|
User talk:Eusebeus/Archive 3
Thank YouI appreciate your reply, and I have posted a deletion review. I am trying to remain alot calmer now, and will handle this issue through the proper channels. This was just one of many things that was hampering my various projects this week. So I have been on edge a bit about them. Thanks again --FACT50 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
AppologiesMy appologies for the caps. I tried to get a deletion review, but couldn't figure out how to post it? I'm sure this doesn't matter to you, but imagine how upset you would be if you spent the last three years creating a new genre of music, to not only be disrespected, but outright ripped off. On top of that have a bunch of people on wikipedia tell you that what you have spent years creating is not notable because it doesn't meet the notability guidelines set by wikipedia. And the main reason was because of the fact that I choose to give away my music, and concentrate on the art of actually creating art, instead of dealing with record labels (who will try to screw me at every given opportunity). So according to these "notability" guidelines, I will never be a notable artist? Yet I can have my very ideas ripped off, and the bands that do it have valid wikipedia pages? So yeah imagine how pissed off that would make you? --FACT50 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC) OH HELL NO!!HOW DARE YOU!!! You deleted links to the article Vernian Process in the List of Steampunk works article, by claiming they were SPAM... Yet those links were originally posted there by someone who had nothing to do with that project. In fact the only reason I created a wiki article for that project was because I saw that someone else had mentioned my project their first! So how can you possibly call that SPAM?? Not to mention the fact that there are a number of bands in that list that have nothing to do with the Steampunk genre. Yet they are still linked. In fact V.P. was the very first Steampunk oriented music project. AN/I discussion becoming more about youHello again... I know I've already told you about this, but WP:AN/I#User:Monicasdude is becoming more and more about you, and I wanted to make sure that you have a chance to speak your mind there. Just making sure :). Snoutwood (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC) About the Daniel Zimmerman ArticleWhile I am not discussing that article any more on that discussion page, I did want to bring this to your attention. Wikipedia:Importance - I would argue that the page meets the first 2 criteria (of which only one has to be true to be considered to be important enough for inclusion). This article expands on both the 2004 House Election and the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute notable alumni pages. Articles that meet the importance guidelines are not required to have the subject be "notable". I acknoledge my ignorance on the guidelines about writing articles pertaining to myself and appologize to the Wiki community for doing so. DanielZimmerman 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks!Aw, shucks. Thanks a million, mate. Are you leaving? We wish you'd stay... Snoutwood (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC) What was that about? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow!Your page was vandalized, check it out. The modifications made were not consistent with the interpretation of your name in Greek, and were therefore reverted! :-) NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your note. Problem is, I think that the Bayreuth circle is a non-topic, hence my edits. There was no organisation as such. The term was originally used in respect of the audiences at Bayreuth at the end of the 19th century, espcially perhaps in respect of the original subscribers to Wagnerˇs project. Then Nazi propagandists used the term in an updated sense to promote Hitler as a leader of German culture. Then Holocaust industry historians seized on this latter use. It is all a lot of fuss about nothing, or at most about a group of almost non-entities. In my view, it doesn´t even deserve a Wikipedia article....I only made my edits when my suggestion to delete the article was voted down.....--Smerus 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not resort to bad faith personal attacks on AfDs. I do not want to go into mediation over this. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion. I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote? - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Hi. I see you've weighed in on this AfD. I just noticed that TheronJ has substantially cleaned up the article, and I think St. Clements University is worth another look. Regards, William Pietri 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Citations, citationsIn view of what your robust comments here (salutes are rare and very welcome!), you might be interested to see this. We read: If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally; I've already done the latter. -- Hoary 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC) GAsHi Eus, Frantic with real-world work at the moment, so just sneaking in a bit of WP here and there. GA sucks, I'm afraid, and there's a concern among a number of people that it dilutes the few editorial/review resources we have away from the only processes (IMV) that really matter: FAC, and FAR/C. Perhaps PR too, but it's moribund, isn't it. I'd prefer to end the GA thing altogether: it just doen'st mean much, and if it's made to mean something, it will duplicate the FA process. Perhaps we need a page with advice on referencing ....? It seems to be a weeping boil at the moment. Tony 01:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC) The article about College-Ready Math-Science School may have been unclear about when the school opened, but I edited the article to make it clear that the school is already open, albeit at a temporary location. It will move to the groups of the university in 2007. Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College-Ready Math-Science School ? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC) RfA thanks
A Tree Full of SecretsI prodded A Tree Full of Secrets for two reasons. The first is that bootlegs are generally considered to lack the notability for an article. Yes, I agree that Pink Floyd had a lot of great ideas and songs that never made it onto albums. These are worth noting and discussing on WP. But articles about bootleg albums are about bootleg albums, not about the material they contain. "Tree" is not the first bootleg to compile PF rarities, and it wont be the last. The second reason I prodded the article is that besides a tracklist, it's devoid of any useful information. If the article explained the sources and history of the material to any degree, I would have a harder time deciding to prod it (as I did with Interstellar Encore, for example). BTW, thanks for going through the prods. I occasionally do, but it can be tedious. I also prodded several more bootlegs that day; several others I just added to [Category:Bootleg albums]. You might find it worthwhile to go through those. Cheers --Alcuin 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Thank youMy administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Haydn SymphoniesOK. I like the idea of a template. I reformatted 83 and 88-96 to match your stuff. One question, at what point does the harpsichord & continuo become an anachronism for the scoring and should no longer be included (with the exception of #98's throwback in the finale)? DavidRF 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"Publications record a no-go"Hi Eusebeus, I am curious about your comment "The extensive publications record is a no-go since that is the company's field of business." Can you ellucidate? This is the first time I have heard of this constraint. Can you point me to any policies or guidelines so I can educate myself? My understanding to date has been that notability within a field, as long as non-trivial references from reliable sources can be provided, is sufficient. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.Dgray xplane 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC) El GrecoThank you very much for your detailed review.--Yannismarou 08:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC) FAC funJust dropping by with a note of empathy for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. I see the article is an FA now. The "inactionable objections" like yours always make for an entertaining read, as it seems that WP's fate is to have 10%+ of all FAs be about video games, television episodes, minor fictional characters, and so on. This "article relativism", as I call it, bothers me, but nobody seems to be fighting that battle. :) –Outriggr § 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
ZantaNote that Zanta has been restored, and place on AfD for a proper deletion debate. -- Zanimum 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Blog-triggered BlocksYou said: "Per the stuff over at ANI can I ask you to revisit your block against User:Femmina whether by your own hand or through third party review?"
Taran Rampersad DeletionI spent a few moments today on my User:TaranRampersad user page and made the Taran Rampersad article more informative. I don't care whether the page is deleted or not, but I would like to see it deleted for the right reasons - not for lack of effort which was a few minutes in Google. . Feel free to take a look and comment. I am *not* participating in the debate of the deletion of the biographical stub. --TaranRampersad 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) CabalismYou made reference to a small cabal of admins on Timecop's talk page. I am very concerned that a cabal of admins could exist and I take this concern very seriously. However after looking through what happened it does not seem that way. Cabals do not function by having discussions where all can see, they also limit participation to members of the cabal. The decision to block seems to have been made on a noticeboard for all admins and regular editors to see. Perhaps I have missed something, why do you think cabalism is involved here? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Cabal is a sensitive word here, best to say what you mean. The user was not banned for the war on blogs, which has continued to function since the block. It was not soley based on the userboxes either. A wealth of evidence has been provided in the form of diffs, block log, warnings from other users, and Timecop's own userpage that trolling was taking place. Also it was not a few admins, that is the admin noticeboard, it is the place that all admins are supposed to watch for discussion. Many admins may have seen it and not gotten involved, but it was clearly visable, and was intentionally made visible. Beyond those who took place in the recent discussion, 6 different admins have indef blocked this user in the past. Even the admin who most recently unblocked Timecop supported the block. Do you really think that many people who the community has trusted with adminship would all get together and ban a user who does not deserve it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC) El GrecoI tried to adress the concerns you raised in your detailed and valuable review in Talk: El Greco. Please, check the article. I'm open for further suggestions. I think about asking for a last perr-review before moving to FAC. Thanks!--Yannismarou 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Your comments to Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Johann_Sebastian_BachCould I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:
Thanks! Neil916 (Talk) 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
hiI see there's much discussion going on. I put a little stub of a start of a reply on User talk:Pmanderson. I can't debate too much. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 05:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)== 9/11: The Big Lie ==
Mary of BurgundyThanks for your reply dated 18 Dec 2006 on my Talk page about Mary of Burgundy and the Joyous Entry. (This is the first time I've logged in since then!) Was the term "Joyous Entry" always used for the formal designation of the heir after the Charter of 1355 by the Duke of Brabant? And how did it come to be applied to the possessions in the Low Countries of the Duke of Burgundy? You suggested that I add a note on the page for the Joyous Entry, but I still don't understand enough about it to explain it! Thanks! Laura1822 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC) They huffed, and puffed, . . .
I look at the article again and again, and it is a mess! But, as I told you, it has indeed a great potential; both this article and Miguel de Cervantes (what an amazing personality!). As fas as I am concerned I'm ready for work on this article. I even bought the book, and I am reading it. Just tell me if it is still among your plans the collaboration proposal, and if (and when) you have time to go into the article. But it really needs a lot of work. My initial findings are that: 1) the lead is tiring, with redundancies, and loses its target, 2) the article treats the book but not the character, 3) the article goes straight to the importance of the book without treating its interesting history (the publishing of the two volumes), 4) there is no comprehensive literary analysis, 5) most sections are listy. As fas as research is concerned, I have this Greek edition with a nice and detailed introduction, Britannica (CD edition of 2002) with rich material about the book and its writer, and my Greek encyclopedias (Helios and Papyrus-Larousse-Britannica). And there is always Internet and Google Book-Scholar. Unfortunately, my Spanish is still poor (I started classes the autumn); so my access to Sapnish sources is difficult; almost impossible. But it seems that you have a good level of knowledge of this language. Anyway, if you feel ready for work, don't hesitate to tell me! In the meantime time I may do some tweaks in Miguel de Cervantes which is maybe the worst mess I've seen in Wikipedia!--Yannismarou 12:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
|
