This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eusebeus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. I see you sometimes translate stuff from German for the English wikipedia. Well, I didn't, until yesterday when I found the one-sentence Jagdschloss Glienicke at AfD (it is a sure keepie now) and I also wanted to attempt translation once from the German wikipedia. I know now that my online dictionary sucks and that my 1:1 translation skills are also not as good as I thought they were. If you are bored sometime in the near future, would you compare Jagdschloss Glienicke and de:Jagdschloss Glienicke and fix what I skrewed up? I know what the following German terms/phrases from the German article mean, but I don't know how to properly and concisely translate them into English, so I left them out sometimes in my translation.
Tapetenfabrikanten - a producer of wallpaper/paperhangings
Wachstuchtapeten - wallpaper made out of oilcloth
Hofarchitekt - architect who works for the king/duke/whatever "the court"
Mittelbau - middle part of a building
in den Besitz gelangen - something like "annex", but not necessarily in the military sense, also "change the owner"
Kadettenanstalt - a facility/building where cadets live and get trained
Auslagerungsort eines Teils des Fundus - place where parts of the property are stored, not part of the main storage place
geräumt - in a military sense, force the people out of a certain area
Südflügel - southern wing of a large building
Wasseransaugstelle war versandet - the place where they get water from (something like a firehydrant, but probably more archaic) was "petered out"/"silted up" (according to the dictionary; I have never heard these English verbs, but "versandet" literally means that sand and soil and stuff made technology work no longer)
Holzkassettendecken und Sandsteinelemente sind eingelagert. - Ceiling made out of special wood (I guess) and elements of freestone/sandstone are stored. (I can't even make sense of the German sentence, so I skipped it)
Hey man, looks pretty good! I did a quick copy edit of the first paragraph. Here are a few thoughts off the top of my head re the above:
Wachstuch is oil cloth, but I wonder here if this refers here to fabric wall covering. Anyway, let's try wallpaper for the moment.
Hofarchitekt - architect who works for the king/duke/whatever "the court". Yes, "Court Architect" (like Hofkomponist)
Mittelbau is the central stock or part of a building (i.e. and not the wings).
in den Besitz gelangen - I would say simply came/fell into the hands (or possession) of the city of Berlin.
geräumt - I would use clear out (as in abräumen)
Wasseransaugstelle war versandet - the place where they get water from (something like a firehydrant, but probably more archaic) was "petered out"/"silted up" (according to the dictionary; I have never heard these English verbs, but "versandet" literally means that sand and soil and stuff made technology work no longer).
What a horrible sentence.
Am 31. März 2003 brannte der Südflügel des Schlosses. Auslöser des Feuers war ein Kabelbrand. Da das Schloss keine Brandmelder besaß und überdies die Wasseransaugstelle versandet war, entstand ein hoher Schaden, welcher bis heute nicht beseitigt ist. Holzkassettendecken und Sandsteinelemente sind eingelagert.
I would translate this as:
On March 31, 2003, the south wing of the castle caught fire caused by faulty wiring. Because the Castle had no fire alarm and its water intakes had become clogged with silt (versandet), the resulting damage was particularly severe (entstand ein hoher Schaden) and has yet to be fully repaired.
Holzkassettendecken und Sandsteinelemente sind eingelagert. I think this is that the ceiling and sandstone have been deposited or put in (for reconstruction presumably), but it is not very germane, so I would suggest skipping it. Eusebeus (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading your English translation makes so much sense, but I couldn't have come up with it myself. As a mit-Händen-und-Füßen translater, I still always got my point across. Anyway, thank you for your time, I'll work your suggestions into the text. I'll see you around. :-) – sgeurekat•c19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I find that it's easier to improve the flow after someone has done the heavy lifting! I was slogging through the translation of Gottfried Semper and got bogged down. Actually, come to think of it ... hint hint. Anyway let me know if I can ever be of help. Eusebeus (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I incorporated your suggestions into the text, thanks. I promise to pay good old Gottfried (and here I thought the opera house was named for the Latin word *tsk*) a visit later, but be aware that I am pretty good with putting off my "duties". But I am also good with keeping them in the end. :-) – sgeurekat•c21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some people might have thought that my [1] comment was rude. But, if someone wants to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet, then they should make that accusation. If someone is a good-faith newcomer, then so what?
Also, AfDs are not based on a straight-up vote. They are based on consensus and reasoning. So, a hundred sockpuppets making a bad argument for notability shouldn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepcat748 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That is all true, but it is usually not necessary to provide such commentary to an editor who provides what is a standard flag at such AfDs. Eusebeus (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain the 'unnotable' comment on the makeoutclub.com wikipedia page?
Thank you
Re: Revert
I just don't see how "this article should never have gotten to the main page" is constructive to the article. Those complaints about an article aren't going to help improve it; especially since that's leading to equally pointless "this article is great and should be on the main page." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Symbols
Please dont be one of the people joining the unfortunate trend to use symbol in Afd debates. What does it add?DGG (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Symphony No. 26 (Haydn) , has been proposed to be merged into another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Note regarding the Haydn situation
Eusebeus, something to consider... whether or not Pixelface's initial intention was "pointy" (and I'm definitely not addressing that here), the fact is that a discussion about merging did actually start, and is still under way. Repeatedly removing the template before that debate is concluded could in fact be considered disruptive in its own right. (Removing it would be more appropriate if there had been no discussion; given that there is, it makes more sense to allow it to conclude and then remove the template.) --Ckatzchatspy06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are an admin now CKatz so you will recognise that POINTy and disruptive editing is never excusable. This kind of tagging does not usu. produce genuine debate, since it is not undertaken in good faith (and indeed, no real debate has taken place). I am sure you will recognise this is the case, whatever your individual POV. If you wish to start up a debate on this topic (and why not), do so again from scratch so it is not infected by such pointy (& in my view block-worthy)actions. Then I would be happy to leave the template on as long as any genuine discussion is ongoing. But it is unacceptable - and you are acutely aware of this I know - to allow disputatious and adolescent editors to game the system. Eusebeus (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point - in this case, despite the way it began the end result was a good-faith debate that has led to some improvements to the articles. As I said, I wasn't commenting on Pixelface's actions, and I will leave that for others to decide on. I was speaking directly to the fact that we shouldn't prematurely close off a worthwhile discussion. --Ckatzchatspy03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No it wasn't. There was never any serious consideration made for a merge in this case; improvements were incidental and certainly do not excuse pointy and disruptive edits. Pixelface should be blocked and editors should reject in toto such picayune tactics. Eusebeus (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface does not care one bit about Haydn or his symphonies. He's just picking a fight to gain leverage for arguments in whatever areas he actually is interested in. I'm not sure how "politically correct" it is to "say that out loud" but its true and I'm rather sick of all the wiki-politics. That said, the existing symphony articles had been left in a stub-like state for a long time. That doesn't have to be the case. Robbins Landon alone wrote *thousands* of pages on these works. I went to the library and checked out one of Robbins Landon's smaller "summary volumes" and have added some applicable notes over the weekend.
I could add much more, but I've noticed that "blow-by-blow" accounts of movements tend to be deleted as OR. Can we add these types of statements if we find citations for them? DavidRF (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
David, ignore the petty bullshit and accept my apologies for inadvertently having induced this juvenile rubbish through my participation in other areas. Hopefully Pixie will be blocked, since he is a chronic repeat offender. Anyway, enough of that.
Listen, as I think I have noted before, I own both the HCRL Universal Ed. of the Symphonies + the 5 volume Chronicles so digging up material on individual works is not a problem. I can also access (via GScholar) JSTOR so we can dig up refs there as needed as well. I just need to get around to it. CKatz picked randomly the Loudon (or Laudon) above, and out of interest I checked The Symphonies: HCRL devotes about 3 pages to it, (only symphony where the nickname came from Haydn directly, as a suggestion to Artaria to boost publication. These details should be added in.
One thought: there is little need for individual articles on all the early symphonies. Much of nos. 1-34 (and A & B) can probably be discussed in a single article or set of articles, with a few individual symphonies (e.g. 6-8, 22, 26) standing on their own. As for movements, as you know HCRL offers plenty of commentary (cf his nasty remarks on #69 above), but they are of a highly individual sort and I personally would be rather loathe to include such material. In certain cases there are obvious points that can be made and, as necessary, substantiated via HCRL or others (e.g. Rosen). One thing we should make more of an effort to include is the original Orchestra size - possibly as a standalone article to which we can refer from the Symphony subpages. HCRL did some work on this, but subsequent scholarship has investigated this further and I think it would be a salutary detail to include. Saw the stuff you added in - looks good. We need a mini-Haydn project, what with the vast quantity of material to cover - I see only half the Masses yet have articles. Eusebeus (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Francophone skills (or turning over a new leaf)
Usually being an obligate anglophone sits comfortably with me but alas I am all at sea often in the world of mycology as many English speakers are mycophobes, hence much stuff gets untranslated. I am a bit sick of trench warfare so figured some collaborative editing may be in order. I have made a couple of stubs for Jack Merridew but need to sleep now. I would much appreciate some translation of mateiral from this [2] to here, René_Maire, if you have a few minutes. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You recently made comments about this article on its talk page. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. JMcC (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
FAC
You wrote at the FAC for The Last Temptation of Krust: This is looking much better - it will probably need a final copy-edit when the last references are added in and the flow has been tightened up, but the article is much stronger. I am glad that you have noted that I have put a lot of work into this article in direct response to critical comments from yourself and from others. Other editors that had previously voiced critical comments have since changed their sentiment recently to "Support", after they noticed that I have worked hard on the article to address their concerns. Perhaps at this point in time you could reevaluate your initial Fail comment, and perhaps change to "Neutral" or "Support" ? Cirt (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.
Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.
This is the best I can do as I'm not a coding expert.:) Hope you like it- it's darker, and shorter, if you object to it now you must just not be a pink person.:) special, random, Merkinsmum00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Philip I
Hello and welcome. In this edit, you note that Philip the Fair traveled to Spain in 1502 as jure uxoris rex and not as King consort. Are you sure of that? It is my understanding that this was not conferred until the death of Isabella in 1504; in 1502, however, he would still have been the presumed consort. I would be very interested in your source for this correction if indeed true so it can be added to the article. Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebeus! It is my understanding that five hundred years ago husband of an heiress was an heir himself. Ferdinand II was Isabella I's co-monarch as Ferdinand V and it was clear that Philip will be Joanna's co-ruler. I may be wrong - maybe husbands did not become co-heirs immediateley? I'm trying to get people understand the difference between king consort (which is merely a male type of queen consort) and jure uxoris rex (a monarch). Please correct me if I'm wrong and excuse me for my bad English (it's not my first language).Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The distinction you draw is an important one, but there is an important legal and constitutional question involved. You may be right about Fernando who assumed the title de jure uxoris, but I did a google scholar search and have not yet been able to source this claim, which strikes me therefore as probably inaccurate. In the case of Fernando and Philip, they needed the Cortes to recognise a claim as the legitimate ruler/heir. Note, btw, that this act of fealty never happened in the case of Philip for the Aragonese possessions. Anyway, can we make an effort to source these specific claims? De jure uxoris is not, I don't think, such a blanket term as you may think and it is important that we maintain accuracy. Can you provide a list of articles where you have made this correction and which have not, as yet, been substantiated? Then we can proceed to ensure accuracy via a Google scholar search. What's your first language btw? Eusebeus (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I must say that I'm really confused now. I was (until now) sure that Philip was de jure uxoris King of Castile as Philip I from his wife's accesion until his death. The only thing I've actually changed is king-consort to king and Philip I of Castile is the only article where I made this edit. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am a bit confused as well. But it is an interesting point. Let me see what I can dig up and I'll report back. Watch my page and I'll post a reply here. Eusebeus (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
He certainly was not a king consort - consorts do not have regnal numbers, but Philip was indeed Philip the First. I hope you'll find something interesting. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Eusubeus, While I am open to any and all suggestions to improve Bradley Simon's article, calling the article "terrible" and stating that it clearly fails to meet WP:Bio standards when multiple other users think that it does, does not serve to improve the content. While you may have strong opnions regarding this article, a lot of effort went into creating it, so your consideration and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism would be appreciated, while your insults are certainly not. Lakpr (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain more fully?
I try my best to understand the points of those who disagree with me. Even if I broadly disagree with them, there may be some points they hold that I would agree with. I try to identify those, so I can take them into account in my future contributions. And, who knows, if I fully understand their points, I may be won over.
I'd appreciate it if you would try to explain this comment more fully. Yes, I know the nominator leveled many concerns over WP:BIO and WP:COATRACK. But I thought I had responded with meaningful counter-arguments.
FWIW, it seems to me that the nominator launched several invalid straw man arguments -- attributed comments to me I have not made, claimed policies and guidelines said something other than what they said -- and crossed over several of the civility related polices in their characterization of what they imagine my motives and my character. I think I managed not to respond in kind.
I am not trying to drag you into making more effort in this discussion than you are prepared to make. So, I won't repeat the counter-arguments I made in the {{afd}}. But, I would be very interested in any response you made to the counter-arguments I made to the nominator's criticisms of the article.
Thank you for your comment. I haven't read Brave New World, one of the many books I hope to get around to reading. Do you recommend it? It seemed obvious early that the DD entry will be retained. And of course it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. And it is not as though the DD entry is the worst by far. Although I don't know DD and hadn't know of him until I came across his entry, I do know people who have obviously written their own entry, and one who has even used his own name to do it! Quite sad, really. I thought, though, that I might as well put the clear and simple case for deletion given that I had chosen to participate in the debate. I have been quite amused that all sorts of motives have been attributed to me. My real motivation in getting involved has been to see how something like Wikipedia works which is one reason why I have been reading criteria documents and so on. I have been using Wikipedia for sometime as an initial source of information which can lead to good primary sources. It is a great resource. With academic journal databases when you go looking for anything there is so much dross with impressive sounding titles that it is difficult to find the material that is worth reading. In contrast Wikipedia is a great place to start and when you have discovered the key material you can usually find the rest. Re: your comment on the media, once apon a time I used to take what I read in the media seriously. However, I found that when the media reported in areas that I knew something about the report was often wrong and frequently quite wrong. In recent decades I have found that some journalists don't even get it right when they use media releases, that seem to have been written clearly, and many of the ones I have come across can be quite lazy. Indeed, some opinion writers survive because they have several friends who pretty well write their columns for them, because those friends have various points they wish to put across, anonymously. Some of it is quite understandable because many journalists, who do not have a ‘name’, are not incredibly well paid and are under pressure to turn out copy very quickly, so mistakes arise.
I've added sections to the talk pages of each of the characters you tagged with a merge proposal. Please add your reason(s) there. Thanks. - Dudesleeper / Talk18:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Guten tag mein herr, aber mein deutsch ist schrecklich....(well, that's what I used to say while backpacking round Germany anyway..)....would be very appreciative if you could bolster the paleontologist Otto Jaekel's page with info from his [german one]. I haven't been overly thrilled with google translations and trust a human being to take on board teh nuances a wee bit better...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A good ol' stoush
OK my dear Eusebeus, if you like a good ol' AfD stoush, try this one on for size:
Now I know absolutely nothing about classical music nor what would be notable or otherwise, but I am mindful the editor may knwow something and not be around for a bit. Given you know a bit more about this area, you may like to input:
Our chum did some work on anatomy of conifer leaves in 1867, which I am unable to do justice (botanical anatomy-speak rather than a foreign language this time) so I have tagged the article and put out a request on wikiproject plants. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Casliber, I have refactored my talk page to provide you your very own section, since you are posting here quite a bit. As for the technical jargon of that reference, I can probably get a translation at some point. I'll see what I can do. Eusebeus (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all that. Can't offer much WRT linguistic ability though I do own Latin and an Ancient Greek dictionaries, though my knowledge of those tongues is rusty to say the least. I can also figure out significance of medical/psychological/psychiatric stuff, though I don't do too much of that here (too much like work). Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record...
Ok, if you are ever at a loss for translating, here are:
Hmm, if my contributions are anything like my attempts at spore printing, the results will be woeful blundering dilettantism indeed. Eusebeus (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, I meant at the bottom of the first two are the mycologists. All input appreciated as many hands make light work (glib saying insert). Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Miscelllaneous hospitals in (demi-)-francophone countries
I was sprucing up chlorpromazine and two of the hospitals where landmark work was done are Hôpital Ste. Anne in Paris, and the Verdun Protestant Hospital in Montreal, given this is your neck of les woods. Not familiar with these, would you know whether they were (a) prominent enough to have articles, and maybe make a stub, or (b) if not, maybe which would be the appropriate arrondisement/municapility/suburb/district they should have an entry on to link to? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I can't answer these questions. I have never even heard of the Verdun Protestant Hospital, which probably mitigates against its notability. As for Ste. Anne I plead (and not for the first time) woeful ignorance. Eusebeus (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Given your interests, you could probably identify the most salient points and significant works which should be mentioned in the lead of Joseph Haydn, and note whether the article was reasonably comprehensive or lacking in parts and if so, which - it has quite a few refs in it which I inlined and I would hazard a guess it wouldn't be too tall an order to get it up to GA standard - note on WP:GA a somewhat recentist trend of pop music - it would slot between Harry and the Potters and Hellyeah I guess. My own knowledge of classical music is meagre at best and wouldn't know where to start, though copyediting isn't too hard and can be done without a necessarily a huge familiarity with the subject. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Aren't you an MD? You should certainly have a passing familiarity with Haydn ;) I'll see what I can do, although there are many other editors as well equipped as myself to make such an assessment and the view from the Classical music camp is that GA is a waste of time. Eusebeus (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am but I grew up with a musician/guitarist father who viewed classical music as base and reggae as sophisticated, and I have inherited his preferences really. I am intrigued on their opinion of GA, which has really been spruced up in the past 6-12 months. Have to look further into...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You know the GA thing may have improved. Part of the problem is what the Germans call Rezeptionstheorie. On the one hand we have the White, male American teenagers that get excited over manga and their 20,000 word article on Optimus Prime; on the other hand we have an impressive encyclopedic treatment of, say, String Theory. And practically everything in between right? Thus, we are many things masquerading as a single encyclopedic project - directory listing, fansite, newspaper, memorial, trivia font and, of course, encyclopedia. The problem with GA is that is forced to a level that is very LCD that encompasses all this - good and bad. So for the editors who contribute on the more scholarly side of things, the GA step - which is so arbitrary really - is often vexing and irrelevant. You know, it's when you write "Haydn was an Austrian composer" and then some GA reviewer wants a reference to "prove" you haven't made that up! I mean you pull your hair out for a while, but in the end its easier just to move to FA and avoid the amateur-hour of GA. Of course, even FA matters little. We still have a major problem of credibility - I am sure you encounter this as well. Almost all of the folks I know refuse to sanction Wikipedia as a credible source for their students on "scholarly" topics because of this. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is authoritative when it comes to rickrolling or the Thunderbird email client. And yet, I was at the BL the other day and enjoyed watching senior Oxford Dons furtively checking dates from Wikipedia articles. Ca m'a fait rire! Eusebeus (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, as I walk around work (hospital) I can see staff using entries on various medical and psychiatric material, some of which I wrote or edited, which is amusing. [Scientific citations in Wikipedia] - this was amusing it was a triumvirate of us doing the banksia material :)
But seriously, I know the referencing is vexed but having a ref from a broad source at the bottom of a para works wonders, so one doesn't have silly tags against obvious statements. I find GA and FA good staging points for article stability, so when they inevitably get degraded one has a set point to compare with - this was the main reason I started with doing FACs, plus the feedback on improving the articles has been good for the most part and I have improved my wirting skills significantly in the past 2 years. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Scrubs redirects
Was there any sort of agreement or reasoning behind this redirect or are you doing this on your own? If there's been a consensus among "higher powers" of sorts that'll be fine, but it seems as though you're redirecting without any reason, since there's nothing new on the talk page. Laynethebangs (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Layne: yes indeed - based on the ongoing meta-level discussion at Fictional topics (I assume you have been following that closely), which maintains the inunction against plot-only content. If we wish to restore the articles, let's discuss first the kind of real-world information we can include and how best to excise the plot details to conform with the WP:FICT consensus. So far, I have seen no effort to improve the existing articles. Eusebeus (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There was not a specific ban on redirecting articles, but there was a direct request for people to stop spreading the forest fire to new areas. Unilaterally redirecting swarthes of existing articles, in light of the two prior arbitration cases, is a needlessly controversial and drama-provoking act. If you don't feel they're notable, get an individual consensus, and give people the requisite two weeks (of an AfD nomination) to actually fix the article, rather than unilaterally getting rid of the entire content. Rebecca (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well I am confident you would not have undone my redirects without first having participated at the Scrubs discussion extensively and more importantly at the ongoing policy discussion at WT:FICT. Indeed, do I not recall your many valuable contributions to that ongoing discussion with respect to consensus? Nonetheless, it will have demonstrated convincingly there is almost nothing I have merged and redirected that does not fail our renewed - note renewed - injunction against standalone articles that are simply vehicles for plot summary - but then I have long been warmed by your many thoughts on this matter and apologise if I suggested you had simply decided ex nihilo to revert me without first having made your views on this matter count. I made an extensive effort at the Scrubs discussion to link to the relevant policy and guideline pages, including the recent arbcom case - I must thank you for having done the same before indiscriminately reverting me. As they say in Syria, Shukrun! Eusebeus (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have said my piece about these articles on that talk page in the past, although I expect that it's long buried in archives. I rarely have time for these things these days, as I work heavily and juggle this with full-time study; I simply do not have the time to fight mortal combat on a talk page to stop good material from being deleted, nor do many people. This is why this dispute keeps going on in the way it does: a small group of people vigorously defend that guideline, and are willing to argue until anyone else just gives up. This may allow the text of the written guideline to remain unchanged, but what it does not resemble is actual consensus, which Wikipedia operates on. This is why, ultimately, it doesn't work, and the attempts at mass deletion of content under it keep getting reverted by a broad assortment of regular users.
We have policies for deletion, which is what this is (it isn't a merge, seeing as the entire content is generally lost); attempts to circumvent this en masse (especially in light of not one, but two arbitration rulings urging caution) are unhelpful and disruptive to the project, and perfectly deserving of being overruled when it's good content that someone's unilaterally trying to remove. Rebecca (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You have time to post all this to my talk page, scrutinise my non-merge as you consider it and undo my redirect, but not time to post a thought at WT:FICT? Eusebeus (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've already said my piece there, as have many others. Those voices are part of any consensus - just because people have better things to do than fight mortal combat with a small group of users who are very, very adamant that these articles must die does not make our opinions less valid. Rebecca (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:AE#And so it begins again
Someone's started a thread about you at WP:AE#And so it begins again. I tried to defend the .hack issue as something that was under control, and not really a big issue, for my own part in it. You might want to leave a calm note there so that people don't panic. -- Ned Scott19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You're pretty much shooting yourself in the foot at this point. Listen, don't be combative, and stay calm. -- Ned Scott21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it was one of my edits that somehow blew away part of your comment there. My bad. I'm not sure what happened there, I had a couple of edit conflicts in a row and I don't know if the software screwed up, or if I accidentally dragged and dropped some text without realizing it, or what. In any case, I was just trying to figure out what I did when you corrected it anyway. Sorry 'bout that! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a heads up to let you know I've reverted your second attempt at restoring the redirect tag on Malcolm Reynolds. You cite the mediation as your rationale, but the request is still open; not only that, but the Reynolds article is not cited in the request (instead, it's mentioned as an example of what shouldn't be merged).
This is your second revert of the day; by process, I'm reminding you that WP:3RR is always in effect, and further reversions will be considered disruptive. I really, really don't want this to become a bigger issue than it has to be; please, let's just let the discussion (and mediation) play out before doing anything drastic. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea, yea I just undid my revert as you were posting this and I advise grabbing a mirror for that 3RR stuff since you are reverting after a lengthy process that has brought even User:Maratanos on board to support a merge, so in effect you are undoing the work of numerous editors - you should post to their talk page as well as a courtesy. Yes, we'll continue to discuss. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Er... grab a mirror for 3RR? ...okay, I haven't done anything to violate it, but discussing that fact further will just exacerbate things. I'd suggest following sgeureka's advice; drama (on my end or yours) is unconstructive. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what I meant was review the various edits - not just mine - to bring the article to the LOC page and engage all editors in question; it was not intended as an accusation that you are in danger of being listed at 3RR - demonstrably untrue. A slow revert war, however, is just as discouraged as you know. Anyway, I will desist further reversion and the issue can be discussed. Basically, the question is whether readers are better served by having a single goto source for characters, rather than spinouts. Eusebeus (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Firefly characters
Please be careful to not start edit-warring about the Mal and the Book character. They were never included in the merge debates, and are actually quite decent (although they still have some way ahead of them to GA). I'd rather leave them separate in promised fairness than to go over them with a lawn mower. – sgeurekat•c18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I am four minutes late, but I am just saying this as a friendly advise that could spare all of us a lot of drama. – sgeurekat•c18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
In relation to your views expressed at WT:FICT, you are one brave guy to be sticking your neck out to assert that Wikipedia guidelines are global, and my hat goes off to you! Gavin Collins (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
Dirty Dancing
I'm going to try and take Dirty Dancing to FA again... Since you were one of the principal opposers, I thought I'd check with you, what do you think? --Elonka13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it your intention to piss people off, because you're certainly good at it. My restoration did not contain "gussied up trivia", I'm pretty sure that details of it being a homage to something else, its director, it being the last episode, various production details, plus the directors views on the episode could be called, erm, oh yes, "real-world focus", at least by most people, perhaps not your interpretation, and evidence so far suggests that this episode will be plenty notable. I'm trying to go by the book here, I'm trying to make improvements, and if you actually bothered to contribute to the discussion about the episode articles, which by the way is showing a likelihood of more reverts, you'll see that I'm trying to prevent this, and advocating more article expansion. Its hard to feel motivated when you seem to delight in acting like a dick, Can you not consider the fact that you're not the only one trying to do what they feel is best for the project?--Jac16888 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
oh and i feel that i should mention that should i restore the article, your reverting will be the 3rd revert, not mine, and also, this was a new episode, created after your redirects, there was no discussion on it. You want it gone, afd it--Jac16888 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right and I am wrong: as the series finale, it will likely be notable enough to warrant an individual article and I apologise for turning it into a redirect. Please ensure that the primary focus of the article is its real-world significance and bear in mind it is important not to dress up trivia. There are lots of vandals who restore willy nilly and I did not pay close enough attention to this case. Sorry. Eusebeus (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
On a similar point, I plan on completing the WP:FICT-failing-synoptic+trivia Scrubs articles redirection soon. If you plan on rescuing any of these specific articles, please let me know. Eusebeus (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well listen I know we have had our differences (you reported me to arbcom after all); the bottom line here, however, is that we are both striving for the same thing: better content that satisfies general encyclopedic exigencies. I appreciate your efforts to improve articles & not just blindly restoring content that violates our guidelines governing fiction and I appreciate that you accept my apology for having misapplied redirection. I look forward to improving our engagement in the future and I hope that we can work together on finding the right balance between redirecting content that is mere fan material and restoring articles that aspire to something more. Eusebeus (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I do hope that the two of us can work together. I still believe that all the episodes should have articles, you're not going to convince me otherwise, but its hard to keep going over the same debates, and i also no that i will never convince you they could stay as they are. But thats irrelevant, if the two of us can find a common ground and move forward from there, perhaps it will encourage others in "the big debate" to try a bit of working together, which is the best we can hope for. I do apologise for the whole arbcom thing, i could have handled that whole situation much better, lets call it a bad episode and redirect it to the past. As a quick heads up, when i'm free, the articles i'm thinking of trying to salvage are My Life in Four Cameras, because its unusual, and won an award, some s1 episode, i forget which one, which apparently caused some controversy by offending some nurses, and some of the ones with major guest stars, e.g. Brendan Fraser and Michael J Fox's episodes (3 and 2 respectively) because they were particulary notable episodes.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am so sorry for that terrible redirection joke, don't know what i was thinking. I should get an indefinite block for that--Jac16888 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense - that made me laugh! I am glad the olive branch has been extended here. When you have the time, why don't you consult here on the specific episodes you would like to improve and I'd be happy to help; the basis for improvement in those you cite above sounds very solid to me. I know it seems I am against all fictional topics, but sometimes I make a contribution! Eusebeus (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Jac, thanks for your post at the AE board. It's depressing isn't it that in instances where editors actually find a way to work together that the specific instance actually gets cited as edit-warring and a block is solicited? Let me know when you are free from exam burdens and we can chart a path to get the notable Scrubs episodes resuscitated with appropriate content (4 cameras episode is probably a good place to start). I will invite A. S. Castanza to join this effort, per his message below. Cheers, Eusebeus (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than replacing the articles on Scrubs episodes with redirects please post a message on my talk page and I will attempt to bring them up to standards, considering that | Television Episode Criteria gives specific requirements for a TV show episode page it shouldn't be too hard. Or rather, It might be possible to combine each season into its own article with separate pages only for episodes with considerable real world significance. Let me know what you think. ~ A. S. Castanza 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)
Thanks. It's like Groundhog Day around those guys. Until I found your/his RFC I was beating myself up for being a pansy, but I don't feel quite as bad anymore. It's my first ArbCom statement - I hope it was acceptable to link to the RFC instead of repeating your hard work. I hope even more that ArbCom puts some meat into their decision, but based on current trends in their "decisions" (and I use the word loosely) I'm not optimistic. We'll see. :-) - KrakatoaKatie08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Incase you're wondering, I'm taking a wikibreak for about a month and I'll be back soon. By the way, before I leave, I just wanna tell you that the Darkstalkers, Tekken, and Guilty Gear character pages might need a little work, don't you agree? ZeroGiga (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Prose-master
this is some pretty good work. You should be reviewing articles in the sunshine at FAC more often rather than wallowing in the trenches at AfD..this is great work! Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 6: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. It would have been quote possible to critique Alansohn's nomination without adding hyperbole of your own, and DGG was quite right to ask you politely to refactor. Your "braying schoolmarm" reply was completely uncalled for in response to DGG's polite request. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Brown haired girl posted to my talk page and even templated me! Anyway, I disagree that my comment is a personal attack; perhaps my observation that the nominator was so moved by his rhetoric can be construed in this way, but I am unconvinced. But there is indeed a braying schoolmarmish quality to DGG's reply: he knows full well the long history of unrepentant nastiness and invective that Alan brings to disputes, and how easily he plunges headlong into contumely and caricature (note the Witchhunt comment). This behaviour is simply intolerable and I am disappointed that, in the face of a gross and insulting caricature of the closing admin which imputes his good faith and judgement, you & DGG both come whining to me. Shame on you! Eusebeus (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"en vif"?
You recently used the phrase en vif in a discussion at WT:NOT. Thinking that I might learn a new phrase, I tried to look it up. I could not find anything at Wiktionary (where I thought we had pretty good coverage of such phrases) or even through a google search of online dictionaries. What does that mean? And can you create the page at Wiktionary please? Rossami(talk)17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up - I googled en vif and found no English usage - so I should not have included it in my comment. Apologies. It means live or, figuratively, in the act in French. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
As I have said in the past to user:Opus33, your neutrality towards my comments is generally under question. You can not hide the fact that very high value coins have been minted using very important representations like people, castles, etc. If you want to remove the content because you do not like it, then you should comment that in the talk page first.
If you continue reverting my edits on purpose, I will escalate your behaviour to a Wikipedia neutral administrator and your account may be blocked. Way more important articles than the ones your review have been happily accepting my comments, you should take that as a sample! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oye Miguel, listen up - you added content to a stable article. Opus and I have reverted your changes. So your next step is to go to the talk page and discuss the material you want to add in. (Go read Wikipedia Editing Process if you are confused about this). You now need to go to the talk page and make your case for why this content should be included, not come to my talk page with misplaced adolescent threats. *snap* Eusebeus (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is not a thread, is the reality. Please check Hadyn, we had a long discussion about the inclussion of the coin, and it was decided to let it there. Then Opus33 deleted similar content, in a building article, nothing related to music! He knows the process and he could start the conversation in the talk page. You want the conversation, fine I will start it, but I am definitely escalating his behaviour.
The content that I am adding is real, sourced and well accepted by a lot of other articles. The fact that you and Opus are taking "your articles" so personal is not correct. What is wrong showing that there is a unique commemorative coin in honour to this building in this case? Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being reasonable. Let's move all discussion of this to the talk page. Cheers,
Eusebeus, it will really mean a lot to me if you can give your honest comment on Talk:Schloss Esterházy, even if it is "I do not like and I rather the whole mention of the coin and the image to be removed". Thanks in advance. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Guten abend mein herr (now where do the umlauts go again?),
the translator on google makes for some highly amusing reading of:
the German article of the European Robin, which otherwise has some fine referenced scientific material to add to the anglophone article. The third paragraph of Eiablage und Brutpflege, with the bit about the cuckoos (and the ref) would be fantastic. There is some other good material on timing of bird development but I couldn't figure out which ref went with it. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me a more precise request with respect to the references you want translated over (i.e. the ref numbers?). Then I can give it a try. My ornithological German ... well, we'll see ... ;) Eusebeus (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I have an interesting idea for a collaboration cleanup on an environmental topic. Let me know if you are interested. Eusebeus (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. sure. I have been hamstrung by some access issues (feeling very antipathetic to my modem or adsl, not sure which is responsible....lots of phone calls and frustration) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that is a depressing read. I have generally avoided writing too much on general environment stuff and extinctions as I find it too depressing, but this sounds like something out of science fiction and is worth investigating.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am currently working on Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) (yeah, I know, poor taste), and I want to decruftify its music section for lack of good sources. It currently mentions a fellow named Thompson several times, but I don't remember his name from music class, and I also can't find him at Thompson; google isn't really helpful either since it's such a common surname. Now, I don't know whether I am stupid and incompetent, or whether he is just utterly non-notable (in which case I'd have no second thoughts about removing any mention of him instantly). Since you seem to have a thing for classical music, can you help out? If it takes you more than five minutes to come up with a reply, please don't bother. :-) – sgeurekat•c08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Mein hochgeehrtes Fräulein:
I doubt music classes would have helped on this one. The music is English folk dancing melodies (as noted in the article text). I think the reference to Thompson is to this compendium: Dances as they are performed at Court, Bath, and all Publick Assemblys. (ca. 1795 seq.) From teh internets: "Thompsons of St. Paul's Churchyard published a collection of twenty-four dances each year." There's lots of web references (youtube the various Thompson titles and you'll probably find most of them). Also scholarly refs such as this one: The Morris Tune, John M. Ward, "Journal of the American Musicological Society," Vol. 39, No. 2 (Summer, 1986), pp. 294-331. Is that ok? Let me know if you need help about any of the other cited music. Tschuss, Eusebeus (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(Hinweis: Lies mal meine deutsche Sprachbox auf meiner Userpage genau durch. ;-) Aber psst, ich will es nicht an die große Glocke hängen.)
So I guess the man is notable after all, but not in the way I expected. A Making-of book that I have ordered (but not yet received) may be helpful here after all, but if they make no significant mention of Thompson, I'll trim/remove the list as WP:NOT#IINFO anyway.
On another matter, Tony1 has supported my Carnivàle LoC with only minor reservations, which is like an A+ in an FAC. I'll fix his points tomorrow morning (too tired now), but since you're pretty eloquent (and a native speaker at that), could you run through the article and mark (or even fix) the spots that may deserve some more attention? Don't feel yourself obligated to anything though. I still haven't responded to your winking, but I haven't forgotten about it either. – sgeurekat•c19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Blush. Nächste mal, muss Ich etwas besseres durchlesen! I have made the due correction. I saw Tony's comments and you deserve congratulations for having earned what is high praise indeed. I would be happy to comb through the prose when I have time. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
CoC got promoted yesterday; I have only fixed Tony1's concerns but I'll read through his how-to-satisfy-criterion-1a page again soon to find some more improvable sentences myself. You are still welcome to have a closer look at the article, but it's not "urgent" anymore. :-) Anyway, I'll be busy with family and education in the next one or two weeks and won't be as wiki-involved, although I'll still read up on the important developments. Have a nice sunday. – sgeurekat•c11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Scrubs
I can add a comment to the effect that you stopped reverting the moment someone added anything meaningful to the article, or I can stay silent. It's your decision whether a comment from me at this point is helpful or harmful. Kww (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Pumpkin has already established a long list of my transgressions which he keeps, (either on- or off-wiki, I am unsure) and trots out to demonstrate my bad faith at every instance that he can - including, as one example, forgetting to sign my posts. That is curious, no? Bah- let others be polite; I weary of his antics. Your question: faced with the larger disruption of such querulousness, insistence and obstreperous response, is it necessary? No (what is?). Is it warranted? Yes (in my view). I regret that other editors do not show or express similar misapprehension, if perhaps couched in somewhat more felicitous tones. But then, as far as choice of language, de gustibus non disputandem est (naturally). Eusebeus (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't link me to civility like I am some kind of fumbling rube. In my years here I have seen bad behavior from faces you are well-familiar with (MD, BdJ, etc); this kind of gaming the system through a reliance on other editors CV is unacceptable. Going after me is unhelpful; frankly, I am surprised you disagree. Anyway, you've called me out on it - leave it at that. So, no more messages. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A very fair point, and in fact I mentioned yesterday (in bold face type no less!) that somebody else besides me really ought to take a look, but surprise-surprise there are not a lot of volunteers ;D
I really don't think Pixelface is violating Wikiquette per se -- I think the disruption cause by his edits is a natural manifestation of the attempt to use a consensus-based decision-making process with 20+ active participants. (Note that Wikipedia's consensus process works well for most articles, because usually only three to five editors, and at most a dozen, will be active on a given article at any given time. It's on sweeping policy issues that I believe the process is hopelessly dysfunctional) With so many participants, and so many of them coming and going, his tedious habit of repeating his argument over and over actually has some merit -- newcomers will not have read the entire discussion, and so may have missed his earlier point. Pixelface isn't helping, but at the same time, it's not his fault that discussion is an abject failure, and even if Pixelface were banned altogether from editing, can you really say it would elevate the level of dialog at WT:FICT?
Anyway, I'll gladly bow out of responding to the Wikiquette alert if you want, which may attract other editors to intervene. Just let me know :) But as per above, I am beginning to be of the opinion that the nature of the problem is beyond the scope of WP:WQA altogether. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you should bow out - no; I am impressed you care at all. The problems raised by Masem, however, go well beyond the scope of WQA and should properly be the subject of an RfC. The specific issues at WP:FICT are currently insuperable, but disruptive or pointy editing practices in one forum implicate other editorial tendencies in other areas (e.g. the symphony pages, or Pixel's epic fit over spoiler tags). I personally don't give a damn about Pixel's occasional tantrums, but I do think it important that one not emasculate one's position with needless disclaimers over the dysfunction of the consensus process.
Have you seen the Tennis renaming debate - that is honestly one of the worst angels on the head of a pin I have ever witnessed. While I generally agree with you about the process, I think the answer is that participants who become destructive to the flow of discussion (Pixel, Redux) be encouraged by neutral, 3rd parties (e.g. you), to foreswear further participation. To be clear: I include myself in this unhelpful process and have had to recognise that my own practices have been sorely wanting in effectiveness in moving the debate forward. I used to engage in the FICT debate much more closely than I do now and I stopped in large measure because my contributions were adding little and indeed counterproductive to the support of my views. Users like Sgeureka are far more effective than I in making the case - so I largely leave the field to them. Fractious editors like Pixel would be well-advised to do the same. But that is mere distraction - the larger point here is I think we need be rather more active in working to rectify what you rightly identify as a dysfunctional process. Urging more responsible contributions to debate would be a good first step and you could have made that point more forcefully at WQA, even if the larger issue of pointy and disruptive editing is more appropriate for RfC. That's all I was trying to get at. Eusebeus (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points all around. In regards to the Tennis renaming debacle, I have been subtly suggesting that the editors simply give up trying to achieve consensus, heh, given that previous community attempt at coming to a consensus on diacritics in article names have all resulted in a resounding failure. But that is probably not a productive attitude, you are probably right.
You have a fair request: to make the point more forcefully that Pixelface's contributions are not helpful, not to the community at large, nor to his position. I don't want to disrupt the current attempts at compromise, but I will see what I can do to reinforce that message.
As far as fixing the process on a community level, I am not optimistic, because any remedy to the dysfunctional process would need to be vetted by the exact same dysfunctional process! :D My thoughts are that for policy issues, a small number of editors (5-9) representing all major viewpoints should be designated by the community, and then the discussion takes place (publicly, of course) between those editors, and the consensus only has to be achieved among the small group. This will never fly (it smacks of elitism, which goes against the unrealistically egalitarian ideals of Wikipedia) but that would be my proposal.
Maybe if I get bored some day I'll write an essay about it, but I'm not optimistic about it going anywhere. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping you may be able to help with the derivation/etymology of lorchel, which is a german-origin word for Gyromitra esculenta which I am on the cusp of nominating at FAC - also, having seen your skill at Dirty Dancing, pointing out any glaring deficits in prose flow would be much appreciated...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea about the etymology, but presumably any standard German mycological reference would provide it and I'll let the hochgeehrtes Fräulein worry about that stuff. I will do a drive by on copy editing for you. Eusebeus (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've left some improvement suggestions for Casliber at his talkpage an hour or so ago, so you might want to wait a little before reading the article to avoid double work. – sgeurekat•c15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Some Copy Editing Points for Casliber
Gyromitra esculenta is an ascomycete fungus from the genus Gyromitra, widely distributed across Europe and North America and one of several species known commonly as False morels.
Changed for comma use and language (yep, flows more nicely)
It normally sprouts in sandy soils under coniferous trees, in spring and early summer. The fruiting body, or mushroom, is an irregular brain-shaped cap dark brown in colour which can reach 10 cm (4 in) high and 15 cm (6 in) wide, perched on a stout white stalk up to 6 cm (21⁄2 in) high.
Move verb from passive (is found) to active (sprouts) (yep, marvellous choice of verb and I wish I'd thought of it)
under conifers… Typically soil associated with conifers is more acidic – this may therefore be the PH preference of the genus (5.0-6.6) in which case, perhaps some precision as in: "It normally sprouts in spring and early summer, preferring the acidic soil conditions associated with conifers and coniferous forest. tricky this one, as there seems to be uncertainty whether this fungus is saprotrophic or mycorrhizal - if the latter, then it may all be species-dependent and have nothing to do with the pH at all. this may be veering into OR, unless you have a source for this in which case I would be extremely grateful for its inclusion
I might use “stipe” instead of “stalk”, since there is no need to shy away from the technical terms in a proper encyclopedic treatment. It shows professionalism & competence. That’s a personal preference, however. (no, I do agree with this and done)
I'll do a rewrite of this next bit below, since it strikes me as the emphasis is somewhat wrong (i.e. it will kill you, oh, but look here's how to cook it.)
Although Gyromitra esculenta is highly toxic and potentially fatal if eaten raw, it is described by aficionados as one of the best of all culinary mushrooms. It is popular in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, and the upper Great Lakes region of North America. It may be sold fresh in Finland, but it must be accompanied by warnings and instructions on correct preparation. It is eaten in omelettes, soups, or sautéed in Finnish cuisine. Once popular in the Pyrenees, it is now prohibited from sale for consumption in Spain.
Although it is still commonly consumed after parboiling, recent evidence suggests that even this procedure may not make the fungus entirely safe;[1] thus raising concerns of risk even when prepared properly. When consumed, the false morel's principal active agent gyromitrin, is metabolized into the toxic compound monomethylhydrazine (MMH). The toxin is hepatotoxic and neurotoxic in nature; symptoms of poisoning involve vomiting and diarrhea several hours after consumption, followed by dizziness, lethargy and headache. There may be liver and kidney involvement in severe cases, leading to delirium, coma and death after 5–7 days.
I know, I have mused on the whole issue of the juxtaposition of its toxic and culinary attributes. Have at it and I will be keen to see what you come up with. I did trim it a little after sgeureka's input.
I probably will not get around to this. Quite busy - sorry. But best of luck with the FA process; I'm sure it will pass easily, my minor caveats notwithstanding. Eusebeus (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Your copyediting skills at coming up with clean, precise, succinct prose have been masterful and among the best I have seen here at WP. I really appreciate the input thus far and did think you were kinda busy. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Bach
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Well, I knew sooner or later we'd find something we both appreciate. :) Which as I believe I've said before, if you ever think of an area where we might agree and may be able to cooperate constructively, I'm always open to help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you agree to stop commenting on my AfD !votes forthwith, I will undertake good faith, positive engagement with you in a bid to make us both better editors - an improvement we certainly could use. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you also are willing to not comment on my posts as well, sure, why not. Just let me know what you think we could work on together as soon as you would like and I would be glad to give it my best effort. By the way, have you only played Civilization II, or have you played the others in the series as well? I've played all but the new one for the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 (gas prices are hard on graduate students who don't make much money...). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Loved Civ I, liked Civ II, and gave up on insanely long loading times on Civ III in endstages of game. Not gone back since, but maybe one day...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Listen up Pumpkin, per the above, you agreed to stop with your boiler-plating of my AfD comments with idiotic links to essays like WP:JNN and your little anti-cruft obsession. So please desist as you said you would and cut this shit out as here. As I have noted to you before, this stuff means: you marginalise your opinions; you needlessly get other editors' backs up, and you will probably invite sanction against you, as has occurred with other editors of your disposition.
That said, be assured that I don't care if you go about changing how you engage with other people; in fact, I would be more than happy to see you enjoined from contributing to AfD discussions, which is the likely outcome of any remedial action. Your wikilawyering, appeal to false authority and outright dissimulation more than overwhelm any positive contribution you make at AfD in my view - muh, it's the personal opinion of an encyclopedist, but at least I don't give every inclusionist grief for tearing down our encyclopedic standards, one cruft-ridden, unsourced, unnotable, fan-obsessed, in-universe junk "article" at a time.
So Pumpkin, this: respect our agreement to disengage at AfD. I am posting this here, since you seem to have my talk page watchlisted. Eusebeus (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's mere hubris, Pumpkin - temper temper running around after my edits. Posting links to personal essays won't get you very far. Too bad you never seem to have policy or guidelines (hence: nn, etc...) to support your positions. As I note above, sanction would be salutary and my comment to Judge reflects the fact that, since your editing style is disruptive and pointy, a compendium of relevant diffs may prove useful in having you enjoined from AfD participation in the future. If you keep this up, I'll write the RFC myself. As for your diffs, you will find that I have a long history of participating in fiction & in-universe related AfDs, extending back to before you were here. Your suggestion that once one has weighed in on the debate the other should desist from adding in their view is absurd to the point of incomprehensibility. You will note that I have not responded to you, nor bothered answering your misleading responses. And for reference, unless you seriously manage to irritate me, I won't bother and will remain indifferent to however many essays you care to link me to. Finally, Pumpkin is a perfectly reasonable and neutral translation of your user name; or I can call you Pumpkin King, but to my ears that sounds ridiculous. Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are willing to be a respectful and serious contributor, I am more than happy to interact with you as such. As seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, I seem to be "right" more often than not. You make disruptive, pointy, incivil, and other problematic posts in many discussions and given the stress that has resulted in the arbcom cases, I strongly encourage you to stop doing so. There is no reason why you cannot be a productive editor and I hope that you can be. And, I can take LGRdC as an acceptable abbreviation. After all, I don't call you by something other than your username. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I call you disruptive and pointy, you call me disruptive and pointy. That seems very passive aggressive and uncreative - similar to your style of mindless gainsaying of delete votes. This resembles argument in your universe? That's lightweight. Still, since you are happy with and committed to your contribution style, I think RfC a salutary next step. Now - stop posting to my talk page since you have unrepentantly savaged our agreement. I'll meet you in the trenches at AFD. Ça suffit Citrouille maintenant. Eusebeus (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Both of you stop commenting on each others' afds and stay away from each other as much as possible...or learn to get along immediately. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do all these folks have my goddam talk page watchlisted? Anyway, Randy, I've gotta ask wtf? Any fractiousness has been limited to this exchange here on my talk page - now ended. And even a minimal glance at the AfDs in question will show no CIVIL, AGF or NPA problems. So frankly, this comment strikes me (and I am very surprised) as remarkably presumptuous and high handed, both to me and my sworn AfD nemesis, his silly backbiting notwithstanding. Anyway, general comment on this thread: no more posts please. If you want to yell at me some more, you can email me. But this thread is closed. To everyone. Period. Even Casliber! Eusebeus (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remark ended up in wrong section
I thought you were talking about Blackeagles and not the GHcool report, but really, you added it, I didn't move it :) I think the Wikimedia software messed up, I think it had something to do with Ncmvocalist archiving the section at the same time you made your edit. No worries, hopefully it's cleared up now! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have incorporated sgeureka's suggestions. I have struck the ones done on the talk page and left notes in italics. Some suggestions I wasn't sure about for various reasons so a third set of eyes is most welcome. I will chase down a fact as noted but otherwise have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a new essay with the shortcut WP:DISCUSSCRUFT. This is an essay that is supposed to explain the word "cruft" in neutral terms and promote intelligent discussion about the cruft problem on wikipedia. I know there are already many essays about cruft on wikipedia. But I hope you might be able to give it a read. Perhaps it can be copy-edited or improved in some way. I hope you find it useful. Thank you! Problemchildlsd (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you a regular editor who has created an SPA for the purpose of this? As noted at the MfD for WP:FANCRUFT, many editors simply do not have a problem with this term; I am unconvinced, therefore, that its use constitutes a problem save for a few arch-inclusionist editors and their preoccupations are frankly so marginal, picayune and insignificant it hardly seems worth even the bother of an essay. Eusebeus (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely it would be better to discuss and incorporate material and opposing viewpoints and/or constructive ways of looking at material in the existing essay rather than yet more essays...Incidentally the Fancruft essay was originally started by an IP. I can't begin to describe how insanely bored I am getting arguing pros and cons of this. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right that most people do not get offended by the word "cruft". But I am the one who bothered to create the essay anyway. I guess it is there just in case a few "marginal arch-inclusionist" take it personally. Thanks! Problemchildlsd (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
Why isnt it okay to give the characters there own pages. Then the character info can be expanded based on apperances on other shows where they play the character not just limited to Suite Life
Per WP:TALK, the talk pages are for discussing changes/improvements to the article, personal observations about the subject don't really achieve that. Valenciano (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
True, but as a meme, it is a worthwhile observation and could be used as the basis for the inclusion something along the lines linked. This now exhausts my interest in the topic, so do what you feel best. Eusebeus (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Don Quixote
Hi Eusebeus,
I noticed that you reverted my edit on Don Quixote. Why do you feel that it is a "trivial addition"? Sheerluck Holmes and the Golden Ruler is a notable film, the first half of which is entirely a parody of Don Quixote. I can provide references if required.
References would be an extremely good idea Neelix - this sort of material has been a battleground for as long as I have been around WP. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
GP^2
General
Hi Casliber, ok I've started in on the GPGP after a bit of a wait. Can you go look through the Garbage Patch article and take a first look? I've only just started in on a top-to-bottom rewrite and some fresh eyes and smart thoughts would be appreciated. Organisation, additional material, etc... That kind of crap.
Oh, I've been in touch with Charles Moore's institute and they appear happy to help out in terms of furnishing maps, images and other material since they are the leading advocate/resource for the GPGP. I'm thinking an FA on this puppy may be feasible, although I know you couldn't care diddly squat about FA ;)
We (yes, that's presumptuous, sorry) need to ensure this doesn't descend into advocacy and remains bound by the scientific material. For example, there are no data on the impact of marine polymer ingestion on the overall food cycle and human health issues - although that can't be a good thing one would imagine. But that needs to be clear. Also, perhaps replicate a chart showing the degrees of particulate concentrate in the Neuston? Do you have sciencedirect so you can go access the scholarly material? The Garbage patch-specific stuff is all at Moore's institute site, but there is wider work on pelagic and neustonic plastic debris that may be useful. I'm a historian, not an oceanographer, so the article will remain pathetic if I can't get some science-trained eyes on the material. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a pity that the Geology, geophysics and meteorologysection of the FA list is so loaded with hurricanes - I was looking for some analogue FA to give guidance as a template. I don't have science direct as I am in a hospital rather than a uni 99% of the time, so medical is easy but other science is tricky. Agree about the importance of a neutral and sober tone. I have avoided some of these 'bigger picture' type articles for that reason, though schizophrenia and vampire have kept me busy - the talk pages are host to some rather amusing points raised by readers from time to time to negotiate. I will post some more ideas at the article talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that! I can get to you by email all the scholarly material that might prove useful. I'm gettin gsome more stuff together to throw up in a few days and am waiting back from Alguita on images/maps etc.... Eusebeus (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes please - email away. I felt a bit unclear about what to do, where to start or how to proceed with it ('all at sea' as it were), but sat back and looked again and it sorta clicked into place. I have had a delayed wiki-epiphany several times. It took several bites at the cherry to get Gyromitra esculenta up to FA and I am still struggling with the legendary [Amanita muscaria]] after two years...
I am trying to think of a good scientific article which displays uncertainty rather than puerile dogmatism in one of these areas - there has been debate over Tyrannosaurus and whether it was a scavenger or predator. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: What history are you into, Yannismarou asked me to have a look at 1896 Summer Olympics which is at FAR for prose issues and I have given it a bit of a copyedit but am unsure of what else should be in it...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Casliber, sorry for the delay. I'm a Europeanist, but I doubt I can bring much more than Yannis to the 1896 article as he is usually very thorough. If you send me an email, btw, I can cc you on my correspondence with the Algalita folks. We have a liaise there now (doctoral student). If you are still interested that is. Feel free to tell me to bugger off. Eusebeus (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Background on the pollution stream of plastic material & the origins of pelagic plastics (e.g. land v. ship pollution) + some REAL numbers on the %-% breakdown.
Studies on Sea of Japan-originating material??
Guestbook, Commentary and Guff
Good job to both of you on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch article. Fascinating article and it is really satisfying to see constructive efforts going into it, especially between those who have disagreed about other issues in the past. My dog situation naturally has me down, and so I guess anything encouraging to see helps. I hope y'all are having a nice weekend! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your comment
Hey. I launched the Emperor of Mankind question on the JP:project talk page [6], and nothing really decisive came out of it. Seems like the rest of the project editors know nothing of this either. Not that this is definitive, but apparently the title is not exactly note-worthy, even if it is real. (btw, 上御一人 means literaly : "the respected one person above", and 王世子 would mean something like "king's firstborn", but it does have the "world" character in it which might be misleading). Hope any of this helps. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's exceedingly thoughtful of you, thank you very much - it seems likely, reading through the discussion, that our initial suspicion was correct. Eusebeus (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair-use rationale
Eusebeus,
This is just an FYI. Coins can not be left without a small description of their design, or a small critic. Either way will do. Leaving the coin without a comment or critic will break the fair-use rationale of the image. This is why I added the extra text in the bottom of the image.
And again, I know I might sound like an ass changing all the articles you like. Please fill free to remove my comments; I am not going to fight against it. But please do not say is trivia, this particular coin, just for your info, is the biggest silver coin in the world, and Vivaldi (among the others) were selected to be there, that is not trivia at all on the contrary this represent how important Vivaldi is in today's life. But I do understand that a set of editors like you are against my comments in your articles, so apologies in advance if I do change other articles with other coins.
Also based on the explanation of the fair-use rationale, please do not remove the paragraphs and leave the image only. Try reducing the paragraph, removing the paragraph and embedding some text in the description of the image (as I just did) or remove the whole thing. If the image stays, a small explanation (even if it is just three words) needs to stay.
I closed the discussion, as the candidate expressed a wish to withdraw the request. I hope the resolution is palatable for you. Thanks, Enigmamessage02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia
I have a question about wikipedia, when i try to edit a page it shows im on the same page but text from another page. i would like to know if there is a way i can stop this. please answer on my talk page. --Cory Malik (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your recent comments on Wikiquette show a lack of understanding of what the process is. As it says at the top: "Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors".
Thus, filing a claim there cannot be point, a personal attack, or any such thing. Your comments here are inappropriate. I ask you to do the right think and strike accordingly. If you would like, I can direct you to some experienced admin that can explain to you why your comments are inappropriate there. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, doing what you're doing can be POINT-y, and it can be a personal attack. You have flung completely baseless accusations around for quite some time now. No one at that board has agreed with you. Are they all showing "a lack of understaging of what the process is"? I hardly think so. Perhaps a look in the mirror would be in order at some point, Rima. S.DeanJameson02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Your following me here is proof that there is difficult communication between us and proves that a Wikiquette alert needed to be filed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It is proof on no such thing. It is proof that I had Eusebeus' talkpage watchlisted, saw your name pop up, and figured you were here talking about me. What do you know? I was right. Again, I encourage you to look in the mirror when searching for where the fault lies here. S.DeanJameson02:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Mere guff, but I'll take the opportunity again to remind the fractious editor Ottava Rima that misusing the system by making a frivolous, unfounded and baseless accusation of incivility is itself a gross breach of civility, an insidious form of
personal attack, a disgusting and reprehensible tactic, and grounds for sanction. You owe User:S. Dean Jameson both an apology and a pledge not to engage in such smear tactics again. Eusebeus (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eusebeus -- Florestan here -- thank you for your backup on that article. I had just now, in the last ten minutes before you posted, pulled a weighty pile of books from my shelf to provide quotations from minor figures like Donald Francis Tovey, Nicolas Slonimsky, and Richard Wagner ("Bach is the most stupendous miracle in music") to back up the five theses nailed to our talk page door. I wonder if I'm wasting my time. The sky still appears to be blue, but the scholars aren't putting it in exactly those words. Maybe we need to rewrite the lead as follows: "Johann Sebastian Bach (1685 (cite) - 1750 (cite) ) was a German (cite) composer (cite) of the late Baroque era (cite). Scholars such as xxx (cite) and xxx (cite) thought his music wasn't bad (cite). He played the organ too (cite). -- OK, I'm glad I wrote that: I'm no longer irritated: I'm laughing. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Florestan! Oh that was funny! Do you remember the argument that erupted when JSB went through the good article process? It was mighty similar to what you are saying above. Anyway, I have been running my fingers through Kinderszenen this morning, channeling the inner Eusebeus more than usual and so was happy to intervene again. I have posted to the Composers project page asking for wider input. Eusebeus (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail. -- Yes, I like the way they handle it on fr: and de: too, and yes I remember that shocking scene at GA (wasn't there someone who had never heard the term "musicology" and regarded that as a special badge of pride? And yet thought himself qualified to assess the article on matters of content? -- oy.) Been playing (badly) the slow movement of Beethoven's opus 106, which, when properly considered, makes conflicts here look miniscule and amoebic. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(Butting in) I think things will ease up at some stage when we get some form of show/hide switch for inline refs. Funny, but I can completely tune them out. I had a similar argument with Tony about bluelinks; he considers them in numbers problematic for reading prose, however, I have really tuned them out too. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(to Antandrus) Oh now that's just fucking impressive. Inspired, I tried the same but admit I gave up at about mm 88 as simply too much. But I think you are more the musician than I am. You know that is a VERY interesting movement. If you consider the phrasing, it is SO full of nuance. For example, right at the beginning, the decrescendo at m5 effectively acts as a fermata (even though none is indicated) - but just try playing it in tempo; much the same obtains throughout the movement. Anyway, I am blessed to be in contact with two editors (yes, that means you too Casliber, dammit, don't let it go to your head!, and btw I have some good stuff about the garbage patch to add in) who are so bloody talented. This is why I remain here. Honestly: thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I confess, I have had toomanydishes on the stove, although I don't think I have burnt or ruined any just yet...I do recall some talk of moving the name of GPGP to EGP via an email or somesuch. Would this still be prudent? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I have a lot of shit for you on this point, but I am still accumulating. Don't fear - you are still on the hook ;). Eusebeus (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I decided to do an article with more gravitas than the usual FA fare, and gravitas it has in buckets...all 130kb, luckily it has under 50kb of prose. It has recently had a high colonic by delldot and looks the better for it. I have gone goggle-eyed at it and am aware of the likelihood of oodles of glitches in the mammoth prose. I as wondering with your aptitude for succinct prose whether there were any ungainly bits that needed a good massage. PS: This is a good example of an article which needs citing to the hilt, all it needs is some antipsychiatry (or pro-psychiatry or god-knows-what-well-anyone-with-a-difference-of-opinion-to-me) person to come along and raise hell. have a look at the talk page and history of schizophrenia for a good chuckle...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
My impression is it is not too far off (though I am square/goggle-eyed from looking at it). I wasn't high on my list of to-do items, but several editors began improving it in earnest, so I decided to take advantage of the synergy/conflux/concursus/whatever and tried to work it into an impromptu collaboration. Won't know whether it will have worked until after a successful FAC but I am cautiously optimistic, though dread taking such a behemoth through FAC without every attempt to clean up as much as possible. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect you see a fair few pages in your wiki-travels and I know you have a bit to say on the depth of coverage of cruft vs. encyclopedic material. In efforts to counteract systemic bias with sticks rather than carrots (and seeing what non-obscure stubs remain out there), i have listed a minicompetition of sorts here, so I'd be intrigued what comes up. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's something that your touch and skill with copyediting succinctly may be able to dislodge some issues at a second unsuccessful attempt at FAC. I was asked to have a look and was impressed at the subject matter I had hitherto been completely unaware of. I can copyedit but tend to dicker around a bit, whereas you have a talent for really being able to appraise 3-4 sentences and summarising very succinctly very well. If you are too snowed never mind, but I did think that a bit of finesse copyediting could see this through. Anyway, see what you think and how you're travelling timewise. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I did a quick drive by on the first four paragraphs. It needs a rewrite top to bottom - luckily the raw material is quite good so the copy-editing is not too burdensome. But as with many FACs the article is a bit long, so it will be a time consuming process. I know absolutely nothing about the subject, so I regret I can only contribute whatever prose skills I may possess. Eusebeus (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I now know what Manga means for instance. Ok, you should probably comb through my copyedit and reove any infelicities I have left behind. Eusebeus (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent participation in the AFD which closed with a snow result of Keep. Unfortunately, the nominator is not content with this consensus and is now proposing that the article be merged. Please see discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny thing is....
I too can see the value of merges (I mean, you think merging two synonyms would be simple(?)), but I will try to be more collaborative in the discussion, and see, all looks promising - there is a difference between asking and demanding.
You seem to go way back. Why did you delete all my discussion stuff on the Wall Street Crash of 1929? I just learned how to make footnotes 2 days ago. I need all the help I can get. Johndoeemail (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't trying to be rude (and feel free to restore them if you wish) - just that your discussion comments seemed rather stream-of-consciousness. You don't need to provide rationale for the kind of solid edits you have been making. To wit, your edits to the article were much appreciated and if you are interested I have a few thoughts about shoring up the work you put in. Eusebeus (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, any help would be greatly appreciated. I am having the most trouble with anything associated with Smoot-Hawley. I am getting the feeling that as much as possible about Smoot-Hawley should be removed from the article but I am too ignorant to know what to do. Thanks again. Johndoeemail (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I will reply on the article talk page jde. I will also clean up your comments if you don't mind as adding a new section for every one you have to make is unnecessary and distracting. Eusebeus (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed, based upon the ALL CAPS that you seem to be more than a bit grumpy about the edit tags getting removed. I honestly don't believe it is getting worked up about. Really. Have a nice day =) Javascap (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
Hey there Eusebeus! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.
Kevin, you will make a fine admin and I am confident that at some point you will succeed. You have an integrity that we need and I will support you unconditionally should you brave the RfA waters again. Eusebeus (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Protection
Since the attacks on this page restarted after the previous protection expired, i've readded it for another week, hopefully long enough for them to get bored.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I might have pushed it with this remark as far as WP policies go. Still, I'm merely continuing an old posting that started over a month ago (my first sentence links to the archive). The issue with Alastairward is that he adheres to WP policies on the expense of the entire South Park fan community that reads WP. I'm talking about common sense here - any thoughts? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I would solicit feedback from both the Television and Southpark projects. I personally am in agreement with Alastair, and would urge you to accept that our policies exist for a reason. But above all, remain civil, don't take things personally and ask for wider input. Eusebeus (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Question from a new user
Hello, you seem to be truly helpful, I'm new and had an assist on my client: Manuelita Brown, sculptor. I find it not true to my contrib. and somewhat askew on facts/biased with no basis, also they left out all the good refs, please help to correct it to my true written piece. thxRoserobert (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Indem diese Vollkommenheit jedoch im Unterschied zur Einheit des Organismus stets erst verwirklicht werden muss, vermittelt eine derartige Sicht nicht mehr wie im 12. Jahrhundert den Eindruck einer statischen Ordnung; vielmehr liegt ihr die Vorstellung eines dynamischen Prozesses zugrunde, welcher aus der Spannung zwischen der jeweils konkreten Existenz des Staates und einem also vollkommen betrachteten Idealzustand hervorgeht. Folglich erstreckt sich auch die Tätigkeit des Herrschers nicht mehr allein darauf, die verschiedenartigen Funktionen der im Staat vereinigten Berufsgruppen und Stände miteinander zu koordinieren.
I am a bit bewildered by the opening sentence, but I translate it as follows:
Insofar as this perfection, in contrast with unity of the organism, must first be achieved, such a vision no longer mediates, as in the 12th century, the impression of a static order.
That's horrible German! Without reading your translation first, I'd translate it as Because this perfection always has to be realized first, contrary to the unity of the organism, such a perception/view does not convey/impart the impression of static order as was once usual in the 12th century. Now, comparing my translation to yours, I still don't know what it means. Mix your translation with mine, and you may be getting to the truth. – sgeurekat•c00:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks sg! Yours is an improvement over mine. Can you give a stab at the rest of the passage? (This is needless to say academic German.) I won't influence you by posting my own translation. Eusebeus (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
it(**) is rather based on the conception/belief of a dynamic process that emerges from the tension between the respective concrete existence of the state and a therefore completely examined(***) perfection. Thus, the duty of a ruler/sovereign is also broadened beyond coordinating the diverse functions of occupational groups and classes that the state unifies.
(**) it == the perfection, but could also be the view, depending on the preceding sentences
(***) Please check if your source says "und einem also vollkommen betrachteten Idealzustand" or "und einem als[] vollkommen betrachteten Idealzustand". The second version is redundantly redundant but changes the meaning to and an as perfect regarded aspired state/condition. – sgeurekat•c14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that is much better than what I had. I am pretty sure the original is also but I'll check. Now, I had an issue with the phrase "einem also vollkommen betrachteten Idealzustand" so I appreciate your clarification. My translation was of necessity very loose, since I could fine NO WAY to turn Tilman Struve's German into readable, digestible English that followed his sentence structure. Thus, I had:
"It is instead based on the view of a dynamic process that emerges as a result of the tension between the state as it exists in the concrete and as it can thus be imagined (betrachten) to exist as a perfectly-realised ideal."
But I am not sure if that is too much of a change in meaning. Anyway, thank you so much - wirklich, eine große Hilfe und ich stehe tief in Deiner Schuld. Eusebeus (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Your reasoning in this AFD does not fit your vote. If the article doesn't require separate coverage, then there's other options besides deletion, like merging and redirecting. You reasoning does not explain why you didn't seem to have considered those options. Please take a minute to head back to the AFD and clarify. - Mgm|(talk)21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Salut! You have voted for deleting the article Aeroflot - Russian Airlines terminated destinations because it is, citation - "unnecessary list. Eusebeus (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)". Would you be so kind to clarify this issue? Don't you think this article could be merged? As well as comment, pls, on existence of hundreds of others similar articles (or sections) dedicated to terminated destinations of other airlines presented on Wiki pages. Thanx, --89.178.36.211 (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi
You accuse me of gaming the system. The complaint against me was filed in ANI after I raised the WQA report against those users. i had to file them independently because the issues were not related to each other. Please allow the WQA reports to proceed their normal course by reopening them because I filed them first before the complaint was made in ANI against me by way of retaliation.
I hope you dont make judgements on what is mainstream and what is not. Merely because 2 or 3 users support a view against one, theirs doesnt become mainstream. I have clearly given academic references wherever I edited. Kris (talk)06:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Me being considered for an editing ban, it seems, has nothing to do with me having raised earlier WQA reports against other users. Agree? Kris (talk)06:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What is being considered at ANI is a report filed in retaliation by a user who was annoyed that I reported his/her incivility. Please let someone else determine whether my earlier WQA reports were frivolous or not, and let them reach their logical conclusion. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts on the issue, but not to prevent others from contributing theirs. Kris (talk)06:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
To tell you more, I have already been banned for edit warring recently for the same diffs that are again reported in ANI now. Kris (talk)06:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Eusebeus. I saw the discussions at at ANI and WQA. Your closure of the WQA appears correct. At present, it will be hard to bring the ANI discussion to a conclusion, since none of the three main editors who've offered data there (Ncmvocalist, Srkris and Sudharsansn) have presented a case that appears to justify an immediate sanction. The issues in the thread are mostly the civility of various parties. ANI discussions of civility tend to be non-terminating, but edit warring is a more substantive issue. I would mention the Sanskrit article as an example. In my opinion, a voluntary agreement of Srkris and Sudharsansn to avoid the Sanskrit article for a period of time would be beneficial. A case for edit warring against either of those users, strong enough to justify admin action, would need more study than has taken place in the current ANI thread. I take your point that gaming of the system has occurred, and action along those lines is also possible. EdJohnston (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
How is it that every admin who raises a concern against you is judgmental, not following the policies or just not an admin? How do you plan to absolve yourself off all that behavior by pointing fingers at others? My points in the Sanskrit article are ALL based on citations and the talk page make it evidently clear. Pushing a POV by enlarging labels is totally unwarranted. Sudharsansn (talk·contribs) 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
RPP
Hi, Your edit to requests for page protection removed my request for another page to be protected. Was this intentional? Tanks, Verbalchat15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to do a redirect, I think it would be nice to do it to a section of the parent article that is about the topic you are redirecting. It's not very convenient to be redirected to a big article on a related topic, and to have to hunt for what you're looking for, especially in light of the "keep" determination at AfD. I think better effort would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
In May 2008, you made an edit which was, incivil. An administrator, DGG commented to this edit on the same day, and said "Were I not previously involved with some of these editors, I would block for that" [7]. Now, yesterday you made another incivil edit, with the same language as shown here. This shows that you have obviously disregarded and ignored the earlier warning about incivility. Therefore, this is your final warning, next time you are incivil, you will be blocked from editing for a period of time.
DGG did find my earlier comment uncivil, but I stand by my remark as appropriate to the context. As I do the one you link to. Block me for a "period of time" if you will, but manically stalking someone's edit history and then posting a 5000 word screed against them looks like wiki-OCD to me; it is, frankly, evidence of a problem that needs to be addressed. Plain language has its place and that is the place for it. Thanks for not posting a template. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Someone that wishes to remain unknown told me about you, and requested my input on the matter as a neutral admin. Therefore, I'm not wiki-stalking you but simply responding to a request sent to me by a user. TheHelpfulOne17:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I certainly am not suggesting that you were wikistalking me. Sorry if you came away with that impression. Look, tempers are highly inflamed in the whole FICT debate area (I've assumed you looked into the background here), which is why I have refrained from participating for a long while now as I recognised that my continued engagement on the issue wasn't helping matters. However, the behaviour of many editors surrounding this debate is regrettable - including the kind of wikistalking behaviour suggested in the diff(s) you provide above - hence: wiki-OCD, which is what stalking is, and it's reprehensible. It is important that such actions be duly deplored, even if it means a block. Eusebeus (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Over Ashes
Hi Eusebius. Somewhat surprised to see this AfD suddenly re-opened. I don't have a real issue with this, however it should probably be noted, so I have added a comment in the AfD. Springnuts (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's probably worth explaining why you thought that deletion before redirection is better than a simple redirect in the AFD for this page. - Mgm|(talk)13:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Corporate spam (redux)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
You recently commented on something being "corporate spam". Would you please give your definition of what constitutes corporate spam? Especially, formulate your definition with attention to the relative bearings of authorship, content, and purpose. Thank you in advance. -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware that the original Arch Coal article was not written in exchange for any payment, nor was even the Arch Coal company aware of its provenance? The original author has stated publicly that the article's purpose was to test Wikipedians' ability to discern paid and unpaid content, and that the only reason it was "Arch Coal" was that (at the time) it was the largest Fortune 1000 firm still lacking a Wikipedia article. The original author didn't even publish it in Wikipedia. It was scraped in by an unaffiliated editor. So, you scoff away all you want. Your reluctance to define "corporate spam" indicates that you have no basis to describe the Arch Coal article as "corporate spam". Arch Coal had nothing to do with it. So it was therefore not "corporate" and awfully hard to conceive how it was "spam". You should apologize (as Jimbo did), and retract your comment here. Or, do you have a conflict of interest of your own that prevents you from addressing this question about "corporate spam" in a fair manner? -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In the words of one much greater than myself, I am a harmless drudge and you are wasting your time bothering with what I think. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That answer doesn't make much sense and it's not very helpful. If you use a term somewhere, it is legitimate to ask what you mean by it, and you shouldn't just flippantly reply, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c04:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you expand on that formulating your definition of unhelpful with attention to the relative bearings of authorship, content, and purpose? thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you focus on the original question please? What do you take "corporate spam" to mean, exactly? The Arch Coal article is nothing of the sort by any reasonable definition I am aware of. If you cannot answer the question you should redact your remark characterising it as such. ++Lar: t/c05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
If I posted to your talk page requesting amplification and included the phrase "Especially, formulate your definition with attention to the relative bearings of authorship, content, and purpose" are you telling me that you wouldn't have a problem with the hubris of such a remark? Perhaps a "Why do you think this is spam," or "could you clarify please," maybe. But "especially, formulate blah blah..." are you bloody kidding me? On the other hand I am ornery. Anyway no need to answer this. Discussion now closed. Eusebeus (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trash talking and strategizing about other editors
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Comments like this one, "... he has some rather regrettable ownership issues" are unconstructive, insulting, and inappropriate for an article discussion page. They also indicate a failure on your part to assume good faith and have perhaps the unintentional effect of poisoning the atmosphere and fostering disputes instead of cooperation and understanding.
Oh come off it, Tennis expert. I gather your recent date-inspired temper tantrum is over seeing as you are no longer retired. At any event, you very well know you have ownership issues and you know you have a poor track record of accommodation, thus requiring that editors who disagree with you conspire to prevent you from being disruptive (cf. your behaviour in the datelinking debate). I am glad you are back; you do good work. But you do have a tendency to be rather difficult. Btw, I see that as a result of our discussion, you have crept back out from your IP editing to redress the problem. Good for you. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead, TE. Pointing out ownership problems and posting open comments to the talk page of the article to clear out some of the more trivial detritus in question to effectuate improvement - yea, unconstructive, uncivil and conspiratorial are the mots justes. But hey, feel free. Look, I understand that you have ownership problems as a consequence of your lengthy contributions to the tennis pages, but you need to be more agreeable in the face of the consensus process. Unlike other editors you have brushed up against in the past, your little bully tactics are not going to work on me and instead of making trivial threats I suggest you adopt a more reasonable tone and help establish a consensus going forward. If you need an AN/I thread to show you that article ownership is unhelpful, well serve it up. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly when and which articles have I exercised "ownership" over? Surely you have readily at hand a list of dates and articles and a list of impartial editors who agree with this finding given that you've repeatedly made this allegation in various places. Or, is it just an incivil, disruptive, unconstructive, insulting, inappropriate, edit-warring-promoting, conspiratorial assumption that exemplifies your failure to assume good faith and your misunderstanding of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, among other important Wikipedia policies? P.S. I haven't watch-listed your discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert, I don't think any further engagement on my talk page about this issue will prove salutary to you, given my incivil, disruptive, unconstructive, insulting, inappropriate, edit-warring-promoting, conspiratorial proclivities (that's quite the list!). Eusebeus (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
^Dart, Richard C. (2004). "Mushrooms". Medical toxicology. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkins. pp. 1719–35. ISBN0-7817-2845-2.
.svg){kind=logo}
