User talk:Maustrauser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Maustrauser is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time. |
Earlier material archived here: My Archives
IF YOU MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE I WILL RESPOND TO YOU ON THIS PAGE. PLEASE ADD IT TO YOUR WATCHLIST.
[edit] Vibraimage
Please do AfD Vibraimage. I'll second it. Besides the lack of notability, the article suffers from COI issues. -- Shunpiker 07:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to Talk:Vibraimage#True or hoax? Anthony Appleyard 07:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
I would like to know what part of the article, do you think seems like advertisement, so that i can try to change it. I think it has only information relevant to the institute The source of almost all the information in the article is the institute website. Please mark those points as well which you think should be referenced. I am currently a student of the institute, so i can tell u that, i have made my sincere efforts to keep the article as true as possible. Although there might some points which may not be available as reference from any web-based source but can be verified from the institute. So please guide me to help it make better. --Sarafankit 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your comment. It's great that you wish to improve the article. A few pointers for you. The use of adjectives should be kept to a minimum, unless they are quotes from independent third parties. For example, under 'Academics': "The institution has an excellent scholastic atmosphere which helps the students in achieving great heights in the pursuit of academic accomplishments..." This is an assertion. How do we know this? If this was a referenced quote from someone then it would be fine to include, but it isn't, so it should be deleted. Similarly, under infrastructure the article says: "The institute has a beautiful campus of about 214 acres..." Who thinks it's beautiful? The last sentence of that paragraph about the richness of the flora and fauna should be sufficient. It is a fact and not an opinion and thus is acceptable. If much of the article is taken from the website, be careful that it isn't a copyright violation. If it is, the entire article can be deleted. Good luck with your changes, I'll look forward to seeing them. Maustrauser 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thank you for your response. I will work on the aspects you have mentioned. Regarding the source of information, i meant all the information is available on the website and it wasnt directly copied from it, the information is not in consolidated form on the website.--Sarafankit 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have cleaned up the article, please have a look at it and let me know all specific points you want to be clarified. If you are satisfied with the cleanup please remove the tags.--Sarafankit 09:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Tags removed. Good work. A pleasure working with you. Maustrauser 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks, same here.--Sarafankit 10:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Sergio Calligaris
Hi, I wrote in the talk page of the article in question but was not sure whether it was the right place so I tried here as well! I am sorry that what I wrote sounded an advertisement: of course it was not my intention to make it sound like that! As for the adjectives being used (and the lack of references you pointed out), I thought the the external links under the various headings were enough. Could you please indicate me ways to improve the article? Thank you for your patience. Aquilante74
-
- G'day. I'm delighted that you wish to improve the article. A few tips to start with. Remove all the adjectives unless they can be cited. For example, in the first para we discover he is "world-famous". Who says? I reckon he may be famous amongst pianists, but he's not known in Rwanda or the Tasmanian town of Strachan. WP is a world encyclopaedia so it has to be written from a world perspective and with a neutral point of view. Further we find that he studied with "Renowned masters." If they are renowned it is surprising so few of them have entries in WP. Later we here his style is characterized by "sheer brilliance" and "detailed attention". Who says? Why should we believe them? All these statements, if they are to remain need to be footnoted. It is not acceptable to require the reader to simply go and read other reviews in the external links.
-
- A bigger concern is that nearly all the information seems to be taken from Calligaris' own website: http://calligaris.carisch.it/scalen/bioen.htm This is going close to a copyright violation but also raises questions about the material's veracity. The best sources are from independent third parties and not from the subject of the article. With regard to the adjectives noted above, as the material mostly comes from his website it seems that it is Calligaris who is calling himself "world famous" and "renowned." This doesn't look good. Your best bet is to find external reviews and comments and use those, rather than Calligaris own website. Do check how notable he really is before putting lots of effort into this bio. He only receives fewer than 1300 google hits and thus may not even meet WP:Notability standards. Maustrauser 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Maustrauser! Thank you for your helpful and detailed reply. I know understand much better where your concerns lie and how to address them. They all make sense. I will be undertaking this over the next couple of weeks (I am very close to complete my PhD and have my mind on other things also!); so if you could remain a little patient and do not classify the article for speed-deletion I would be very grateful. In the meantime, thank you again, best wishes Alessandra 12:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No problems. Good luck with the PhD! Maustrauser 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Reverts on Adam shepherd
If you just keep reverting his edits without telling him why in comments, or on his talk page, he's just going to keep doing it. At least if there are warnings on the talk page, there will be a history of this behaviour for other editors to see. NipokNek 12:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Quite right. Just sometimes I get sick and tired of vandals wasting my time and therefore I couldn't be bothered. I think I'll just go to bed. Maustrauser 12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maybe this can help?
If you change those Jon Hammond tags to copyvios for "http://www.jonhammondband.com/bio.html", it's a lot harder to argue with than a Spam tag. NipokNek 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you! He's creating them faster than I can tag 'em. Goodnight! Maustrauser 12:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Who's who?
Ha ha ha. And this led me to various other silliness: this page suggests that one might keep an eye on crap pretenders to the "Who's Who" title. -- Hoary 09:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Aren't they impressive! I was most impressed... as you can tell by the article. Maustrauser 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pregnancy
I see you're a regular editor of Pregnancy, so I thought I'd bug you for a 2nd opinion. Shouldn't there be a disambiguation link at the top of the article for Knocked Up to pregnancy, something along the lines of 'Knocked up is also slang for ..' or am I wrong? Cornell Rockey 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Quite right! I've put one in. Cheers Maustrauser 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- And I got a more specific disambiguation template in there. If you want a list of them in the future, you can find them here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Disambiguation_and_redirection. Happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Much better than mine. Thanks so much. There are many useful templates around here and half the time I can't find them when I want them. Much obliged for the link. Cheers Maustrauser 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] evolution userbox
I've got them on a sub-page; check here > User:Cornellrockey/Userboxes. The text in the evolution one is self modified (you can change it yourself it yourself) based upon a userbox I stole from someone else's userpage after the German solution was put in to place. Best of luck. Cornell Rockey 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much. I like it as it is so I won't change it. Maustrauser 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moose (drinking game)
Hi, please see the new comments in the AFD. Thanks --AW 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] question
Why did you immediately delete my recent contribution to the Count of St Germain page, which given the duration of the post, you didn't even have time to verify, and which does not appear to be a bot? You suggest that the deletion be discussed on the "talk" page, but you left no message there. Are you some kind of Count of St Germain protector? What is your alleged justification? Saudade7 10:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nope. Just that the link added nothing more than was already in the WP article and it was unreferenced and uncited as per WP:EL.Maustrauser 11:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another Question
So, if you are not using a bot, how do you *personally* make so many corrections all day long? I looked at your contributions and they are constant and occur approx every 3 minutes, and yet all the edits are marked m instead of b. And the alacrity of those edits suggests that you get some kind of feed as to where people are adding things so you can get there and check it out right away. How do you do that without a bot? And if you are using a bot why is it m and not b?
I won't add my link again. I thought it added something new after looking at what was there, but I have lot of other things I should be doing! Personally, I don't know how you can still have functioning eyeballs if you are really on here as much as you appear to be!
thanks, Saudade7 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes it's a worry. I suffer from WP addiction. I don't use a bot. I'm a fast reader. It also becomes easy after a while spotting vandalism in the RC pages where most of my edits come from. Cheers Maustrauser 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kothay
FYI: User:Jobart removed your speedy delete tag from the Kothay article. He's busy editing it right now so I'm going to wait an hour and I'll watch the article to see if it becomes "notable", if not then I'll re-tag it. Thomas Dzubin Talk 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for that. Much obliged. I'm off to bed! Maustrauser 13:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Morning comes and it is solved! Thanks for the work! Maustrauser 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Talk page archive
Hello, I believe you mistakenly created your talk page archive in the main space by putting paranthesis around it. I have moved it to User talk:Maustrauser/Archives2, I hope you don't mind. -RunningOnBrains 07:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh dear. What a stupid blunder. Thanks so much for fixing it for me! Maustrauser 09:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Metro Standings
Hello, I am the builder of the page as well as the starter. I noticed your question of notability and context this afternoon. I just started the article. The league in question was over 50 year old and became a famous junior A league in Ontario... I will expand and source it as I go. All information on the article is from reliable sources and they will be listed. The importance of this league is that is now 50% of the current provincial league and that it was a famous league in the Toronto area that actually Wayne Gretzky, Ken Dryden, Bryan Gionta, Mike Danton... ...etc... ... got their start in.
I realize it looks a little patchy at the top, but that is because I got a guy helping me that is very new to wikipedia that hasn't fully grasped the esthetics required for "Good Article" Status. Any questions, just throw them on my talk page. Have a good day. DMighton 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I shall enjoy reading it as it progresses. The top was the bit that got me. I couldn't even work out which country we were talking about until I got right down the article. Maustrauser 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah... I don't think I explained the thesis very well initially... I was more-or-less focusing on the hours of stat crunching and charting I had to do... and then NCAA Watcher started throwing partial stats from past years in... and it looks sloppy... I will attempt to clean that up a bit though. DMighton 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] your question to me
Welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to have a problem with another user cited as T.J. Morgan with reference to Metropolitan Registries. Please read WP policies before making attacks or allegations. You also state that the Better Business Bureau is not a legitimate source of information. Why? Maustrauser 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amanda11"
The above message- Dear Maustrauser, Thank you for the time you have taken to respond to my request. I am just learning how Wikipedia Works. I did submit the same question and was told that I should work through the the following and I will do so:
However, since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do not resolve editing disputes via email. Instead, please follow the steps outlined at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution>. These steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community.
In response to your questions I will work wp policies regarding the problems I am having, which was not in any way meant to be an attack or allegation. As far as the BBB Report, I can give you a little background. I was asking that the link not be allowed because the BBB states in their policies they do not allow links without their consent. We are working with the BBB to have them revise their statements and hopefully become a working partner with them. We have 75,000 active members at MWW and less than a 1% complaint ratio. We realize that all complaints are unacceptable but we have a perfect record in resolving every complaint. So I please ask for your help and do let me know what I can do to not have our company listed in this area. I would like to further discuss the networking oportunities we do provide for all our members, as well as future plans we have in place to add value to membership.
Regards,
Amanda
-
- Thank you Amanda for commenting. Please be aware that you do not need to copy material from one page to another. As I left a message on your page I will automatically be told when it has been updated. It's best to have a discussion on only one page. Perhaps we should make it this one as you have moved material across. As you appear to be intimately involved with MWW then your editing of articles about MWW should be informed by WP:COI. WP works on the basis of "no original research" and thus any comment on WP must be attributable to a reputable third party. As far as I can tell the NY BBB is a reputable third party and thus the links from WP pages to BBB are legitimate.
-
- I was unable to find on the MWW a reference saying that their website should not be linked to. Perhaps you can tell me the web reference to that. Regardless, anything published on the internet is fair game to be linked to. If they don't want it linked then they shouldn't publish! May I suggest that your best recourse is to work with BBB to resolve the problems. Then the WP article can be updated to indicate the change in status. I'd also caution you to not add material about 'networking opportunities' and 'future plans' as they will be construed as a breach of WP:COI and WP:Advertising. Maustrauser 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies again I am very much trying to follow the rules and I made changes on the original page. I will talk directly on this page in the future. I am not debating the value of the BBB. MWW is working directly with the BBB to rectify the report. What I am stating is the following:
CBBB Terms & Conditions state that a link to the BBB must first be approved.
2. The CBBB may consider and approve in its sole discretion other link requests from the following types of organizations: o commonly-known consumer and/or business information sources such as Chambers of Commerce, American Automobile Association, AARP and Consumers Union; o dot.com community sites; o associations or other groups representing charities, including charity giving sites, o online directory distributors; o internet portals; o accounting, law and consulting firms whose primary clients are businesses; and o educational institutions and trade associations.
see BBB terms bbb.org/about/terms.asp and a full explanation regarding permission to link.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
I also saw a statement that had MWW listed as a vanity publication. You stated not according to the BBB. However the BBB lists MWW as a Professional Organization.
-
- Thank you for your response. I have now gone and read the BBB terms. Frankly, I think they are a joke. They must be dreaming if they think that they can stop people linking to their pages. The only way not to have people linking is not to publish the material. I have no control over what links people put into articles and I personally believe that if the link provides context or evidence for a claim made on WP then it is valid. If BBB wishes to do anything about stopping WP from linking to it then it will have to do something about it itself. I'd also hazard to say that WP is a 'news service' and thus meets criteria 1 of its terms.
-
- I personally know nothing about MWW. If you don't believe it is a vanity publication then remove it from the article. Be Bold. Some editor may well put it back and then your best bet is to debate it with them on the article's talk page or on their talk page. I can't recall what originally started our correspondence (I do many edits per day). I suspect I reverted one of your deletions. I tend to do that when the deletion is made without any attempt at a good explanation of why the deletion was made or if it looks like the person is trying to whitewash a bad report. I suggest that you put a comment on the talk page of the relevant article along the following lines: "I intend to delete XXX from the article as it YYY. Does anyone have any concerns with this? I'll delete it in three days time so if you have any concerns, just report them on this page and we can discuss it." That way, you avoid what is called a 'revert war', you follow due process, you look professional and the discussion is done in good faith. Not many people use this approach and then they end up in messy edit wars and complaints. Good luck Maustrauser 22:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Again Maustrauser, I thought somewhere in here I had said that I changed another article before reading what you had written, if I didn't I meant to & I do apologize. You had let me know specifically that I had a vested interest & therefor I should not be making statements. I do respect that. So yes, out of frustration you saw what looked like an ad, which was my way of giving a full explanation of what we at MWW would describe of our company. So yes of course remove the ad,(although I'd love it if you didn't, ha ha) I am starting to learn each time I log on a little more of the how to's in Wikipedia. Thank You for that.
-
- G'day Cindi (you like changing names!) Advertisement removed! Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Next, even though you do not agree with the BBB on their policy, I do have a legitimate claim on that end. Can I remove the link w/out any further changes at this point? I will debate the rest when I learn Wikipedia's practices much better. Although I would like the opportunity to submit documentation to you that proves our membership packages start at $69.
-
- Feel free to remove the link. Some other editor might put it back though! The best place to 'prove' things is on the talk page of the relevant article (the talk page is actually called 'discussion' but we all call them talk pages). We are currently writing this discussion on my 'talk page'. Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In the next week or so, the BBB will be changes the report, we are in the middle of negotiations with them. If I then show you supporting evidence that we have a good report with the BBB will you allow me to remove the statement?
-
- I guess the question is, does MWW 'sell' entries in biographical publicatons without rigorous analysis of the credentials of the applicants? I can't answer that. I have had to rely on the BBB report. I imagine I know how you will answer that. If your view is that the statement is inaccurate then of course you should remove it. If, it is an accurate statement, then removing it would be an incorrect thing to do. Frankly I don't care if MWW has 'problems' with BBB. I'm only interested in knowing if MWW 'sells' biographical entries. If I find evidence that it does and isn't rigorous in its screening, then I'm likely to put it back. Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And my last question to you is I do not understand this statement "I intend to delete XXX from the article as it YYY" What do you mean by this?
-
- I meant by this that before deleting things, you should put a statement on the talk page saying something like: "I intend to delete the reference to MWW from the article as it is an inaccurate portrayal of MWWs activities. I will delete it after two days. If you disagree with me doing this, then please give me your reasons here." By doing this other editors won't consider you a vandal.Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that I have frustrated you some so just bear with me a short time longer and hopefully I will disappear, never to bother you again. Ha Ha.
-
- No problem. We all have to learn. It's been a pleasure discussing these things with you. Maustrauser 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Again Thank you for your understanding and patients, Cyndi
[edit] temporary reply
temporary reply can be found on my user page
Respectfully, BenedictX 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] American Biographical Institute
Amanda11 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)I believe here the comment about MWW should be removed. We have no affiliation with the American Biological Institute.
-
- Hi Amanda. See my earlier comment above about how to go about deletions so as to avoid conflict. Maustrauser 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Calligaris: the work begins!
Dear Maustrauser, I have finally been able to start on the article. By the way, thank you very much for your "good luck" in relation to my PhD: YES! I handed it in and now it only a question of time before the viva. Yuppie! Anyway, let's talk about "serious" matters now. I have started cleaning the article from the many adjectives. I hope it now sounds more acceptable. However, I know that there is still a lot of work to do: one of this is about referencing. Here I got a slight problem and would be very grateful to have your input. Problem 1): there is one information that I gained from the composer directly:
"In his youth he had been a pupil of Luis Angel Machado who, in turn, had been personal assistant to Paul Hindemith." Since Machado is a minor figure, so to speak, in composition, there may even be a question of whether quoting him or not. Should I put a footnote like "personal communication" or something similar?
Problem 2: in a passage like the following, where I list the characteristics of his music:
"the vivid opposition between "elegiac" and "flamboyant and wild" themes; a dramatic use of rhythm; a disciplined and, at the same time, extremely complex master of counterpoint; the adoption of "classical" composing forms (see, just as an example, the use of form in the Prelude, choral, double fugue and finale op. 19)",
should I put a footnote for each review (or more than one) where these features are being discussed?
Problem 3: you pointed out that not many of his teachers have an entry in WP. Apart from Jorge Fanelli, however, all other are listed in the Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (Jorge Fanelli is mentioned in Calligaris' entry in the same work). Shall I put a reference to the Baker's (or to other dictionaries) for each of them (or at least for the ones without an entry in WP?)?
I am sure these will not be the only questions from me to you, but they would make a good start for me! I also hope I am not over-stretching your patience! A rileggerci presto, Alessandra 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Congratulations on your submission. A great achievement. Let's hope that the examiners aren't too rough! To business. Whilst Pers comm is quite acceptable in PhDs etc, where original research is encouraged, WP has a policy of NO original research. So I think you had best delete that bit - unless you can find a third party who has said it. As for problem 2, you definitely need to reference such statements, otherwise it sounds as though you are making them up. Problem 3. Easily solved. Write the articles for them! Now you are not working on your PhD, you will have heaps of time! : ) But do reference where you get the data. Any more questions, do ask. Best wishes, Maustrauser 10:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Party article
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Party, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE: Sorry, that was a bad revert unfortunately. From this edit difference http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party&diff=next&oldid=110450716 it appeared you had added nonsense but then I double checked the history and found out that it was part of the article. I changed it back. Sorry about that! User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problems. Easy to do! Maustrauser 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Glen Williams
The problem with several different lists of judges, is that the names sometimes get spelled differently for the same judge on two or more lists. I try to catch this when it happens. Alas, this one slipped through. Sorry to bother you, but I don't know what else to do. Respectfully, BenedictX 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No worries. But I'm not sure what your question is. Maustrauser 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Heritage Who's Who's"
The word "heritage" always makes me feel queasy, but something about the statement "2007 COO Walt Sorensen Selected for the 2007-08 Heritage Who's Who's publication" in Business Resource Center SLC looked as if it might be something of unintended amusement value to you. Have you heard of this one? -- Hoary 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the heads up. I see it has been changed to IBC. As soon as I see an IBC or ABI claim I question the notability of the article! Only the non-notable seem to claim ABI or IBC affiliation. Thanks for the amusement. Maustrauser 01:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BenedictX and judge stubs
Hi Maustrauser. What is your opinion on 1) BenedictX's many stubs about judges generated by collating info from several Wikipedia articles into one place and 2) Rebecca deleting them? I know it was a week or two ago, but I only just found them. --Scott Davis Talk 10:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I liked your comment on his user page. I suggested to BenedictX that he read WP policies before getting to work on the stubs. He did rather late and I think that he was frustrated with finding out WP had a bunch of policies related to what he was doing. I do feel that Rebecca was a bit harsh with him. I hope he reads your comments and returns. He was very thorough. Maustrauser 10:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- My thoughts too. I hope Rebecca answers my comments to her at user talk:Rebecca#Judge stubs, and maybe we can reinstate the articles. --Scott Davis Talk 12:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] LoF/AMM
Looks good; in fact the vandals would probably like the bit about the medal being awarded for attending meetings. I found out a bit more about the medal with a google search. Archie Kalokerinos was also given it at the same time as Dettman. I don't know anything about these guys, but it looks like the AMM gives their controvesial work some sort of official credibility. I can't imagine a right wing paramilitary group is really qualified to evaluate scientific research and bestow prestige on anyone. I'll try and add some more when I get a chance, though it might not be for a while. Cheers, Bobanny 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, good old Archie. His WP bio mentioned the AMM for a little while and then it was edited out. I haven't worried about putting it back as it seems to mislead people rather than enlighten them! Don't work too hard! I'm trying to have a bit of a WP break, but it's strangely addictive. Maustrauser 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sergio Calligaris
Dear Maustrauser, hope you are well and not too "wikibonded". I also hope I will not aggravate your condition with my comments.
I tried to justify most of "my" statements (and especially those who could be subjected to criticism) by listing the relevant source. Hope you find it more acceptable now. But then of course, as it is in the custom of people like me who suffer from an instict of "over-explaining" everything, I overdid it and now I have some footnotes like the one on Loesser, Leschetitzy and Agosti that are more stub articles than footnotes and therefore need to be sorted out. But for me the important thing, at this stage, was simply to have the "advertisement tag" removed (I know it was fair, bu I didn't like it very much to be honest! :).
I also hope that the other tag about references can go now (about references I made a bit of a mess because I consulted the two version of Slonimsky on different days in different libraries; once I manage to retrieve both I will decide which one to set forth as THE Slonimsky's reference. I also miss other three references but I could not find the works in the libraries - and that's outrageous because we're talking about reference works - and do not want to quote stuff that I do not check personally).
Anyway, hope you don't have an headache at this point of my message?? I will carry on improving the article and perhaps adding a few stubs on the other people mentioned here and there, so every suggestion for future (and present!!) improvement is more than welcome. Take care of yourself, have a great day and....thanks for your patience. Alessandra 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Dear Alessandra — damn fine work. I have removed all the tags. You can never have enough references in my view. It buttresses your article against attack. I have made one minor and one not-so-minor change that I'd like to explain. Firstly, I moved your quote and improved its layout to after the intro. The intro should always remain short, sharp and to the point. I think it looks better just after the intro. Secondly, I removed reference to the International Biographical Centre award of Musician of the Year (or century or decade). IBC is a vanity press and as main contributor to the IBC article, I can say it only makes Calligaris look like an idiot. which is not what he is. I think you can let his achievements stand as they are without claiming an IBC affiliation for him. Anyone can get an IBC award, if they ask.
-
- Great work and I look forward to reading your other articles as you write them. With best wishes, Maustrauser 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Uao! I feel flattered! Thank you for removing the tags and for your recent improvements to the article, which sound very sensible. I did not know about IBC, and whilst I am grateful that you removed the reference for Callig., I am starting thinking that I may get one for myself! Should still choose the award though :) Anyway, thank you again and hope to read you at some other point. Have a good day. Alessandra
[edit] An intriguing AfD
is this one. -- Hoary 11:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the tip off. I've visited the article and AfD. Cheers Maustrauser 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TCIA deletion
Hello
On March 15, you removed my post for the TCIA under Arborist Organizations in the Arborist article. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhughestcia (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- As explained in the edit summary, your addition read like the only people reading WP were North Americans. This is an international collaboration. It also sound like an advertisment for the organization rather than a dispassionate statement. If you think it is really necessary, place it under its own US-based heading, rather than implying that the data applies to the entire world. Thanks. Maustrauser 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kama Sywor Kamanda
Hi,
I just put back « preface by » in Kamanda's article without noticing you had previously deleted this change. Please explain why you consider the English expression « preface by» inappropriate in that case. In have found many occurrences for « preface by » and « preface from » on Internet. I also thought this wording would be more understandable for an English reader. I am wrong?
CM 2007 04 01
-
- Hello. Having reviewed my edit, I simply removed your reference to a Japanese website. As this version of WP is the English version, a Japanese website is not appropriate. I have looked at your new changes and I can't understand why you are listing who wrote the preface. Frankly, who cares? It adds unhelpful information to the article. I'd remove the preface info. Cheers, Maustrauser 10:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
