| Revision as of 05:50, 17 September 2008 editEusebeus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,666 edits →Your removal from GRBerry's RfArb Statement.: reply to GRB← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:12, 17 September 2008 edit undoEusebeus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,666 edits stuff to the curbNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| 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 ] 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 ] for a good chuckle...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:04, 15 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 ] 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 ] for a good chuckle...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Your removal from GRBerry's RfArb Statement. == | |||
| Please restore the links that you've removed. It is extremely bad form to remove things from other people's statements. If you need to, just put a placeholder statement that "Not all GRBerry's statements deal with TTN.. I do not wish to be mixed in with TTN". But to go out and remove the statement without even asking first, is more provocative then what you claim GRBerry has done. ] (]) 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have reversed your modification of ]'s statement. Modification of other editors' comments is an extraordinary remedy, which is not employed due to mere disagreement with their contents, or actual factual incorrectness, absent compelling ] concerns or other extreme situations. You are welcome to post your own statement describing your disagreement with ]'s listing of arbitration enforcement archives involving your actions. ] 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *It doesn't involve me and posting a link to those threads is needless and absurd. ] (]) 00:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The primary reason I linked them all was to support my main point - that the remedy suggesting everyone come together, sing ], and go implement the new found consensus to fail. The second is to help the arbitrators understand the overall situation. Including them was not about you, but I'll expand my note to clarify. ] 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I support many of your positions, but this is a scabrous and despicable attempt to link unrelated issues. Don't be a coward; show some honour and remove those links. ] (]) 05:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:12, 17 September 2008
 | Deja Messages Ici Bitte. I will generally respond to any comments, queries, calumnies or complaints here. Whatever you do, no templates |
 Archives |
Music Project
Hi. I don't know whether you remember the discussion about the Music Project in July? I've now put the template up for deletion here? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Bach
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 too many dishes 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)
major depressive disorder
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)