that if you want to submit it to DYK, use a text like "Bach's cantata BWV 191 was likely first performed to celebrate the end of the Second Silesian War" or some such. Eusebeus (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that we seem to understand each other now concerning the mass I love! - DYK: to my understanding a hook is not to tell some greater truth but to make you click the article and read the lead (where truth should be found). I guess Xmas is more likely to raise interest than that war. But feel free to suggest an alternate hook, Alt1, using the full name of the cantata, please - the very reason to have a DYK, to make that naming concept known. Xmas is not likely to be taken because the rules require an inline citation right after the statement ... - I'm much more concerned about the B Minor article, if you would let your erudition please help there. (I will be "back to work" tomorrow.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK: I never read them, so I don't really care. But to my mind, using 'X' to refer to Christ is an uninteresting mundanity (like saying he used the abbreviation e.g.). More importantly, Bm needs a ton of work and while I am not sure how far we can progress, we can certainly improve on the stuff that's there now. At a minimum we need to clear out the liner and program notes from the sources - one of the worst afflictions of classical articles. There's a ton of scholarship, so it should be easy to find better sources. One thing that would be good is to find stuff that substantiates critical reception, especially in the 19th century, since it was the rediscovery of this work that helped bring Bach back into public view. Eusebeus (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK - I don't read them but like that the pages nominated get some extra attention (BWV 191 as of yesterday 225, lets assume in good faith that a few of those actually read.) - Better sources: they can be found, but most likely on bookshelves. That means their content can't be linked. I like what Christoph Wolff wrote on BWV 120 and 120a, but Koopman didn't supply anything similar on 191. Et expecto: I expect YOU to write a good lead for the Bm (even before perhaps turning to the tons of work required there). I would like to read in it that the work is not only "ranked" as great in baroque music but that it is one of the greatest achievements of the human spirit (showing divine spirit in a way) - but would not know how to say that in Enzyclopedic English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the lead! - How to claim the notability of a recording? I'll turn to St. John Passion now - a collection of its "greatest hits" at present - and will ask for your help when I reach my limits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback?

Greetings -- I just noticed this -- would you like WP:ROLLBACK? It makes removing graffiti easier, i.e. with a single click. (The only drawback I've found is it covers recent changes with rollback links, making it necessary to be really careful where you tap, especially if you're on a laptop.) Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sure. Eusebeus (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, i've accidentally reverted folks with some lag and watchlist screen up, but overall is a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK -- try it now.  :) Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Antandrus. Next thing you know I'll be an admin! Eusebeus (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

St. John Passion

As mentioned before, I added at least the movements and a bit of architecture. As for the symmetry described: do you happen to have a better source in English? The one I found has a decent graphic (p. 5) but is in German and comes with the "old" numbers. - Just saying "look at the music" is probably not enough support? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking again at the St. John Passion: do you think you could provide that great piece with a lead that would do justice to IT and not just oppose it to the St. Matthew Passion? And what do you think of the chapters Congregational use and Popular sections? Good for a talk page, I might say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

W. Lee O'Daniel

I strongly disagree with the decision to merge an article of a radio show into that of its host. As part of the larger wikiproject Radio, that article was an acorn. The target of the merged redirect is that of a political figure. see talk:W. Lee O'Daniel but before I take action, I will consult with cooler heads within Wikiproject Radio K3vin (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass in B Minor

In "Structure of the work" I read of many: "marked Adagio", "marked Andante" ... - that I don't find in my score. I doubt "marked by Bach" and wonder about "marked by whom", thinking that should be clarified. - I would prefer to have "Gloria" and "et in terra" as one movement, the same eights notes continuing, just eight in a measure now instead of three - Bach's ingenious way to get from heaven down to earth. - Finally: please also look at this discussion, time for St. Matthew. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191

On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Hi Eusebeus. Just a note: I commented on your Talk page comment of one month ago at Talk:Great Pacific Garbage Patch. N2e (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey on quality control policies

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources for War of the Bavarian Succession

There has been some discussion of these, and I put together a table on the sources (on the FAC talk page), which is a bit out of date now, but generally should give you a perspective on the sources. Would you take another look? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC War of the Bavarian Succession

would you take another look at War of the Bavarian Succession and see if I've addressed your source issues? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

List of birds of Tasmania

I am going square-eyed looking at this and the prose could do with some tweaking...so um (waves arms at computer screen displaying article) some prose-massaging would be appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Let me know if you need further assistance. Eusebeus (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated - was feeling blocked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Dussek Op 39-3 & Beethoven Op. 10-1.png

Thank you for uploading File:Dussek Op 39-3 & Beethoven Op. 10-1.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

You are most definitely correct on the talk page. Hence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_of_Ari89 --Ari (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy Eusebeus's Day!

User:Eusebeus has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Eusebeus's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Eusebeus! Peace, Rlevse 00:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks R.! Really appreciated. Eusebeus (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of art music traditions

Yes, congratulations on Happy Eusebeus's Day! Meanwhile do you remember List of art music traditions? We discussed it here. Anyway there is now a proposal to change it (and related cats.) to 'Classical' see here. Best --Kleinzach 07:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews has been compromised by sockpuppetry

Good Day and and I will say in advance that I do not think you are a vandal. However, I do have some concerns, particularly regarding your use of threats and intimidation.

I am a Biblical scholar who tried to merge the different P.O.V. editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews into a N.P.O.V edition last week. I noticed the the Talk page had been falsified. While restoring it, I came upon an extensive sockpuppet nest. The article itself has been disrupted locked down since May, frozen to a P.O.V. edition composed solely by the "Nest". No other editing has been permitted.

Your edits have caused some concern as they seem to be coordinated with those of the sockpuppet nest. If you could shed any light on the situation it would be much appreciated.

I will reply to this. If your scholarship matches your manner on Wikipedia, then I am not encouraged to think you have much to contribute. Your sockpuppet accusation (at least as it pertains to me, and I suspect most everyone else on your little list) is simply laughable. I am not even offended by such an absurdity. I think you are just a troll, actually, and I am sorry you have nothing better to do. It's too bad. There's an important discussion to be had about the Hebrew Gospel, and your voice, had it maintained a civil and engaged tone, would have been a welcome one. As it is, and by way of response to your sockpuppet claim, va te foutre. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry Meatpuppets: Using or recruiting meatpuppets to dominate an article is a serious violation of Wikipedia Policy. It is wrong to recruit to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. Creating an illusion of support: Alternate accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists. Circumventing policies or sanctions: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption. It has been alleged that the Gospel of the Hebrews and talk page had been compromised by sockpuppetry. Specifically, it has been stated that Ari89 (talk · contribs · block log) Eusebeus (talk · contribs · block log) SpigotMap (talk · contribs · block log) BlueEyedM (talk · contribs · block log) -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log) Clinkophonist (talk · contribs · block log) 81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log) CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log) 81.156.93.48 (talk · contribs · block log) 81.156.177.176 (talk · contribs · block log) The Wife of -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log) -RonTaril- (talk · contribs · block log) -Ronny- (talk · contribs · block log) -Ronny-Taril- (talk · contribs · block log) are in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Not only do the edit histories, but more particularly the block logs show the editing to be ad idem. Central issue: Authentic Matthew Most Christians believe that the Gospel of Matthew was the first gospel written and Matthew to be the author. Indeed this is the position of the Catholic Church. Yet many modern scholars have challenged this belief. Scholars such as Parker, Nicholson, Lillie and Edwards have gone so far as to say the Gospel of the Hebrews was the first gospel to be written and that it was composed by Matthew. The sockpuppet nest has a very strong point of view on this issue. The "Nest" completely rejects even the possibility that the Gospel of the Hebrews could be the Authentic Gospel of Matthew and this is the source of all the conflict. Threats and intimidation The editors of the "nest" have a distinctive characteristic; that is their use of threats and intimidation which is a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. "Back away from the sock puppet investigation" and "Warning" are but two examples which have taken place during the past week. Sockettes The sockpuppet nest seems to create single purpose puppets such as this and this. Spurious sockpuppet accusations According to WP:NPA, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are a violation. Serious sockpuppet accusations require serious evidence. A characteristic of "the nest" is to edit war by making many sockpuppet accusations but with nothing to support the accusations. This, this, this, this, and this are but five examples of the "nest" behavior. Indeed it appears that every editor that has gone against the "nest" P.O.V. has been accused of being a sockpuppet with nothing specific to support the accusation. Deceptive refactoring of the Gospel of the Hebrews This is a distinctive characteristic of the nest. When edit warring, the sockpuppet nest will often get into heated discussions with their opponents. When their opposition is making some good points, the "nest" will edit away such comments, falsifying the talk page. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

...is up at FAC. I am/was/will be close to supporting, but wondered if the prose could be tightened at all - what you reckon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wish me

...luck. You asked me back in March to look at this particular editor's interaction with other users. Yet dealing with him is like wrestling with a prickly pear cactus and I've dreaded this because I'm just not particularly thick-skinned. I think Wikipedia's biggest unsolved community problem is how to deal with highly knowledgeable editors who happen to be complete assholes. At the same time I understand his frustration in this particular case. This is his typical MO, and this was his first nasty reply to me, way back in 2005. Do you have any suggestions? Should we try to get a Wikiproject CM person to help out? Antandrus (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you know that I am fully behind you on this, as indeed all issues. The fact is that consistent engagement of the "I disagree with you, now go fuck yourself you moron" variety is unacceptable and an overwhelming degradation when allowed to persist. Eusebeus (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive

This user whom I highlighted at WQA has apologized. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI regarding User:Gniniv

User:Gniniv has filed another mediation request (this time through MedCab) nearly identical to the last one in which you took part. The Medcab report has resulted in an ANI report being filed. If you wish to take part in the ANI thread, please feel free to do so. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)