Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eusebeus

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dgray xplane (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 25 November 2006 (Request for clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:01, 25 November 2006 by Dgray xplane (talk | contribs) (Request for clarification)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Deja Messages Ici Bitte

Thank You

I appreciate your reply, and I have posted a deletion review. I am trying to remain alot calmer now, and will handle this issue through the proper channels. This was just one of many things that was hampering my various projects this week. So I have been on edge a bit about them. Thanks again --FACT50 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the warm welcome. It's nice to meet someone here who realizes that I am more than some guy trying to spam his project. It gets pretty old talking to people that treat me like a 12 year old (and are more than likely younger than me anyways). I do have one question though, about how long do deletion reviews take to be resolved usually? Thanks again, and I'll try my best to contribute as much usefull info as I can to the articles I take interest in. --FACT50 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Appologies

My appologies for the caps. I tried to get a deletion review, but couldn't figure out how to post it? I'm sure this doesn't matter to you, but imagine how upset you would be if you spent the last three years creating a new genre of music, to not only be disrespected, but outright ripped off. On top of that have a bunch of people on wikipedia tell you that what you have spent years creating is not notable because it doesn't meet the notability guidelines set by wikipedia. And the main reason was because of the fact that I choose to give away my music, and concentrate on the art of actually creating art, instead of dealing with record labels (who will try to screw me at every given opportunity). So according to these "notability" guidelines, I will never be a notable artist? Yet I can have my very ideas ripped off, and the bands that do it have valid wikipedia pages? So yeah imagine how pissed off that would make you? --FACT50 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OH HELL NO!!

HOW DARE YOU!!! You deleted links to the article Vernian Process in the List of Steampunk works article, by claiming they were SPAM... Yet those links were originally posted there by someone who had nothing to do with that project. In fact the only reason I created a wiki article for that project was because I saw that someone else had mentioned my project their first! So how can you possibly call that SPAM?? Not to mention the fact that there are a number of bands in that list that have nothing to do with the Steampunk genre. Yet they are still linked. In fact V.P. was the very first Steampunk oriented music project.

AN/I discussion becoming more about you

Hello again... I know I've already told you about this, but WP:AN/I#User:Monicasdude is becoming more and more about you, and I wanted to make sure that you have a chance to speak your mind there. Just making sure :). Snoutwood (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

About the Daniel Zimmerman Article

While I am not discussing that article any more on that discussion page, I did want to bring this to your attention. Misplaced Pages:Importance - I would argue that the page meets the first 2 criteria (of which only one has to be true to be considered to be important enough for inclusion). This article expands on both the 2004 House Election and the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute notable alumni pages. Articles that meet the importance guidelines are not required to have the subject be "notable". I acknoledge my ignorance on the guidelines about writing articles pertaining to myself and appologize to the Wiki community for doing so. DanielZimmerman 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Aw, shucks. Thanks a million, mate. Are you leaving? We wish you'd stay... Snoutwood (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dualabs

What was that about? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Left a message at User talk:Tony Sidaway - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Response there as well. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

Your page was vandalized, check it out. The modifications made were not consistent with the interpretation of your name in Greek, and were therefore reverted! :-)  NikoSilver  21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bayreuth Circle

Thanks for your note. Problem is, I think that the Bayreuth circle is a non-topic, hence my edits. There was no organisation as such. The term was originally used in respect of the audiences at Bayreuth at the end of the 19th century, espcially perhaps in respect of the original subscribers to Wagnerˇs project. Then Nazi propagandists used the term in an updated sense to promote Hitler as a leader of German culture. Then Holocaust industry historians seized on this latter use. It is all a lot of fuss about nothing, or at most about a group of almost non-entities. In my view, it doesn´t even deserve a Misplaced Pages article....I only made my edits when my suggestion to delete the article was voted down.....--Smerus 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your further comments - but I have more than enough on my plate at present without becoming an administrator! Basically I suggest the article should be rewritten so as to distinguish between the 'Bayreuth Circle' as:
  • a casual name used by cultural historians for supporters of Bayreuth in the last years of the 19th century
  • an informal name used by cultural historians to refer to Winifred Wagner and her personal circle of friends and relatives
  • a term used by Nazi propagandists to enable them to place Hitler in the 'inner circle' of German culture by playing on his acquaintance with Winifred Wagner and her family
  • a term used by holocaust industry historians, often confusing the three above uses, as 'evidence' to link Wagner with Hitler and vice versa.
  • (and there may be some other definitions as well....)
I am up to my eyeballs at present with academic and professional work. However if you or others wish to commence rewriting the article I will be very glad to comment/contribute. All best regards --Smerus 17:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:AGF

Please do not resort to bad faith personal attacks on AfDs. I do not want to go into mediation over this. PT 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles

Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion. I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote? - Mgm| 09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University

Hi. I see you've weighed in on this AfD. I just noticed that TheronJ has substantially cleaned up the article, and I think St. Clements University is worth another look. Regards, William Pietri 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations, citations

In view of what your robust comments here (salutes are rare and very welcome!), you might be interested to see this. We read: If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally; I've already done the latter. -- Hoary 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GAs

Hi Eus,

Frantic with real-world work at the moment, so just sneaking in a bit of WP here and there. GA sucks, I'm afraid, and there's a concern among a number of people that it dilutes the few editorial/review resources we have away from the only processes (IMV) that really matter: FAC, and FAR/C. Perhaps PR too, but it's moribund, isn't it.

I'd prefer to end the GA thing altogether: it just doen'st mean much, and if it's made to mean something, it will duplicate the FA process.

Perhaps we need a page with advice on referencing ....? It seems to be a weeping boil at the moment. Tony 01:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

College-Ready Math-Science School

The article about College-Ready Math-Science School may have been unclear about when the school opened, but I edited the article to make it clear that the school is already open, albeit at a temporary location. It will move to the groups of the university in 2007. Could you please take another look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/College-Ready Math-Science School ? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. As I stated in the request itself, I respect your decision to oppose me based on my short tour of duty, but I hope I can earn your trust. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A Tree Full of Secrets

I prodded A Tree Full of Secrets for two reasons. The first is that bootlegs are generally considered to lack the notability for an article. Yes, I agree that Pink Floyd had a lot of great ideas and songs that never made it onto albums. These are worth noting and discussing on WP. But articles about bootleg albums are about bootleg albums, not about the material they contain. "Tree" is not the first bootleg to compile PF rarities, and it wont be the last. The second reason I prodded the article is that besides a tracklist, it's devoid of any useful information. If the article explained the sources and history of the material to any degree, I would have a harder time deciding to prod it (as I did with Interstellar Encore, for example). BTW, thanks for going through the prods. I occasionally do, but it can be tedious. I also prodded several more bootlegs that day; several others I just added to . You might find it worthwhile to go through those. Cheers --Alcuin 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to tell on those. They all have some degree of notability, but only because each is tangentially related to another band or artist. I think merge tags might be more appropriate. The articles are well written, I just can't imagine people reading about, for example, The Sparrows unless they're looking for the history of Steppenwolf. -Alcuin 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Andrew Jackson Jihad

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Misplaced Pages:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HeartattaCk

I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Haydn Symphonies

OK. I like the idea of a template. I reformatted 83 and 88-96 to match your stuff. One question, at what point does the harpsichord & continuo become an anachronism for the scoring and should no longer be included (with the exception of #98's throwback in the finale)? DavidRF 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I finished 97-104 just now. I think there are a few earlier ones that could use the reformatting as well, but I'll leave that to you. DavidRF 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Publications record a no-go"

Hi Eusebeus, I am curious about your comment "The extensive publications record is a no-go since that is the company's field of business." Can you ellucidate? This is the first time I have heard of this constraint. Can you point me to any policies or guidelines so I can educate myself? My understanding to date has been that notability within a field, as long as non-trivial references from reliable sources can be provided, is sufficient. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.Dgray xplane 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)