User talk:Eusebeus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:43, 15 May 2007

Deja Messages Ici Bitte

Happy New Year yourself...

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

Couple of AfDs that might interest you

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

NPA

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

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

Ron Delezio

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

My Participation in AfD Debates

Hi,

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

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

Thanks for your help and support with this.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on a Notable School

Hi,

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

All the best,

WMMartin 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

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

Deletion review of an article you commented on

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

Resubmitting Vernian Process Article

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

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

Schools and notability

Namaste Eusebeus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

License tagging for Image:Peter Cremer.jpg

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

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

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

Bouffes Parisiens

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

Civility and Good Faith

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

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

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

re: Scratch Sheet

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

Haydn Quartets Op. 76

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

Just wanted to let you know....

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The links below were added by Eusebeus).

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

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

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

French suites

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

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

List of the writings of William Monahan

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

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 Hi. Thanks for your message about the [[French suites]]. I don't quite know what you were trying to say. I know that the name was a later addition, which I put, and I believe it was added specifically as a contrast to the English suites being called that. But then, it was called 'French' because the suite is a French form, which was popular at the time. I heard [[Trevor Pinnock]] say before playing one of them that they were more Italian in style. By the way, I think the [[English suites]] name derives from something like 'fait pour les Angloises' written on one of the manuscripts. [[User:Clavecin|Clavecin]] 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 :This has been referenced and fixed up now, though I don't know who 'Marpurg' is (Rousset refers to him only by his surname). [[User:Clavecin|Clavecin]] 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
+== [[List of the writings of William Monahan]] ==
+Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again.  As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again.  Also, [[user:BillDeanCarter|billdeancarter]] has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair.  [[User:WhiteKongMan|WhiteKongMan]] 13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)