User talk:Eusebeus/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Dynamite

Sure! >Radiant< 11:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode review

Why are you adding those? The point of the review is to gain a view or consensus when one isn't clear. There is no real reason to clog it with clear cut cases (unless we want to speed it up, so we don't have to take over a week on some cartoon episodes). TTN 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No real disagreement from me on this - you are doing yeoman's work. But in the face of dispute, the proper place to list these is on the episode review page since it provides legitimacy for subsequent redirects and should help avoid flame wars from dedicated fans who are apparently incapable of reading WP guidelines. Remove them from the list, however, if you disagree. Eusebeus 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have add them whenever they receive responses from people other than IPs or the people like Fisher (though I haven't really looked at my list recently). Otherwise, it is just better to let them sit. I won't bother removing the ones you've added, though. TTN 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Lady of the United States

I noticed on the Second Lady of the United States AFD page that you are in favor of deleting the article entirely. As noted in my comments on that page, I partially disagree, however, I think the questions raised regarding the article are also applicable to the related similarly-named category, Category:Second Ladies of the United States, which should probably be renamed, although I am not sure if we should wait until the AFD vote on the article is closed before initiating any action with respect to the category. --TommyBoy 19:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Madeline Fitzpatrick Redirect Issue

This is quickly turning into a blatant edit war. I'm considering bringing this to the attention of an experienced administrator to review this and see what needs to be done. WAVY 10 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's reached that point yet - discussion first, then mediation after, I'd say. Hossenfeffer 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Guidelines

My issue is that it seems to be this particular character as opposed to, for example, Arwin. WAVY 10 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor Redirect

My issue isn't one with WP:FICT itself (in fact, I tend to agree that the article lacks notability in that sense), but with the redirect itself. It is fundamentally flawed to redirect a topic to an article that DOES NOT CONTAIN INFORMATION ON THE TOPIC. Redirecting Madeline Fitzpatrick to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody recurring characters or List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes is actually more detrimental to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia than leaving the article as-is.

That being said, redirecting to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody would probably be acceptable. Though, such action should also go hand-in-hand with the concurrent redirecting of Zack Martin, Cody Martin, London Tipton, Marion Moseby, Carey Martin, Arwin Hawkhauser, Esteban Ramírez, Ivana the Dog, and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody recurring characters to the same place, as none of those articles meet WP:FICT criteria either. Failure to do so would seem to be highly indicative of inherent bias against this single character, and not simply a desire to maintain Wikipedia standards (which could itself be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Hossenfeffer 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Cohen (economist)

Your reconsideration at Lauren Cohen (economist) AFD would be greately appreciated in light of his renaming and the new arguments presented.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An Introduction to the Study of Indian History

You redirected the article An Introduction to the Study of Indian History back to the author page. Where exactly do i find out if a particular book is notable enough to need its own page? WP:BOOK does not clearly give this information. akarkera 14:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy

Is there a way (that doens't require hours of work) to get an admin to look at this user's behavior, hopefully as a prelude to getting rid of him and his disruptive behavior? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moderated nuclear explosion

No, this is not a WP:HOAX. I have now rewritten the article, with new sources and a section on nuclear weapon design. I have also nominated it for WP:DYK. I hope you could reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderated nuclear explosion. -- Petri Krohn 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Big bonnet

Big "thanks" for getting "Big bonnet" deleted. You said it had no references, perhaps you should have checked the talk page, which listed it as coming from Edward Dwelly's dictionary. It is not a bloody hoax, it is a Scottish folk tradition.

"Look before you leap" next time.--MacRusgail 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. For future reference Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland, where people who actually know about the subject matter in question can comment.

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Conley. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

3rr

Did you look at the talk page?? You will see that this an attempt to assert policy. Eusebeus 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe. But discuss it on the talk page, as the issue doesn't seem to be clear... and if he reverts again, report him to the 3RR noticeboard, as I've warned you both. Gscshoyru 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus trumps the SPAs that have been focused on this page. The guideline at wp:music is clear and this should be redirected (see the talk). Please protect the page. Eusebeus 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Who, me? I'm not an admin; I can't. Go request it yourself -- WP:RPP. And from looking at the talk page, the issue is far from clear -- so discuss, don't revert. Thanks. Gscshoyru 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and this: [1] ?? He has every right to do so, if he has an issue, or wants to discuss something with you. Cool down a little, and discuss, don't be uncivil to other users. Thanks. Gscshoyru 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2 established editors v 1 wikistalker does not make the issue ambiguous. I will revert tyvm Eusebeus 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC): Do you have any idea what you have wandered into? Eusebeus 04:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't -- if you do, you will be blocked for violating the WP:3RR -- this doesn't fall under the exceptions to the rule. Please don't, and discuss on the talk page. Gscshoyru 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This HAS BEEN discussed on the talk page. A bunch of SPAs responded. If you look into it, you will see that a redirect is indeed appropriate. Meanwhile, Alansohn is wikistalking me after his RfC. Soit informé. Eusebeus 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see the discussion, I see no consensus. The act of discussing does not give you the right to revert. And the claim of stalking... I see no evidence of that. If he's stalking you in terms of this specific article, then that hardly counts -- he's watching the article. This'd all be much better if you actually tried discussing with him, please! Gscshoyru 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn Eusebeus 04:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That has no bearing on the fact that he's trying to discuss this, and as far as I can tell, civilly. I suggest you try the same, and try to come to a consensus, because there currently is none, no matter how many times you say there is. I'm going to bed now, so don't expect another reply. Gscshoyru 04:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Conley

Your changes to the Chris Conley article have been reverted again, the 14th time your decision to undo the article has been reverted, by a total of 11 different editors who disagree with your opinion on this issue, if I count correctly. I am only one of may people who believe that independent notability with multiple reliable and verifiable sources has been established for Conley; you are in a very distinct minority. Once your WP:3RR issues with this article have been addressed, I would strongly suggest taking this article to AfD to see if you can demonstrate that notability has not been established here. Alansohn 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Robbins Landon and symphony 26; an issue regarding 34, and, Haydn, sym 26 and Sturm und Drang, or no??

Actually, I'm wondering myself- I don't think that section of the article gives a reference for the dates, though I'll look again. It follows them with contrasting quotes from two HCRL works- and I assumed, and should not have. I am beginning to gather that Zaslaw has done research into this dating himself, in fact.

Hrm. It's from a table at the end of the article entitled "Symphonies (and two other works) of Joseph Haydn with sacred connections according to Landon." That doesn't mean that Landon's dating is used, or if so from when (a revision later in his career, say, since it quotes "Haydn: Chronicle and Works" as well as "The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn".

(No previews of the Landon books available from Google books- which may prove a useful resource where available, within required limits, that I only began to think about using today...)

Also interesting and related to a work on which there is as yet no Wikipedia article is - well, re Symphony No. 34 in D question-mark: since it seems that Haydn's own listing -in a (the? one of three?) catalog he put together of his symphonies at the end of his life - has the slow movement in second place.

Which would make that work (possibly written, not in 1770, but earlier than sym. 26, according to recent sources? - I need to look into why the claim is made that sym. 34 is "the first Haydn symphony in the minor"- if it's in the minor at all, which I now come to doubt- and according to Ethan Haimo's Haydn's Symphonic Forms: Essays in Compositional Logic (page 43, searchable at Google Books) Haydn's minor-mode symphonies before 1770 were 26 and 39, 34 not in his list...)- a symphony in D major, wouldn't it, if accurate... (depending on whether, as with sym. 26 apparently and some Haydn scores certainly, the manuscript is not yet found, the first published score- with D minor slow movement first- may not have been seen by Haydn, etc. ... - see Drei Haydn Kataloge in Faksimile, mit Einleitung und erganzenden Themenverzeichnissen by Jens Peter Larsen (1902-1988) as reviewed in Music & Letters, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Jul., 1946), pp. 195-197 -- anyway, the Larsen book reviewed in that article was republished by Pendragon Press in 1979, as "Three Haydn catalogues", ISBN 091872810X.) (Haimo does maintain that 34 opens with a slow movement, though...)

BTW Zaslaw questions the use of Sturm und Drang to describe symphony 26 and other pre-1770 Haydn symphonies, as the movement in literature (and music) was barely in existence by the time that work was written, and for other reasons (viz. his review of Salomons' recording of the work (Sturm und Drang Symphonies 1766-1768 (Nos.35, 38, 39, 49, 58, 59), The Musical Times 124 (1681): 173-4 (Mar. 1983). Also and more pointedly re: Haydn and Sturm und Drang, see the article by Mark Evan Bonds, "Haydn's 'Cours complet de la composition' and the Sturm und Drang" in the book Haydn Studies, W. Dean Sutcliffe, ed., ISBN 0521580528 (previewable at least in part over google books too. - Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your incivility

What is a sockpuppet? I have no idea what you are talking about? However I found your comment on my talk page offencing and uncivil. A bit of a look at some of the policies turned up WP:CIVIL, plus your WP:DTTR is an opinion essay, not an actual policy. If you are a regular, then you would know that removal of information from someone elses talk page is vandalism. BTW, some advice WP:DBTN. Punkguy182 07:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Conley

I've started an AfD on this - my first! Please post your thought and expand on the reasons to delete. Thanks. -Jack Merridew 16:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"needs rewrite"

Re your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred de Grazia (2nd nomination). Don't let the "keep but rewrite" !voters upset you. A large article may be nominated for deletion, and emerge as a kept stub if conscientious editors decide to be bold. An article which is kept, but filled with un-verifyable or NPOV statements can, and usually ought, to be edited free of all such content. Pete.Hurd 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

HI, thanks for the kind words re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum consciousness and ion channels, I hope it won't bum you out that I changed my !vote to "merge". Cheers, Pete.Hurd 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC).

Re: your comment on my talk page

I'm not interested, frankly, in a pointless war of words with you. However, I will say that it is very telling that you chose to respond to a disagreement over content with a carefully veiled personal jibe - that being the insinuation of vandalism on my part. I won't dwell on the insulting nature of your comment, other than to note that a) even the most cursory examination of my contribution history (and absence of blocks and warnings) would demonstrate that I spend an enormous percentage of my time on Wikipedia removing vandalism, and b) you obviously couldn't be bothered to make such an obvious, essential check of said records before hitting "save". It is also interesting to point out that, according to your note on this page, my actions "border on vandalism" because I am "very familiar" with Wikipedia's policies. However, at the Farscape talk page, you stated that I was "unfamiliar" with these same policies. Either I'm a really, really quick study (given that the messages are only three minutes apart) or else you're just saying whatever you feel like in order to try to justify your actions. Kind of sucks, really, and it is completely contrary to what this project is supposed to be about. --Ckatzchatspy 04:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 22:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of Farscape episodes

Stardust8212 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

This just made my morning. I just hope this will bring a conclusion and peace can be restored to the universe. Stardust8212 13:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I notice I'm not the only one who thought your comment at Talk:List of Farscape episodes was special. Thanks for lightening up the mood in a matter that is difficult for all parties. – sgeureka t•c 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Yeah, I saw that msg about your 'tirade' at the top of the page. Lol. We'll see what he comes up with. Mop is good but a lot of responsibility and a lot of work. Not for the faint of heart. See ya around! -- But|seriously|folks  15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Farscape stuff

Hi. Could you keep an eye out for a new anon removing clean-up tags from Farscape images and the articles they're in? See:

and the user talk pages - these are blocked, but user seem insistent. Blocking admin is User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Best, Jack Merridew 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I may as well just use this section. Do you think another redirection attempt should be taken? It looks like Matthew is gone, so someone reverting is less likely. TTN 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw your note on TTN's talk page. My discussion with Gavin.collins at User_talk:Gavin.collins#Farscape_AfDs might be of interest here. Greetings, – sgeureka t•c 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...No

If you would look at the talk page, you'd see that I'm the only one who has bothered to engage in discussion. Thanks. Batman2005 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to give me one bullshit warning like that, you should give one to the other party. Until you do, i'm removing it from my talk page. Batman2005 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ohhhh...pardon me, I wasn't aware the god of wikipedia had signed on. Tennis Experts blatant edit warring is not also unacceptable? Hmmm, interesting. I was under the impression that edit warring required TWO people. Actually since you involved yourself, that's now THREE of us who were doing it. Give me a break man. Batman2005 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

arcane

How do you know that the Jan 6, 2001 independent article doesn't meantion the characters?Geni 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for re-directing those pages, at the moment I am editing the pages to improve thier standard as I have on the episode "Eales" (3x01) we have descided we will wait a month to improve the articals (see my talk page) then we will reveiw them and see if they should be kept. So I would like it if you could wait until the articals have been edited before redirecting.--Wiggstar69 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure I will sandbox it but I will not be visiting wikia.--Wiggstar69 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness

Is this a good way to talk to someone on wikipedia? "Hey wiggstar, don't wig out, and why do you keep referring to articals? Why not artikals or even Artikel, which would at least be a correct spelling in German."

If I have mispelled the word article this is no reason for a personal attack.--Wiggstar69 13:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Farscape

Your comment here is erroneous and wrong-headed. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia policies be ignored simply because, as a fan of the series, you like the episode articles? We have a clear policy of redirection in these instances, a policy that has been amply confirmed. These will be redirected; I suggest you open up an RfA if you are unhappy that policies and guidelines are being applied and followed. Eusebeus 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What part is erroneous and wrong-headed? The part where I say that it takes time to edit pages? The part where I reject your argument that valuable information should be redirected on your say-so? You keep pushing the argument that the only reason to keep the pages is ILIKEIT, and I and others keep saying that it takes time to edit these pages. By redirecting them, you cause people who are potential editors to be unable to find the pages and have to redo the same work again and again. These pages ARE important and they WILL be edited to make them better. Come back in six months. But no, you can't wait that long. You've got to keep repeating your same desires to destroy others' work. Go create something instead of destroying what others are doing.QuizzicalBee 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertiseing

Please stop advertiseing wikia. What they will or will not take is not relivant to wikipedia.Geni 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert Kim Possible Movie

Please give me a link where the issue was discussed and consensus was reached. Thank you. Ward3001 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible

I'm sorry, but there was clearly merge discussion taking place and most if not all pages were clearly tagged as being part of the discussion. You redirected without merging which not only went against the discussion but ignored it completely. That kind of unilateralism goes against the community ethos of Wikipedia.

If you had attempted to merge it would have been a different picture but as it was you made absolutely no attempt to transfer any information at all.

perfectblue (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary

Please read Help:Edit summary and use the things.Geni (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

School consensus

I've created a project page: Wikipedia:SCHOOLCONSENSUS, because of a village pump proposal. I thought you might want to participate. --victor falk 06:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)==

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

Arwing and Star Fox

User:The Arachnid reported you to WP:AIV for redirecting Arwing to Star Fox (series), I think you should talk to him about the edits. --AW (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I, E.T.

Just to make sure that the people like QuizzicalBee don't get upset or anything for now, it seems best to leave the fourteen or so articles. After a little bit, I'm sure we can discuss with the users that are working to improve them about redirecting those that are still non-notable. TTN 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't want to end up back at square one because of someone getting pissed off. They either don't want their work to have been "a waste of time" or they get so caught up in their fandom that they forget/ignore that this is not a fan site. TTN 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...

Thanks for showing me how to do it properly, but are you proposing that I be deleted as well? If not, I'd prefer if you left that sort of a thing on my talkpage. Wilhelmina Will 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thing That Wouldn't Die

I'm a bit puzzled by your comments here. Multiple newspaper reviews have always been enough to satisfy the general notability criterion at WP:N. What are you looking for, exactly? Zagalejo^^^ 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a response? Zagalejo^^^ 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Firefly

Recently you contibuted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. There is now an ongoing discussion stemming from that AfD here if you wish to contribute. [[Guest9999 15:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Merge discussions are not afd's

Merge discussions are not deletion debates. Further, as you rightly say, we have to judge all consensus based policies against each other, and I did that, balancing, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOT and WP:5P against guidelines such as WP:NOT, WP:WAF and WP:FICT. Based on our policies, and the guidelines which support those policies, , the consensus in the debate was that the articles could be improved. Whether that process involves merging or cleaning the articles up is not clear; we guide that one possibility is to merge, but that is quite clearly not a rule which must be obeyed. Were I to close that debate as merge, it would cause a fracture and lead to edit warring and drive away contributors. I have to keep in mind WP:CIV, WP:AGF as well as WP:DR. As an admin closing a debate, I am not resolving a dispute. For that you need WP:DR. I am not going to pick sides and state one guideline has primacy over another, indeed that is not my role. I have to weigh the policies against the guidance, the debate against that, and judge consensus. I'd note their is a longstanding consensus that articles do not have to be merged in this manner, established at Wikipedia:Poképrosal, it is something that should grow from editing. Wikipedia is not in a rush, there is no deadline. I see no reason that I should force this issue by preferring guidance over policy. If all editors edit in line with policy, the matter will resolve itself. Thanks for your concern, Hiding T 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Friends episodes

I de-watchlist-ed the Friends LoE so didn't notice you'd done the redirects. I think I've made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with the methods by which episodes are redirected, though I agree with the principle for why it happens; a user can write an absurdly long plot summary of an episode and then run off without any intention of explaining to readers why an article for it should exist on Wikipedia. I appreciate that you've apologised for how the discussion go out of hand, though one isn't necessary, although I agree we have different views on how an episode can be notable (I check for write-ups of episodes beyond what Entertainment Weekly might have, though include those as well, you seem to want an episode to have incited a killing spree) The problem came when I'd exhausted all possible routes for expanding the tagged episode articles, started redirecting them myself and then ended up having to explain myself to an admin, leaving myself stuck between a rock and a hard place (granted, some of those outstanding episode articles are borderline notable, like the Vegas episode). Anyway, I don't plan to go about expanding any more of those articles; it's annoying to have to constantly revert "WHERE IZ TEH TRIVIA????" "contributions". Regarding your suggestion of merging the main characters, I recommend you start a discussion on Talk:Friends. Brad 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

In case you don't know, I'm giving you a heads up on this [2]. If you want to comment, let me know on my user page because your page is not in my watchlist. --Maniwar (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hi! I'd like to see if you and Taric25 can agree on a wording that would communicate the seriousness of your message in a manner that is mutually acceptable. Tariq25 has commented on what would be acceptable (and please note he has not denied the legitimacy of the message). Perhaps you could comment on whether his wording would be acceptable to you. Egfrank (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The hideousness of the behavior is exactly why we need to get the wording issue out of the way. If he and you agree on a wording for the warning he has no choice left but to focus on the warning itself. Best, Egfrank (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It is your choice, but I think since you were the one to warn him and you know the case the best, you are really the best spokesman. Sometimes the way we say things can actually get in way of someone hearing us even when we have something important to say (think about the boss who yells, the parent who accuses, or the piano player who bangs out Mozart on the keyboard).
Restating things in a mutually acceptable way would let him hear your warning more easily and may prevent things getting to block point. I think the goal here is behavior change. Don't you think it is worth the chance? But as I said, this is your choice. Egfrank (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I've marked this WQA alert as stuck. While I am of the opinion that your actions were not uncivil, I would like to let you know that in the future, you could probably avoid having to entertain such (erroneous) accusations so much if you were more diplomatic. While this is not required, it may reduce the amount of conflict you run into. I hope you take this as a learning experience, even if you would not be considered at fault. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Hello Eusebeus, I would like to take this time to apologize to you. During the course of the SSP, I did not realize how quickly an edit war could occur. I realize it was wrong for me to make three reverts in one day, and I should have taken more time to discuss the issue with you. I do not apologize for reporting TTN at SSP in the first place, because I really do believe he is guilty of sockpuppeteering, however, I do apologize for edit warring on his userpage, and I will write him an apology for that on his talk page shortly.

In the future, I hope we can discuss these types of situations more before they become so problematic. To be perfectly honest, if you would have simply asked me,

"Hi, Taric, I saw you reported TTN at SSP, and I would like to discuss my concerns with you. I have known TTN for a long time, and I realize he is well-known for his disagreements with yourself and others. This is not because he hates you or because he's a jerk; it's simply because he believes in what he's doing. Kindly, would you temporarily withdraw your claim and discuss it with me? If after we discuss it, you still believe that TTN is guilty of sockpuppeteering or if the current AfD closes with a decision to delete or merge and you suspect vote fraud, then by all means relist it and/or request checkuser. Thank you.",

then I would have happily withdrawn the SSP and discussed it with you. By the way, since the AfD ended with a keep, you could have very well convinced me that since Henke37 is not a very active user anyway, it would be much better for me to focus my energy to improve the article rather than use that time on SSP, and if something like that happened again, then I really would have evidence for my case. I hope you will accept my apology and forgive me. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

very funny

hi eusebeus - just wanted to say that i, at least, appreciated your 12/6 summary on Talk:Firefly (TV series) ... i think i'll stash a copy & a link somewhere in my user space to restore my spirits in times of conflict. Lquilter (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfArb Workshop

Hi Eusebeus, I understand that the request for arbitration has become somewhat frustrating and is slowly dissolving into a fit of mudslinging but I think comments like this don't serve to advance the goals of arbitration. In particular I'm concerned that this could be viewed as a personal attack (you are commenting on the contributor, not their contributions) and I think in the long run will not help the case. In particular the relevant essay would be WP:KETTLE. I don't mean to pick on you but reading that comment concerned me somewhat and I thought I should mention it to you. As we're being reminded on occasion, the arbitration isn't about whether the content is right or wrong but about the conduct of both sides of the dispute (supposedly), acting in ways that are against policy during the case will certainly not help prove that "mergists" and their friends are the epitome of decorum. Best of luck. Stardust8212 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did look at her page and I in no way endorse her behavior. My intention with WP:KETTLE was merely to point out that it is difficult to accept anyone's statements that another user is making personal attacks when such a statement is also phrased as a personal attack. I did not mean to imply that every statement you applied to her would necessarily also apply to you or that you were "systematically uncivil, wikilawyerish, trollish, pointy and disruptive". I think you generally do good work and my only goal is to keep you from digging your way into the same hole TTN is being pushed into in the arbcom (I think banning him from even discussing merges and deletions is thoroughly ridiculous but clearly my opinion is not the one that matters once we reach this level). And if Vivian is going to come back claiming you have been incivil I don't see how it helps to confirm these accusations by acting incivilly. Anyway, it was meant as friendly advice and I hoped it could be taken that way, I hate to see a valid point (yours) drowned out by so much negativity. Stardust8212 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

signature

I'm not trying to sound obnoxious. I'm just telling you that i've viewed the wikipedia policy, and it does not violate it, other than for people whining about me having a unique signature. Simply because i stand out, i'm being whined at. However, if i MUST have it changed, i'll have a section on my user page for you and your friends to suggest new things. example: is the box surrounding my text alright? or is it the colouring? i'm angry becuase people are telling me to change my signature, and not saying what is wrong, or on what to change it to. if there are those that can't read it, that's fine. I'll change to support them, but i think this is just nitpicking going too far. i prefer individuality. RingtailedFox 22:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Never mind. Brad (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Even though I'm still trying to get the Scrubs episode pages back, I want to say thank you because you seem to be the only person trying to find solutions that everyone will like. You're the only person who's against having article pages who seems to have a soul. I mean, TTN honestly? So I just want to thank you for being a real, decent, and smart person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) (08:25, 23 December 2007) diff

an AfD closing statement worth reading

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City. --Jack Merridew 09:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FT2 and User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections. --Jack Merridew 10:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs episode guides

While WP policy does say "no plots" and all, IAR does say that if it adds value to WP, ignore all those rules. Clearly, the deletion of plots is not being applied to every article with a plot in it (see Star Wars, most movies, etc). Why are Scrubs episode articles deleted when they had value to so many people? If it's just "It goes against WP Policy" then that goes against WP Policy, taking IAR in to account. The fact remains, there was valuable information on those articles, and now folks don't have that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.40.57 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex

Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

  1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
  2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
  3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
  4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
  5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend, — the Annex Hath Spoken 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

If you get a chance, can you run through Special:Contributions/YetanotherGenisock? He is one of those fun wikilawyers that only like to deal with a few articles at a time. TTN (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

However blunt force reverting without a reason is not a very good resonce.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Restoring articles that violate our guidelines and policies is disruptive; that is resonce enough. Eusebeus (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. TTN (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

whatever then, why was that message that you posted on my page in German?. Blueanode (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, sorry if I caused you any problems. :) Blueanode (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Montreal

File:La Ronde dark ride.jpg
Photograph I took of a dark ride at La Ronde amusement park in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

By the way, Montreal is one of my favorite cities to have ever visited! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Swamp Skiin' Throwdown. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Woody (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It popped up on WP:RFPP so I warned both sides. Hopefully it doesn't need to be protected. Could it not be discussed somewhere? Regards. Woody (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(X-posted) No need to protect. there are another half dozen editors who will revert should I fall foul of 3RR on that page. Thanks for being diligent! Eusebeus (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

VivianDarkbloom

You described her as a "self-admitted sock". I gather that User:VivianDarkbloom and User:Vivian Darkbloom are one and the same. Any other personalities that you are aware of?Kww (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's a him actually and I cannot remember which account they were using before, but it was part of the user's whole anti-porn thing (which, ironically, I actually agree with - the bar for notability is ridiculously, absurdly low for that kind of shit, which is what you get I guess when you have a site made up mostly of young single males). I'm sure if you start to dig around old porn actor AfDs, it could be figured out quite quickly. Vivian is a PITA, but he doesn't contribute that much and his reverts to the fiction stuff is only because he has a personal grudge against me,TTN, etc.... Vivian, like my other stalker, the highly disagreeable Alansohn, is certainly committed to the view that I am ruining wikipedia and hence my edits need to be reverted and my votes countered. Muh - maybe they're right. Eusebeus (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I warn you that WP:NPA applies to user talk pages. DGG (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that DGG. I've only been here for about three years, so I am still learning my way around. I appreciate the tip and I see upon review that my comment is just riddled with vicious personal attacks, so I'll have to watch my step. Eusebeus (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you intended to be satyrical, but if you do not realize after three years that "the highly disagreeable X", "a personal grudge against me" are personal attacks, I'm glad i did remind you. DGG (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Tx DGG - but you are wrong; I intended to be ironic, perhaps satirical. But I am not a Satyr, so satyre is something to which I have yet to aspire. But I do appreciate the heads up. Fine stuff indeed my good man. Eusebeus (talk)

Scrubs characters

Are you still working on this or have you given up? TTN suggested a merge in August, but there has obviously been little or no improvement. Scrubs is kind of a cool show (although I didn't really watch it beyond Season 2), so it would be sad to see the character articles redirected/deleted in three years just because current fan-editors are unwilling to cooperate in cleaning up the mess. – sgeureka t•c 12:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of City of Bones

An article that you have been involved in editing, City of Bones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Bones. Thank you. Jack Merridew 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that you all should be careful pushing this one. You put it up for AFD, they responded by improving the article. Is it likely to be trouble later? Sure it is. Is it deletable right now? Probably not. You would build more brownie points for good faith by recognizing the improvements and withdrawing the nomination. If it immediately falls to hell, renominate, and you can point at the collapse as justification.Kww (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring or there is a possibility that you both will be blocked. Discuss changes in a civil manner. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_Television_Episodes_Edit_Wars. John254 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Seeing as you were involved in both the merge discussion and what happened last night against episode articles... this shouldn't be redirected, should it? Will (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Figures?

You hate fancruft with a deep and burning passion. That was clear from the recent AN/I post where you urged us to destroy such content to rescue Wikipedia's reputation. Fair enough.

You may have noticed that I've been trying - insofar as I've been able to work here - to burrow into the underlying issues. The way I see it, there's a lot of headbutting and people slapping each other with acronyms going on, but we have no clear idea of what we're doing and why, and no real vocabulary for discussing that. Wikipedia's reputation is one of the several issues involved. As such, could you tell me how you came to that conclusion and of the sources you have for supporting it? Data on what Wikipedia's reputation is like and how that's been found out would also be helpful, as would discussion on how such a campaign would affect our reputation, and on the grounds it takes for mass deletion of content based on external pressure to be justified. Thanks, Kizor 03:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a proposition

Hello. I understand that you are TTN's accomplice in the edits to Wikipedia, correct. I would like to reach a comprimise then. I already talked with TTN about the Fatal Fury and Street Fighter character articles. I have already redirected some non-notable crap to the main game page, so if you have the time, then perhaps you can help me to decide which articles sould or should not be merged or deleted. Thank you, friend. ZeroGiga (Contact) 09:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your disruptive mass-reverts lacking an explanation. Please do not do so in the future, as the episode pages are controversial enough as it is. Cowman109Talk 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eusebeus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see I have been blocked, but the reason seems peremptory. Ample discussion has taken place on the talk page of the Scrubs LOE page in question (to the issue of explanation), so that reasoning strikes me as off-base. Whilst the redirects are perhaps controversial (although there is plenty of consensus for them and they are fully backed up by our policies as has been discussed at length) I think procedurally a sternly worded, stentorian warning would have been in order prior to the issue of an outright block. I note further that there is no consensus that we stop applying our policies and guidelines during the course of arbcom, which after all is not in a position to rule on content issues, so this actions seems capricious. I therefore request this block be removed. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think procedurally a sternly worded, stentorian warning would have been in order prior to the issue of an outright block. Wikipedia is not a bureacracy, it is obvious from the arbcom that this is controversial, and you show no remorse for your actions, or an indication that you would stop. Woody (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There appears to have been discussion for around two months, initiated by Eusebeus at the top of the talk page. A number of users on the List of Scrubs episodes talk page agreed with Will/Sceptre's statement "Keep the ones in the navbox as sufficiently notable (award winning, etc). Redirect the less for lack of real world context." Other users suggested season redirects. I also note Cowman has stated "I'll have no issue if another administrator wishes to unblock him". I think there are several different interpretations, Cowman had one and I had another. Accordingly, I am unblocking. Orderinchaos 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Symphonies by Joseph Haydn

Eusebeus, I am trying to understand your notion of notability. I see from your userpage that you've contributed to a few articles about symphonies by Joseph Haydn. You created the Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) article, but it does not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Do you think that symphony is notable?

The articles Symphony No. 73 (Haydn), Symphony No. 74 (Haydn), and Symphony No. 75 (Haydn) also do not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Do you think those articles should be redirected to List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn? Does the Hoboken catalogue make each of those symphonies notable enough to have their own article? --Pixelface (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you quoted the wrong the policy

Actually, that was a carefully thought out and custom written response to Ned's "solution" to the problem. The policy you quoted had something to do with not using a boiler-plate response. Sorry you disagree, friend of Ned, but I made the comment in response to his being lazy and using the Undo button instead of taking note of changes made to the template since mine were applied. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh those, does him being "established" make him above the law? I picked two appropriate notices (could've applied more than I did) and followed proper procedure when adding them to his talk page. Simple as that. A parking ticket is "indecorous", but it's there to remind people that they shouldn't park their cars in certain places. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron has now started an ANI thread about me reverting his style removals at WP:ANI#Ned Scott's mass-undos on Navigational templates.. If you'd like to leave any comments regarding the situation please do. If not, no worries. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Language like [4][5] is quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and especially at an arbitration case where decorum is at issue. I can tell that you disagreed strongly with the proposal, but saying things like "disgusting, scurrilous and scabrous, even judged by the abominably low standards induced by the bleating querulousness & rampant fractiousness of User:White Cat", and calling it "gutter slandermongering" is not an acceptable response. You can disagree without over-the-top attacks on character. Dmcdevit·t 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)