Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eusebeus (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 22 February 2014 (→February 2014: redact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deja Messages Ici Bitte. I will generally respond to any comments, queries, calumnies or complaints here. Whatever you do, no templates

Archives

November 2005 - March 2006 April 2006 April 2006 - January 2007 January - August 2007 September 2007 - February 2008 March - December 2008 January 2009 - September 2010 October 2010 - July 2013

Your "evidence"

Reading your so-called evidence in the infoboxes case, I have two questions:

• Do you have a single diff for Andy inserting a controversial infobox in 2013?
• Do you have any evidence for your implied statement that I "wish to make the use of infoboxes obligatory"? As I matter of fact, I DON'T wish to make them obligatory, I just find them useful. Respectfully, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You have misread my comment. Eusebeus (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bold?

Please explain how you read the discussion on Rigoletto as consensus for the side navbox which you properly described as "old". I go for new. Thank you, by the way, for thus supporting my evidence ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, not old but BOLD (kühn) is the operative word here. See the guidelines at WP:BRD. If you make a bold (new) change to a page and it is reverted, you should engage in a civil and informed discussion to generate consensus for your new proposed edit. Which is precisely what you are doing. Eusebeus (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have little time due to RL. I was not bold, I simple put to practice what project opera made available as an option. See also my evidence, especially "Perfectly acceptable": infobox opera. I hope if it settles in we will not have pleasant and unpleasant discussions every time. I am used to being reverted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Bold (B) in this case simply means making a (non-minor) change to an article first without obtaining consensus for it on the talk page. That is a good thing to do, but in the event it creates controversy, then the recommended practise is to revert (R) (to the previous stable version) and discuss (D) so that your change can be restored as a result of consensus. C'est tout! Eusebeus (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gott ist mein König, BWV 71 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Herr denket an uns'', BWV 196]], about which not much is known, but may be an early wedding cantata). In other respects, such as its instrumentation, it is an atypical work.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic.

I will be voluntarily stepping back

Eusebeus - No need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Stepping back

You reverted infoboxes for three symphonies. I will not debate #6 and #7. (In case you didn't notice, I left the project and will cause you no more trouble.) For #8 however, I am the principal contributor, and even the proposed arbcom remedy will allow me to add an infobox to my creations. It was approved for DYK with the infobox. Please compare Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner) (infobox since 2007), and kindly restore it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I will restore it. I do have some major issues with adding in a bunch of program-note driven content, but I will take that up at the talk page in due course and it can be determined how best to drive good content, backed by solid, reliable sources to the article. There is no shortage of academic work on the 8th and I think we can do better than some impressionistically-touched up cribs from Grove. Cheers, Eusebeus (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As expressed above, I am stepping back from new debates.The articles on Bach's cantatas however, some of which only don't have an infobox because I couldn't handle them all in a row, are a different topic. Did you follow the discussion on the PD talk? BWV 51: I am the only author who is still active, the template has the blessings of Kleinzach, Nikkimaria and Voceditenore, most Bach cantatas have an infobox already (and I would like to complete the others), all Bach cantatas in French and all in Norsk have one, all existing in German (not complete yet) have one, which was introduced recently and copies our model (I confess that I am proud of that). Who is served by this cantata not having one? Please consider to restore it. If you have problems with certain parameters, let's discuss them. Look at the discussion of GA BWV 103 (GA review by Smerus with whom I liked to work and hope to do again) for an example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. It is not correct to suggest that this box has my "blessing". I never edit in this area and have no opinion one way or another on its general usefulness or appropriateness. I simply participated in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Bach composition to point out ways to make it less confusing, misleading, and inconsistent given that it was already being used in a number of articles. Having said that, given the large number of cantata articles that now carry the box, you might as well go for consistency. Voceditenore (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Gerda, this edit is hardly stepping back. And this "Oh but I am principal contributor it it is allowed to have a box" is an unhelpful wikilawyering response. Feel free to revert, but after you have done so I would suggest some reflection. Now that you have helped drive away Smerus, one of our most respected and diligent collaborators, perhaps the time has come to make some amends, no? First, you might consider buying Smerus' book, if you haven't already. He was working on it during his years editing Misplaced Pages and would be a fitting tribute to his extensive contributions here. (I have done so.) Second, why not refocus on actual article quality, since you are good at that. You saw, for instance, the woeful state of the BWV 71 article. You saw that it didn't even quote Dürr (let alone the other issues), instead content with stealing from a few gussied up liner notes and web references. Yet despite this, you decided that it would bring "quality" to the article by sticking a box on it. Really? I think quality means sourcing some of these pages with reference to proper, authoritative works. (The same can be said for Dvorak 8. You appear to have rummaged through a couple of subpar performance notes to crib some unrigorous descriptive stuff to then throw a box on the page. Oof.) Third, when more than half your contributions start to veer away from mainspace into other stuff, the chances of becoming irreversibly sucked into the wikidramas increases. (I learned this the hard way, and perhaps the same applies to you. I am sympathetic.) It is usually a good signal to regroup, take stock and ask some questions about priorities; that might be worth considering. Fourth, why don't we plan to revisit the box issue in a few months, when this whole things has subsided. Hopefully you will be back with the projects by then, and the air will have cleared. We can work together via CM to develop a nice, simple, uncomplicated compositional box that can be used for classical articles uniformly. I don't object to these things per se. But I do feel that the best way to proceed is via a centralised discussion that draws from the ample collegiality that we have at CM in order to promote optimal solutions well-fitted to the sum of the CM ecosystem. Instead, I see a worrying development from this whole debacle that is promoting a self-defeating ownership: "This is my article it gets to have a box". When someone (maybe me) goes back to Dvorak 8 for cleanup to replace the unrigorous stuff that's there now, does that mean the box is removed because someone else now "owns" that article? Is that the kind of environment we want to advance? Surely not. If you were to go box up 71, would you want me to say, "sorry but this is my article now and I say it doesn't get one..." That is a woeful state of affairs. So consider my suggestion. A few months, a reasoned, centralised discussion - I think it is a salutary way to proceed. Finally, let me say this. Please remember that this whole Seifenoper is not about boxes, it is about engagement, productive or otherwise, since editors who cannot engage productively with others can provoke very unhappy consequences (such as the departure of longstanding and valued editors). Es ist selbstverständlich: you don't want to be that editor, neither do I. So let's not. Just some thoughts. Eusebeus (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. A few replies, in the order you mentioned ideas:

• The link takes my to 16 July?
• I am not the "principal" author as much as the only one still around.
• I will not revert ;)
• I did not help to "drive away" Smerus. (Actually, I don't think anybody wanted to drive him away.) I told him of my high respect in the case phase ("@Smerus: I have high respect for you as an editor, author of FA Richard Wagner, and I thank you for a GA review of my BWV 103 (with an infobox)." 9 July) and refused to supply evidence against him (and anybody else) in the decicion phase even when asked ("I have intentionally not supplied any evidence against (!) any editor, many of whom I respect, and still don't want to do that. (Was it a mistake? I am interested in understanding, not "remedies".)" 15:36, 23 August). You may also want to go over my talk page archive and talk, looking for his name. Bitter irony: You will find me telling him that I debated with myself if I could reasonably support this project any longer.
• I would love to return to more "mainspace", - doing my weekly update for the Bach cantatas of the upcoming Sunday was my approach back to normality (it's not only infobox, also wording, references and language templates. I planned to move on to more and better sources starting next year.)
• You are right about the quality of both BWV 71 and the Eighth, - a matter of lack of time. (I have no time right now but take it, because your thoughts deserve it.)
• When I add a box I want to supply a random reader information of time and place of an article at a glance, more than anything else. I see that as added quality.
• Therefore I would like to add a box to the cantatas BWV 51 and BWV 138 now, premieres 17 and 5 September, the liturgical Sunday coming up. How and whom would it hurt?
• I don't own any article, but learned that argument from the opposers ;) - I call it "responsible for the article".
• Let's not speak of wikidrama and my last night, or even the day when I heard the pieces on top of my talk.
• Thank you for the invitation back to CM - I definitely didn't feel welcome anymore, this helps on a better way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Redback spider

Given I have loads of these in my garden, I have been inclined to buff the article. Just tidying up the taxonomic history and have come across this article in German - see here - it is an identification key - I am trying to decipher how it distinguishes L. scelio and L. ancorifer on that page....any light shed much appreciated. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

Hi Eusebeus,

Because you have been involved in discussions surrounding the When God Writes Your Love Story article, I thought that you should be notified of the article's current featured article review. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing Neutrality dispute tags noted

The purpose of the "neutrality tag" or "NPOV tag" is to indicate that not all editors agree the article is neutral. When you unilaterally remove the tag, claiming the article is neutral because YOU think so, even though not all other editors do, it can be VERY problematic. Kindly stop doing this. You are basically saying that anyone who disagrees with your POV, therefore has no standing as a wikipedia editor to raise issues about the article's lack of neutrality. The NPOV policy was the most important thing Jimbo set out in the beginning to ensure all sides get heard in any controversy, and there are many of us who are determined to keep it that way, not have a one-sided encyclopedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

sigh. Til, you're going to end up at arbcom and if you're lucky (and contrite) it will just be a topic ban. Eusebeus (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are threatening me, but I have done nothin wrong, and have a clean conscience. I stand by what I have said. Your threat is also noted. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That you see my comment as a threat pretty much sums up why you're bound for arbcom one of these days. Eusebeus (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What does the fact that you don't see your comment as threatening say about you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Back at ya Cas! Eusebeus (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Great Pacific garbage patch edit from 2010

Hi Eusebeus, in this edit you added a comment saying that the estimate of 80% from land-based sources and 20% from ships was "derived from on an unsubstantiated estimate", with a footnote saying "See Moore 2004". But there is no 2004 piece from anyone named Moore in the references, and if you mean Charles J. Moore, his CV lists only one paper from 2004, A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near the southern California shore, which doesn't seem to mention this estimate. So, do you remember what you were referencing there? Looking back further in the revision history, the original source for the 80/20 claim seems to be this NPR article from 2008, which quotes Moore saying "The figure we use is 80 percent land-based, 20 percent from ships at sea". Hypnosifl (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you remember if you found a reliable source that said the estimate was unsubstantiated, or was this your own judgment because the source you saw didn't cite any scientific research? In general it's not a good idea to claim something is "unsubstantiated" in an article itself unless there is a source that says this specifically, if the current source for a claim in an article just doesn't seem good enough this can be brought up on the talk page or by adding an inline template like one of the ones at Template:Citation_needed#Verification (the Better source template would probably be the best choice in a case like this). Looking around a bit more, I think I've found a better source for the 80/20 claim than the NPR article originally used, this report from USC which says on p. 13 that "The data from Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup Day indicate that somewhere between 60-80% of marine debris starts out on land; this is determined based on the type of debris and its likely original use." On the other hand, this paper by Philip Chapman says " Despite this there are quite widespread claims in the media that 80% of plastic in the ocean originates on land (see, for example, Grant2009), but these claims appear to be without sound foundation (see appendix)." So, I think it would be best to note some reliable sources that give the 60-80% figure but also take note of any scientific sources that say it's uncertain--what do you think? Hypnosifl (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds you like you have this well in hand. I am essentially retired, so I leave it up to your good judgment. Eusebeus (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Stepping back yet again

Ret.Prof has recently indicted he is voluntarily stepping back, yet again, from active editing. This time he apparently intends to create alternative articles in his user space. How do you wish to proceed? Please respond here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to recuse myself indefinitely from any further involvement in editing or commenting on the Gospel of Matthew and related article pages per my talk page notice. However, I still reserve the privilege of commenting on public pages (ANI, noticeboards, arbitration, etc.) should the need arise. Therefore, my original question is still relevant. Ignocrates (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My proposed compromise is a good faith effort to end our edit war and avoid arbitration! (See my talk page) I would be most interested in your response. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

George has taken the matter to ANI, so the die is cast. Please weigh in there. Ignocrates (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is too bad we could not work out a compromise. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

I think they are waiting for us as last 2. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eusebeus, would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to this mediation, by signing here? Sunray (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

DTTR