User talk:Eusebeus/Archive 8

JRB37 Peer Review/FA again?

Want to do a thorough prose/copy edit and try for FA again? :D -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

On a personal note: hard to believe that I only took interest in this article back in 2007 because of the table that's now in the "Senate hearings" section, huh? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am more or less retired at the moment from active editing, but am happy to help out where I can, especially on any copy-editing. My feeling is that we could just move the article into the FA cue and solicit feedback. I am ready to support - I have worked on improving the language of the whole article, as you have as well, I know. The article is not only well-referenced, but the references themselves have been cross-checked via academic (peer) reviews in various journals. This is a topic of enduring interest - I have seen it linked in various places. As it stands, it is readable, accurate, and informative and thus FA-worthy. So if you move it to FAC, I'll monitor the debate and help out in implementing suggestions. Eusebeus (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maestro Alex Gregory Move

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was sure that I read that the discussion would not be closed for seven days. I was withholding my final decision to the end as I continued to review naming policy and other conventions. I believe you closed the discussion a bit early. When I went in this morning to post my objection you had already made the move. The more that I have researched, the more that it makes sense to me that all recording artists are listed using the name that they are known by as recording artist. Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Alex Gregory

Hi Eusebeus. When you close a debate, don't forget to archive it. User:Lost Josephine Minor still doesn't understand and continued to edit it. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear Evidence

You have removed the section that covers Maestro Alex Gregory's title. You did not discuss on the talk page prior to the edit. There is official documentation for Alex Gregory's title of "Maestro" from the Gwent Passport Office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AdditionOfMaestroToPassport.jpg Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that the passport office, an office of the British government that holds a high standard for accuracy on the documents they produce, has recognized the title of "Maestro" for Alex Gregory. It would be more constructive to move forward from this. Additionally, as an artist, he has been referred to as Maestro Alex Gregory since 1982. Does it really seem right for people on Wikipedia to suddenly change the name he is known by? Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits at Alex Gregory have been noted on the edit warring notice board. The reverts that you have been making are unfounded. Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Classical Music in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Music for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! -Mabeenot (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mozart and Haydn project

Hi. You may be interested to see the discussion here. Best. --Kleinzach 01:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alex Gregory

Congratulations to you and others for the excellent investigative work. Kudpung (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Horrobin talk page

Eusebeus, thank you for your cautionary comments at the Horrobin talk page. I must respectfully disagree based upon my reading of the SPA guideline, and I would like to explain my position.

A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose.

A SPA, then, in my interpretation, is a SPA regardless of intention, effect or civility. Since 2006, Beechnut's edits have been almost exclusively to the Horrobin article/talk page, with a few additional edits to other fatty acid-related articles. That said, I welcome and encourage Beechnut's participation in the project and have refrained from specifically labeling his/her comments with the SPA tag, even though some would find such a course of action justified. Beechnut is much more civil than previous editors of this page with DH connections, and I appreciate that quality. Beechnut also makes some good points, although I agree with others: his/her objections don't justify a POV tag. Succour to my (and evidently Shot info's) view that Beechnut is following an agenda is provided by the nature of the discussion/edits, in my opinion, showing Beechnut attempting to remove information s/he considers negative, and, failing that, to accuse me of POV and support a POV tag, against consensus, by highlighting minor wording differences and insisting on using only the exact words from sources. Furthermore, Beechnut wishes to remove information that s/he claims is not in any source; in one recent case, I was able to find a relevant source in about two minutes online. I suspect there are more. Criticising without putting in an effort to find sources oneself (and implying an editor drew statements from thin air) also contravenes the spirit of AGF, and this, too, is consistent with agenda-driven single-purpose editing (in contrast with vanilla single-purpose editing). To quote WP:SPA,

If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line (italics added). Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations. The community's main concern is that edits by SPAs stand at odds with Wikipedia's neutrality and advocacy policies. Indeed, in some cases, there may be clear conflicts of interest. Care in these areas will be seen as a sign of good editorship.

We may disagree on this point, but I appreciate your criticism and your intent. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You've earned a fan

see this forum thread for a chuckle (scroll to post #112). Manning (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link :) Eusebeus (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dishonest statements and new research in Great Pacific Garbage Patch article

You call for a BRD cycle on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, yet you don't state a reason for your revert - I had stated mine in the discussion page, but it wasn't clearly marked; it has its own section on the discussion page now. If you do not provide a reasoning/argument within 24 hours, I think it fair that I revert to my version, as the current version greatly misrepresents Moore et alia, as cited in the article. Boeremoer (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good, although I would note that per WP:BRD, it is not appropriate to impose an urgent timeline on the changes you propose, so if you revert back in 24 hours, you will may be reverted again (per WP:BRD until consensus has been established. Eusebeus (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well, but if a revert is placed, will the person reverting at least provide some substantial reason as to why the current version should be used? Boeremoer (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BRD: "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version, you can proceed toward consensus with that one person." That implies that the person making the change has an onus to justify his/her position, and the person refusing the change has an onus to justify his/her position. I justified my position before your revert. Should you fail to justify your position by noon GMT, I'll revert, and I'll expect that you justify your position on the relevant talk page before you next revert. Failure to do this suggests your actions as abusing WP:BRD as an excuse to revert war - consensus can only arise when each side justifies its stand, and I've met that onus thus far. Boeremoer (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, from WP:BRD: "BRD will be especially successful where... people are only discussing policy, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus" - someone who seeks to negotiate consensus will speak his/her mind, justify his/her position. You haven't done that, which suggests that you are not trying to negotiate consensus. Funny that the relevant abuse of WP:BRD should be listed on the page. Boeremoer (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you seem to assume I disagree with you. I feel your edits are not unsubstantiated, b/c the section you redacted is largely repetitious. But we should allow other editors to weigh in, and that is not constrained by your arbitrary timeline. Eusebeus (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The bit that I redacted is stated in such a way as to imply that Moore et alia had the considerations listed in mind in that paper, while the paper states nothing of the sort. That is then used to falsely imply that Moore et alia were trying to measure the total plastic content of GPGP. As to other editors, to instantiate WP:BRD, to quote, "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version, you can proceed toward consensus with that one person." Should editors who disagree with me not invoke WP:BRD to revert, and then state their position? I'm confused now. Boeremoer (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting. Frankly, while your method would have been sensible on a talk page where active discussions are taking place, it is plainly unworkable on this talk page - editors who might be interested clearly do not have the page on their watchlists, and can therefor only find my changes should they come across them - which is highly unlikely without the revert - when I found the objectionable material, I first consulted the talk-page prior to making my revision, as no-one had attempted a justification of the statements. I'd much prefer a revert by an interested party, who actually wishes to contradict what I'm saying, as your suggestion guarantees inaction, and that can only happen with my change in place. Boeremoer (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews

Just a word of thanks for your comments/edit activity. Under normal circumstances I would agree with you that going through a entire section, six paragraphs, of text and adding after each unjustified sentence (as I did) is "passive-aggressive tagspam". Of course its reasonable to let a certain number of NPOV/debatable statements pass. But in this somewhat extreme/persistent case I tagspammed to illustrate how little of the article is anything but OR. But for way of comparison see what another editor has done with cleaning up Gospel of the Ebionites, one of the best clean up jobs to academic norms of any Jewish/Christian-origins type pages I've seen. That kind of clean up is needed at the 2 other Jewish-Christian Gospels pages.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversions, attempting to add mainstream academic material.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw - Could you please add Jewish-Christian Gospels to your watchlist? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Clarke (composer)

A quick look to see whether this article should remain featured or not at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Rebecca_Helferich_Clarke/archive1#FARC_commentary would be helpful. I am not familiar with the area, and was just skimming through the tumbleweeds at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review casting an eye here and there to help out...and figured you'd know more about this subject than me :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nesting

• While I warmly welcome your views, your edits to the talk page are having a deleterious effect on the flow of discussion. I have thus nested your presentation of the evidence. You should note that a recent arbcom finding has specifically observed that repeated edits to an article's talk page which impede discussion are not acceptable. If you have large amounts of evidence you wish to show, please create a separate page in your user space and provide a link for interested editors. I will therefore refactor your comments accordingly. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know about nesting. I learned something today. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Print size

Thanks again for showing me about nesting. It will be helpful. One problem, the print contained in the " nest" is very small - Hard for an old guy to read. Is there any way you can make the print larger? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Stepping back from Wikipedia

As you know I am stepping back from Wikipedia. I do have one request re the Canonical gospels. Please use an AfD to remove it. I am asking this for two reasons:

• An Afd is the proper way to go.
• I am really curious to see if this article is as bad as you say it is. An AfD will answer that question. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Music in Film

Music in film is not a trivia but a well established aspect of popular culture. Wikipedia is replete with references of music appearing on tv, films and in general situation. Your removal of my trivia insert is unwaranted. I ask you to re-enter my little insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Put it in the film article. You can find the relevant discussion in the CM project archives. Eusebeus (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Well-written music articles always have a sub-section In film where music is the subject of interest, and not necessarily the film it appeared in. There are many articles of well-known classical pieces with a section In film or In popular culture. What some call trivia is, in it's totality comprices an interesting segment of encyclopedic content. Tigerjojo98 (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wagner article is in need of some help

We're in a bit of a pickle in the Wagner discussion page. The issues concerns Social class (sociology) and the phrase supposedly common Germanic past and has now been dismissed by some editors as inconsequential. Furthermore, the name Other interpretations in the article dismisses the general review and broader Wagner analysis to a subcategory under Controversies (mainly the topic of anti-Semitism). Please help. Just take fast look and maybe help in the balancing act. Thank you

• In his own era he furthermore provided the newly emerged middle class with a medium to transfer its familial and political conflicts into a myth of supposedly common Germanic past.

(In the introduction, removed as non consequential)

User:Major Torp (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your help on this --Smerus 10:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dating Genesis

I can't follow the maze of postings that now makes up that thread. Anyway, since you asked about the dating of Genesis, this is what I understand to be the current position:

• I recall reading Blenkinsopp saying that there's been a "growing consensus" placing the final composition of the Torah (including Genesis) in the Persian period. The key phrase there is "growing consensus" - it's usually very hard to find anyone willing to say there's a consensus on anything, even a "growing" one. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it.
• But I know what Blenkinsopp is talking about - it's the so-called "Persian authorisation" theory. This holds that the Persians were willing to grant the authorities in Jerusalem authority to enforce their own Jewish laws over the Jewish community, not just in the province of Yehud but throughout the empire. As this entailed the right to collect taxes (the tithe that Deuteronomy enforces) it was a prize worth having. What the Persians got in return was the loyalty of the Jews (or at least their leaders) and a regular tax-flow (the temple collected the taxes and passed a set amount on to the Persians). So, (goes the theory), the leaders of the Jewish community got together and hammered out a foundation-document that both explained why they were a community (Genesis to Numbers) and their laws (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and the other law-codes).
• "Persian authorisation" remains controversial and is still being refined, but it has a lot of support. For a brief intro, see J-L Ska (who works for the Vatican!), chapters 9 and 10 (especially 10).
• For a nice intro to source criticism and Genesis, see Campbell and O'Brien, published in 1993 I think - not so recent as I'd like, since the Persian authorisation theory was only just starting then. See p.22 onwards for Genesis.

I'm bored with Wikipedia and can't be trusted always to be well-behaved. The antics over the Genesis Creation story especially annoy me - as if the question of whether it's really, truly true were even an important one! PiCo (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks PiCo, I really appreciate the refs and will take a look. I don't edit much at all either anymore here, but I think that's the way of things n'est ce pas? Eusebeus (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dmitri Shostakovich - review FA status?

Hello. Although I've been contributing to Wikipedia for about seven years, I must admit to still feeling a bit of a newbie. So please forgive my approaching you for advice how to set about getting the Shostakovich article reassessed.

I've been going through the Shostakovich article fairly thoroughly over the last couple of days or so, and while I think it qualifies as a 'Good article', I don't think it really qualifies as it stands now as a 'Featured article'. 1) The prose is often short of "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", being often quite pedestrian; 2) it can't be said to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate" - there simply isn't enough in-line citations, and there are several claims (some of which I have edited out) which aren't supported by any authoritative source or which are patently untrue.

I have been impressed, for instance, with the FA status articles Tim Riley has brought up to scratch, such as Adrian Boult and Edward Elgar. I think the Shostakovich article is very well short of the standard set by these, or indeed such GA status articles as Gabriel Fauré. My hope is that in the long term the Shostakovich article will be worthy of its FA status, but I think a bit of an alarm bell needs to be sounded to get it there again. If you could suggest how I go about this I'd be very grateful. Alfietucker (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I FARCed this a number of years ago: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Dmitri_Shostakovich/archive1 and didn't get any support. I think your best option is to improve the article yourself and as needed solicit help and feedback from the composers project page. It is possible that you could FARC it again since we are constantly shifting the FA bar. Keep me posted! Eusebeus (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Maybe such a proposal can get more support this time, particularly as there are so many new publications on DSCH which the article has yet to catch up with. Meanwhile, FWIW, I've started a separate thread on a rather different matter at Talk:Dmitri_Shostakovich - specifically Talk:Dmitri_Shostakovich#Merger Proposal. Maybe if I get sufficient attention from various parties on this, then it might be possible to follow through with a FARC. Alfietucker (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Just to let you know, in case you've been busy, that a) the merger has taken place (thanks for your vote on this); b) you may be interested in the Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich#Time for a Featured Article Review?. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Word to the mother

Hey doc :) Just stopping by to say hi. Did I miss something and people got really mean and bureaucratic all of a sudden, or am I just looking at the past with rose-colored glasses? :)

Anyhow, thought of you and wanted to say hello. Someday we'll have to have a reunion with Encephalon, Titoxd, and all the old gang. Hope you're still rocking here and keeping the faith. Kyle Barbour 08:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, nice to hear from you! Well, yea I have scaled back, although not because I was chased away, no - I never let the dramaz get to me. Does this mean you're back? Anyway, rose-coloured or not, I guess we're approaching old-timer status so you are allowed to reminisce! Eusebeus (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't say "back" exactly. Just tried to contribute a small something meaningful and got smacked for it, so I'm reminded of why I'm not working here anymore. But I put out the occasional edit. Maybe sometime I'll do something big, but probably not — just happened to run across an old archive page and thought of you. Glad to hear you're still doing well here. Kyle Barbour 11:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mean and bureaucratic" -- I don't disagree with you a bit. For those of us who have been here without break, we may be like the frogs in the slowly-heating water, and need to be reminded by someone who has taken a break that it's actually getting really hot in the pot. I have some long-winded theories on why this is, but think you are right, and rather doubt it is reversible. Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange....

I was expanding this bird - Pied Butcherbird - renowned as Australia's finest songbird and quite unearthly at times to listen to...when I found this linking to this ..quite amazing really but my musical knowledge is minute so all the notes mean little to me though they look impressive...I figured you (or a talk page watcher) might be somewhat amused/intrigued...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This watcher is intrigued, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And [=43&path[]=21 this] ?! Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this very curious link. I have to say that the analysis is, to say the least, eccentric. He is basically claiming that the Pied Butcherbird produces music for aesthetic purposes.

Their songs are sonic heirlooms that look back to human pre-history and look forward: their melodic inventions are dynamic, in a state of flux and constant repositioning. Variations are found at all levels of organisation. Many components from their rich and nuanced repertoire are subject to recasting, some via elaborate strategies that seemingly overreach biological necessity. This panoply of recombining, varying, and inventing mechanisms causes me to believe that aesthetic statements are being delivered and that the birds appreciate this in their way.

Frankly, that strikes me as fanciful nonsense. I did like the bit about the postmodern incorporation of other birdsong; and the notation reminds one irresistibly of Messiaen of course. Eusebeus (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Messiaen, the link that is not working above (cut and paste the code from the source in hte "edti box" and will get you the article including some nice anecdotes about Messiaen and segment in his work matching butcherbird song). It is interesting sometimes here when one find material like this where someone has done alot of work, and one has to distill the good observations and pause a little at some of the conclusions. Aesthetics and enjoyment in animals is one of those fascinating areas (i.e usual argument of how much we are superimposing our own thinking mechanisms onto other organisms). Australian Magpies seem to do similar things with songs, warbling to themselves for no apparent reason, and engage in play as well - this book which I have read gives detailed bits about extensive play by juvenile magpies that makes them sound like a pet puppy or dog - very strange. (Mentioned as these two species are fairly closely related) Incidentally, 'he' is a 'she' :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Just looked through my old emails and I am two degrees of separation from Messiaen as the birdwatcher who took him to Tambourine Mountain and sent him cassettes of butcherbird songs also gave me a bunch of old journals (and helped me with some sources for Australian Magpie :) (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your call for resolution

It has now been one full week since you posted your call for resolution on the questioned piano sonata. By my count 15 editors not including yourself, nearly all of whom have long been involved in classical music and the various issues involved, have posted in support; four similarly involved editors have posted neutral comments; and five editors, none to my knowledge with any particular interest in classical music, have posted in opposition. You have merely posted the call, without having prejudiced yourself in argument.

It's clear that perfect consensus can never be reached on this proposed move, but it's equally clear that WP:Rough consensus is firmly achieved. It is my (possibly incorrect) understanding that an administrator is not actually required for a discussion to be closed and consensus to be declared on the basis of "strength of argument, and underlying policy", for which see WP:MUSICSERIES. This issue of a proposed move does not involve an RfD, which apparently does require an administrator.

In the meantime the discussion has wandered off onto any number of other topics: the lede, facts and myths, the dedicatee, a Liszt quote, an ambiguous redirect, a useless redirect, where a section explaining the name should go, the sonata's history, and whether the key should be bolded and/or linked in the lede.

I believe you are considered competent to close and archive the discussion and effect the proposed move at this time. If you would rather not do it yourself, perhaps you can refer the matter to another uninvolved editor. But in either case, the time has now come. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done! Eusebeus (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for solving this! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you possibly add the tags as explained in the banner? (I can't do it myself without appearing as the closer.) Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have posted the following at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RM closed by involved party:

• This was my fault. I had posted User talk:Eusebeus#Your call for resolution, including by my oversight the incorrect statement You have merely posted the call, without having prejudiced yourself in argument. I apologize to Eusebeus and all others involved for my error. However I do believe that my post at his userpage otherwise accurately describes the situation. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Milkunderwood (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Beethoven sonata RM

Do you realize that it is bad form to close an RM that you voted in? See WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions. As this is listed as Rule No. 1, it might be of some importance. In addition, you obviously don't know how to do it properly. Kauffner (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the sonata back to where it belongs. :) -- kosboot (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not replying. I put this on ANI. Kauffner (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Josephus on Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Test page

Hi, I assembled what we have so far into a test page. The section on pro-authenticity needs expansion, but I have nothing else to add to the other sections. It will be great if you could review what there is now, check/add/modify/etc. as you see fit, so we have multiple perspectives. Once the other section on pro-authenticity has been completed, then we can probably declare the whole thing stable and move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is coming along nicely, I must say. I'll try to add some stuff and do a prose cleanup when I have a moment. We might consider this for an FAC when we are done. Eusebeus (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is working out well with comments from various sides. I think the now extened Manuscripts section (which is now here) you wrote is not subject to discussion any more, and is ready to move in after you have looked at it again. But it is 80% your own text (the Slavonic is there already) so I don't see a big issue there. I could not get all the references in the nice format that Huon used (never used that format before), so I think I will ask for his help there. However, I even try to avoid the WP:GA headaches for they take work and in the end do not say much to a user. There is soooooo much more to fix in Wikipedia, I don' even know where to start, so I never bother with GA or FA or FB etc. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Josephus on Jesus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slavonic

Slavonic Josephus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slavonic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

JoJ

Not sure if you were speaking of my "drive-by", but there are, unfortunately, some private communications I'm not in a position to relate. And I don't actually question in either way you or History2007's work on the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. Eusebeus (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

No offence, but even basic information is absent from said article, and I'm the last person you want there. Lung salad (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Josephus on Jesus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rufinus and Hegesippus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Testpage text

I have added a good number of items to the testpage on Josephus, and your comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	groundwork in music
	Thank you for helping me fundamentally with the first of many Bach cantatas and for applying your reason and experience to topics such as the naming of Beethoven's piano sonatas, resulting in an unromantic 21st century name for No. 14, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 66th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (21 June 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pantera disambig

I don't really see why consensus is needed for the change. In fact, I was restoring information which was removed without discussion, so I was well within Wiki policy to restore it. The purpose of a disambig page is to direct people's searches. The entire notability and subject of the article is the idea that Pantera has a historical connection to Jesus, i.e. the theory is the main identifying feature of Pantera. This combined with the fact that Pantera was a common Roman name and that the theory is most likely the only reason people are searching for the subject (most people would be unfamiliar with the more detailed "soldier of the Cohors I Sagittariorum" as an identifier) explains why the information should be on the page. To not have the main subject/identifier of an article in the disambig is disingenuous. To not want the information because you disapprove of the subject matter is irrelevant.207.237.208.153 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Self publishers

Hi, FYI, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pages

Hi, As stated on my user page, I have now achieved liberation and plan to gradually fade away from Wikipedia. I am still watching some pages, but not as often as before, and the trend will be to reduce involvement. Given that you know the first-third century history topic so well, if you could add a few pages to your watchlist and guard against vandalism and crazy edits that will be appreciated. Most of these pages are very stable and hardly get any vandalism, but it would still be good to have someone look at them once in a while, eve if you are not that active yourself.

Apart from Josephus on Jesus there is also Tacitus on Christ and Annals (Tacitus) where our old friend was pretty active if you look at the histories. There is also Suetonius on Christ, Mara Bar-Serapion and Pliny the Younger on Christians (this one needs fixes), and I will fix those soon.

These of course relate to Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus both of which are hopeless articles now. I will touch those up a some point, and if you keep an eye on those every few weeks/months that will also be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, forget Oxford Univ Press.. There is a new source for scholarly information... FBUP. Guess what it is before you click on it... You will never guess. I was really surprised. I never expected anyone there to be able to spell Josephus, let alone have a page on it. I see it as yet another sign of the great siphon off, say this. It is no longer a question of mirroring, but siphoning. Google started by getting the node names, in time they (or others, say Bing or DuckDuckGo) will siphon off the "best of the rest" and build a Wolfram Alpha type engine with content that is safe from vandalism. Note that Google allows user yes/no comments but no modifications. Clever, click on Feedback. It is just a question of when, not if siphoning will turn into vandal free versions. I think Wikipedia content will succeed, but perhaps outside Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sonata da chiesa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour

Hi, you edited Gospel of the Hebrews in years past. You may have input on the FORK discussion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Miss seeing you around!

Are you being all Florestan in real life?  :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, me too. Hope things are going well whatever you are doing! Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the nod! I appreciate it. I hope am not being too Florestan. Mostly it is too much teaching over the last long-ish while. Eusebeus (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Totally understand and can relate. But if you ever get the itch and want to tackle working on an article together (Antandrus too), drop me a line! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha, some action here...incidentally, I have asked sgeureka a question as mein Deutsch ist schrecklich, and all help appreciated in translating...amazing how English's role as Lingua franca seems to run out of ssteam in European mycology circles.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like sgeureka has, as always, the matter well in hand. Let me know if you need additional help. Always happy to assist a longtime wikipal. Eusebeus (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it does :) - I'll give a yell sometime when some prose needs some kneading....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Supplementum Plantarum

Interesting - not urgent - but be nice to tidy up. Seems the only source discussing the publishing of Supplementum Plantarum is in German and not easily run through google translate :P

This tome has the first four species of Banksia described in it but there is precious little about the book itself...I just spent some time confirming that Brunsvigae was Brunswick/Branschweig. I notice the first page of the article seems to discuss the lead-up into the publishing of the book and thought it'd be good to get into the Supplementum Plantarum article (which is a bit of a stubby stub currently).

Hence I'd be grateful for a translation and/or succinct precis on the publishing to buff the article - much appreciated in advance and no real hury - see German article here cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

infoboxes

I think the question you pose (at Arbcom:

The question that perhaps should be reviewed by arbcom is whether individual projects can assert via centralised discussion and subsequent consensus a "best practices" standard over the articles under their umbrella.'

is an important one, although I would suggest some modest changes to the wording.

As posed, my answer would be the not very useful "it depends".

Roughly speaking, I think projects should have the authority to assert best practices, but largely when they are codifying general best practices into more specific best practices. To the extent that a best practice for a project is in conflict with a Wikipedia wide consensus, I do not think the Wikiproject can override that consensus. In some cases, the Wikiproject views may lead to an overall change in the Wikipedia wide position, in other cases it may lead to a modification of the practice to allow certain exceptions, but where Wikiproject desires clash with Wikipedia wide conventions, the clash must be resolved. We cannot simply allow a Wikiproject to trump a Wikipedia wide policy or guideline. At least, that's my view.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't agree more, and am actually on the record in various places saying as much going back many, many years. I didn't realize this issue had achieved the status of policy. If so, the question is unambiguous in my view. I don't edit much anymore, however, so I don't really care at all. This whole issue is really about the poor engagement of one editor with a long history of fractious intervention and editing bans as a result. Remove him, most of the problem goes away, at least at CM. But there is an interssting point to consider, imo, about project sovereignty. Thanks for your comment! Eusebeus (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(watching) sorry that I will disappoint you, but since I watch the discussions (July 2012), I don't see what you describe. Do me a favour, read my post. The problem will not "go away" by "removing him", because I would still be there ;) - The latest development is that a project (!), opera, introduces an infobox for operas, but those who are against them for composers are in the way of their introduction, - for an example look at the history of Don Carlos. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading your statement in the case "Fighting it out piecemeal, as has happened recently, is irksome." - Can you please give me an idea what this very general statement means? Which article(s), which "fighter", what time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

You helped by organizing a RfC on RetProf's "original Matthew" material. He's back, it's back. PiCo has retired unfortunately. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• What happened to PiCo. That's a major loss. Eusebeus (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw your note on the GMt page. I'm staying well clear of that mess, but I thought you might be interested to know, as an fyi, there are French academics, including Marie-Emile Boismard and Philippe Rolland, who have been arguing for a lost proto-Mt at least since the '60s. I don't see anything fringe about their books and journal articles on the subject (tiny minority maybe) because they are often cited in the academic publications of other scholars. Just food for thought. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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.[28]" 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, Wikipedia: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)

Retirement

I am far less than certain you will ever see this message, so it feels strange to say I sent you an e-mail, because you would probably I think see the e-mail before seeing this message, if you ever see this message at all.

In any event, I would like to offer you my greatest thanks for all you have done over the years, and my hope that you find that your future endeavors, wherever they are, are fulfilling and hopefully less frequently aggravating than editing here often is.

You will be missed. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You will be missed, and I will try to take care of "your" Creation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Damn - can understand. Given there is no remuneration, if frustration > enjoyment here, then no point wasting time. Would be good to see you back but can understand situation. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

groundwork in music
Thank you for helping me fundamentally with the first of many Bach cantatas and for applying your reason and experience to topics such as the naming of Beethoven's piano sonatas, resulting in an unromantic 21st century name for No. 14, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (21 June 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 66th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

today is the time to listen to Locus iste, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Three years ago ... - music for today is Requiem (Reger), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Eight years ago, you were recipient no. 66 of Precious, a prize of QAI, - miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Userspace drafts. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Incompetent editor who pushes Fringe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined as withdrawn

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Misconduct in the Christianity topic case request has been declined as withdrawn. You can review the original case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanksgiving

Shout for joy

Giving music you may remember, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi! I see that you commented at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_183. You may be interested in commenting at this new Article for Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl Nordenfalk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illumination. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Eusebeus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Eusebeus! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Eusebeus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Eusebeus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Organised crime newsletter

Hello, Eusebeus. You are receiving this one-time message because in the past, you have shown immense interest in the articles coming under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime, or you have contributed to these articles substantially. It is my pleasure to tell you that we starting a semi-annual newsletter, and if you would like to receive this quarterly newsletter, then kindly add your name in list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/newsletter. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. design--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)