User talk:Eustress/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Banners

I am sorry for deleting the banner. What is the banner all about, and how do you add one? Thanks for your help.--Hoganhero (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The banner is to be placed on the talk page of all articles within the scope of the BYU project by typing {{WPBYU}}. An article may be associated with more than one banner. --Eustress (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:UNI!!!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Universities! Our goals are to standardize the structure and content of all college and university articles, improve Wikipedia's coverage of these articles (hopefully propelling them to featured article status), and serve as the central resource for all discussions and information related to colleges and universities on Wikipedia.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask one of the project participants or post a question on the talk page. We'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! —Noetic Sage 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Thank you so much for the compliments! It's nice to know my work is appreciated :) Anyway, I had a look through some of your contributions, and I've granted your rollback request. Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and should not be used to revert good faith edits, and certainly should not be used in revert wars. If you're interested in practice before use in the mainspace, take a look at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Acalamari! --Eustress (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Acalamari 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the edits you made on the BYU Accounting Ph.D. prep track page. Overall, you improved the article through your edits and through your challenges. I may not have liked a few of the comments :-), but I fully admit the article is substantially improved because of your work. Good luck in your graduate program...I'll be interested to see how much time you have for Wikipedia in your first few years! Daw44 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yeah, some of the professors said that if I could take a vacation this summer to do so because the first bit will be intense...I've been heavily involved in research and am excited to do even more, but I understand that I have a ton to learn. Anyway, Wikipedia is a fun and convenient hobby for me, as I'm in front of a computer often, so we'll see. Cheers! --Eustress (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Yes, that housing article is presently up for deletion. I hate to see people's work deleted, if it is non-vandalous and useful. Perhaps it should just be made a redirect instead. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, if you proposed the merge, you should state some justification when doing so--it appears the article is still up for deletion anyway. Regards --Eustress (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy-

I declined your speedy on Museum of Art BYU. It was an acceptable stub, and the museum is almost certainly notable enough to pass AfD. db-empty is only for articles which contain no content--see WP:CSD, and WP:STUB. as for Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University‎, I think the article could and should be deleted via AfD, but it doesnt fit under db-group, for it can be read as an implied assertion of importance to be a department of a major university. It's better not to take shortcuts. By the way, though not strictly required, it is considered polite when you nominate for speedy or any form of deletion to notify the person who originated the article. DGG (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates and pointers...very considerate and helpful! --Eustress (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Userpages

You can take anything you like from my user page: the content there is free, and therefore, you are free to use it. Regarding the icons at the top of the page, I changed the "px" in the text, which, to be honest, I have trouble doing sometimes as well. It takes a few previews to get it right. Thanks for the compliments. Acalamari 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Congratulations on bringing the Marriott School of Management up to GA status. You put a lot of work into getting it there. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow...my first barnstar...this is especially rewarding considering it comes from a high-quality editor like yourself. Thanks again! --Eustress (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yao Ming

The Editor's Barnstar
For making edit after edit to Yao Ming, I, Basketball110Talk, hereby award you 'The Editor's Barnstar'. Basketball110Talk 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I can tell you and your colleagues have done a lot of research on the article, so it is a pleasure to see it through to GA status. Thanks again! --Eustress (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for your medicine barnstar, i'm glad you felt my edits deserved such action. If you need anything, just ask. Regards, CycloneNimrodtalk? 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar as well. Daw44 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Thanks very much for your Good Article Review of John McCain. When you get a chance, would you please check if the "natural-born" issue and the "Annapolis image" issue are now adequately addressed? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Most all the issues seem to have been resolved and I have passed the article to GA status. Congrats! --Eustress (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

R v Bailey

I saw that you were reviewing this article and had a concern about the verifiability. I had also wondered about this, and I started a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability in articles on legal cases. Admittedly, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability would have been a better place to ask, but it got a few helpful replies. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...I hope some determination comes about from this discussion...it needs a definitive answer. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It's also customary to use British English spelling for articles dealing with British topics, per WP:MOS. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that...I think I changed a couple but left others. My spell checker just picked them up. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

Thanks for your GA review and listing of the Pendle witch trials. I was very pleasantly surprised the article was picked up for review so quickly, and your suggestions certainly helped to improve it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! --Eustress (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey inquiry

Ack! Thanks for letting me know my sig got left off, I have been copying from my clipboard, and somewhere I lost my sig! I'll go back and add it. Yep it's legit, see discussion at WT:WGA; also see results so far of the first 19 surveys at WT:GAU. (And there was a longer discussion at WT:MoS). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the reply. --Eustress (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox COI?

Are you related to all the purported "founders" listed on your sandbox? I only ask because it seems as though the "lines" are lines from a pedigree chart and all of them are labeled as "founders" to perhaps reach notability standards. If not, I do apologize, but it's my right as an editor to ask. If I'm correct, please review Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest concerning autobiographies and close relationships. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calm down dude. It was one edit on the Monson page. No need to go on a rampage. I never put anything in Wikipedia unless it is well sourced. If I add to an article that someone is a "founder" then they are. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of the conflict of interest policy and have helped root out vanity articles, etc. from other editors. I'm comfortable that these articles are notable and most (if not all) have been edited by other users and vetted in some way. I invite you to do the same -- I have nothing to hide. I just ask you to assume good faith. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to get mad...my inquiry was made politely and in all sincerity. I assume good faith until things look blatantly out of line, then I have the duty to investigate. Judging your response, it would seem that I was correct regarding your relation to the founders. --Eustress (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not mad. I don't think there's any COI problem because I believe they're all notable. I've created a truckload of pioneer-era bio articles on Wikipedia (a lot of the historic Pres of the Seventy, for example); the listing you're talking about represents just a fraction of the articles I've created -- it's a list of the ones I'm especially interested in. I may or may not be related to a few of them (please don't make me go there -- a lot of us editors are trying hard to maintain anonymity), but they are all exposed and out there, available to be edited (and most have been) by other editors. I don't think there's a COI issue relation-wise, If there's a consensus that one is, after all, not up to par vis a vis the notability guidelines, I won't be devastated to see it deleted. But I think their notability is pretty well in order, so I'm not too worried. Thanks, actually, for taking the time to edit them. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. --Eustress (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Eustress, please accept my very sincere and humble thanks for the Barnstar. The recognition is very flattering. It will have a place of honor on my homepage. And, of course, if there's anything I can do to help you at any point, please let me know. Thank you again. - Philippe 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You deserve it! Best --Eustress (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Marriott School

Good work on the Marriott School article BTW. I brought that article into the world and it languished for a long time... nice to see it on track for GA status. Sorry for coming across as abrasive earlier. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for the note. We had the article up to GA for a short-while...I was frustrated by its demotion; hence, my not editing the page since...but hopefully I'll muster up the courage to take another look at it. --Eustress (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Thank you for adopting me! I'm really excited about starting on Wikipedia, and I am glad that you will help me figure out how the website works. =]

                                          -Pandagirl510 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Recent image upload to Marriott School

Eustress, I just wanted to let you know that I there might be a problem with the image you recently uploaded (BusinesswithIntegrity.JPG) and placed into the Marriott School article. You state in the image descripting that it is a low resolution scan, which is a requirement for the use of non-free images under fair-use rationale. But, the image itself is a very high resolution (2,304 × 3,072) image. I would suggest reducing the resolution of this scan to avoid any copyright violations. These things tend to get tagged pretty quickly. will381796 (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Never tried this before, but I saw it used on another article. I just took a picture of the book cover...would saving the file as a smaller file do the trick? Do you know what the resolution requirement is? Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the exact definition of low resolution. But I've seen other fair use images some where along the line of 500 pixels. Somewhere around there that will allow you to maintain the correct aspect ratio should be fine. I think you will either have to re-scan it at a lower resolution or see if you can make it smaller in a program like photoshop. will381796 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into it. --Eustress (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hello. I'm glad that you've been contributing to Texas university articles lately. I think I've helped reach a compromise on the UT Austin article (see talk), but either way, please note (and I only state this since I understand you're a new user) that it is unpolite to continually revert the same edit. If there continues to be an issue after one revert, the issue should be discussed on the talk page, and then action can be taken after a consensus is reached. In your case, your recent actions place you close to violation of the three-revert rule, which leads to being blocked from editing. (See Wikipedia:Edit_war for more info.) Anyway, I understand your edits have probably been done in good faith; hence, why I'm approaching you personally. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The unpoliteness of reverting an edit without comment or discussion can certainly be placed back in your lap as well Eustress. And keep in mind that I was the first one to discuss these edits in the talk section of the article. Also keep in mind that your original edit was very much a POV edit and was therefore worthy of revision. --Macae (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yikes...I don't think I deserved such a response to my sincere and altruistic comment on your personal talk page. I noticed that you only have about 100 edits and were probably not familiar with the complexities of Wikipedia, thus my comment was meant to simply open a dialogue and make you aware of some policies to which most new users are not aware. Regarding discussion, you were the first one to discuss in talk (which you should have since your edits were being reverted), but you only discussed after it was reverted a second time (and even then you still continued with the edit). Anyway, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope we can collaborate more efficiently in the future. Best --Eustress (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


WT:GAU Survey

Hi Eustress, I notice you deleted the Survey from the Texas A&M article. I haven't seen anyone delete the survey yet, did you mean to do that? My thinking is that people will be able to say the survey was biased if we remove it from those pages where the outcome was "fail"; we specifically want to survey both happy and unhappy campers. Fortunately, every single respondant so far (except arguably for 1) has been positive, and it's nice to be able to say that this is an unbiased result. (Feel free to respond here, I always watchlist when I post on a user's talk page.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

lol...sorry about that...I must have deleted it when I was posting my final GA eval, but I see you've since re-added it. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SHRM article

A tag has been placed on Society for Human Resource Management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Society for Human Resource Management and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hello. I have replaced the Verifiability tag which you removed from the SHRM article. Please do not construe a temporary absence of commentary by other editors to indicate that "resolution" of a dispute has been achieved.

Additionally, I have added an NPOV tag due to the obviously promotional nature of the article, and also nominated the article for Speedy Deletion under the Spam rationale. I believe it will be necessary to start over from scratch with this article in order to achieve an acceptable encyclopedia entry.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have added a request for you on the article's talk page. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey there, I haven't been on Wikipedia for quite a while, I was letting my adoption proposal simmer for a couple of weeks/months before coming back to it. I just got the message. Thanks for sending the offer to adopt me, which I would happily accept. Thanks again for the offer! McKenzie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistercather (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Argentine info

Thanks for the help Eustress, I'll try to improve my written English, however being the case, I'll be consulting about some English-Castilian traslation... have a nice evening. user:Carau —Preceding comment was added at 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Austen action figure image

Just to say that if Awadewit is saying the figure+packaging image is helpful, then it is probably worth your effort attempting to get a copyright release for some version of it. If it would help, I can give examples of the emails that worked for me. BTW Awadewit is IMO transparent/straightforward to work with, so no need for warring. Good luck - Pointillist (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for the Barnstar! :) Yes, I fixed your userpage a week or so ago. :) Acalamari 01:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BusinesswithIntegrity.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BusinesswithIntegrity.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your assistance with this picture, Melesse. I am impressed by your thoroughness and consideration every time I get to interact with you. I have updated the image description page and hope you will review the picture one more time to make sure I got it right. I'm new to posting pictures and know I have a lot to learn, but I can't help jumping right in because I feel pictures can add a lot of value to the Wikipedia community. Please let me know if I need to do anything else to fix this picture.
Additionally, I've encountered similar problems on another recent post. Would you mind taking a look at it and giving me your suggestions? Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that looks good, so I'll remove the tag. Just a really little suggestion though, it'd be nice if you took a scan of the book instead, because the picture is a little bit distorted and has a bright patch from a light. As for the picture of the action figure, someone has said that action figure pictures aren't allowed at Commons (I wouldn't know because it's a different project and I only upload my own pictures of people there), so sorry but I think there's really nothing you can do. :( Melesse (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thnx4leBS

A belated thank you for the Barnstar. I can't imagine why I deserve it, but I'm feeling less down now. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You deserve it...great job! --Eustress (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

East Carolina University

Thank you for looking over that article and adding value to it. I pretty much wrote the whole thing and it is in dire need of new eyes to help it reach WP:FA. Also, thank you for my first barnstar:). PGPirate 17:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a great article and you've worked hard on it. --Eustress (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

Caution There is currently a backlog of 57 users at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. Please consider offering adoption to one or more of these users. Don't forget to change their {{adoptme}} template to {{adoptoffer|Eustress/Archive 1}}. Thank you for your continued participating in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. xenocidic (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Adopted!

Why would I want anyone else? You sound great. (Nuzzling under the wing)

Thanks!

-Loni
User:Lbrock

Sounds great. I'll give you further instruction on your talk page! --Eustress (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

B school images

The images were rearranged for viewers on high resolution settings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what that means, but your recent change looks better—still don't think Columbia should be singled out though. --Eustress (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Each article should have a main image. It should either be a school that lead the ranking of rankings or has the most #1's. However, since Columbia is the only portrait image, they are harder to include in the reformatted image groupings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I'm not looking for excuses, just stating a bias of this FL. --Eustress (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I had chosen U of Chicago as the main image and someone changed last month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for The Barnstar of Fine ArtsWmpearl (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome...great job! --Eustress (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

Talk in the discussion of the article, which you should have done before undertaking such a radical change to an article tinged with controversy.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but if you're the one reverting edits, you should spark the conversation. --Eustress (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Any discussion should talk part in the discussion part of the article so all editors can view it.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review: Naulakha Pavilion

Hi, while thanking for your comments, I have updated the article. Cheers.--IslesCapeTalk 17:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issues. I've since passed the article to GA status...congratulations! --Eustress (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

Hey, I thought I'd drop you a note and say hi.

I requested page protection because both of you, as I saw it, had violated the 3 revert rule. If I had reported him, you'd likely have been blocked too. So I just wanted to remind you to keep a cool head, and remember 3RR. No matter which version it may be at, it's better to take the high road, and be a better person.

Thanks for your hard work. GreenJoe 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for stepping in—you made a great decision. I too want what's best in the article (whether it's in my wording or not), but I also want more than one editor (who has ownership issues) to decide what that is. Look forward to working with you! --Eustress (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See you in the sandbox.

Thanks for your help, see you in my sandbox talk. I really appreciate you! I agree about the award, I am reading up now.

-L
Loni (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar

Wow! It's definitely made my day. :) Cheers again!! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

UoP

Hello again. We're moving forward (kind of) on the UoP article, and just thought you'd like to weigh in. Best --Eustress (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you on crack?!? I don't see any sort of consensus over at Talk:University of Phoenix. All I see is Mystery dude saying he's going to put shit back in no matter what, and you accusing TallMagic of COI. I STRONGLY suggest that you be careful who you accuse of COI. From what I can tell, TallMagic is somewhat on your side. I suggest instead of fighting him, you work with him. From where I sit, it seems not only is there no compromise, but you are Mystery dude are polar opposites, and are going nowhere fast. I suggest you may need the intervention of a mediator. GreenJoe 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yikes...not sure I deserved such a response to my sincere and kind inquiry. --Eustress (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your neurons and masons must have merged with Mysteryquest's ;-). Did you deserve that? Maybe, maybe not. I was just calling it as I saw it. Would you prefer that I sugar coat it? Honestly, just do your best, and be more open to compromise. I'm sorry that I wasn't more polite. GreenJoe 15:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My hero

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for going above and beyond to help, there isn't an award that properly expresses how wonderful it is to be mentored by you. Loni (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow...I think that's the nicest compliment and gesture I've ever received on Wikipedia. Wikipedia can be quite overwhelming for people like me and you who really want to make honest improvements, so I'm trying my best to help you in any way I can. Thanks again and keep up the good work! --Eustress (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I could not find an article that expressed my thoughts exactly, so one of my next contributions is going to be a new barnstar award, you will see it first. :) Loni (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
lol...thanks! Creating barnstars is fun—I created the WikiProject Medicine Barnstar :) --Eustress (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Branch Wars article

Hello there Eustress! Just a short while ago, you quick-failed the article Branch Wars, which I had as a GAN, due to lack of references in the lead, plot, and production sections. While I agree with the lead/production section problems, which I have remedied shortly after you quick-failed the article, the plot section doesn't require sources due to the episode's ability to be used as a source. Since the quick-fail concerns have been remedied, I was wondering if you'd like to take another look and review the article. No problem if you can't or choose not to though, I can simply renominate the article. Have a good day, Mastrchf (t/c) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice that later about the plot summaries and revised my GA review, but it did merit a quick-fail for the other two sections. Because it was failed, if you wouldn't mind re-nominating the article (we have to follow protocol, and if I nominate it, then I can't review it), then I'd be happy to revisit the article. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the darn protocol! Sure, I'll renominate it in just a little while. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I re-evaluated the article and have since passed it to GA status. Congrats! --Eustress (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BYU

Thanks for the invite to WP:BYU; I signed up.JackWilliams (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool...I look forward to working more with you! --Eustress (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I don't think I will be able to review your list. I am very busy at the moment and am still trying to get to 3 other requests. I also don't know much about lists. You might get a few reviews by leaving a note at WP:UNI (on the talk page) asking for a review. Sorry. KnightLago (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know admins are busy and very much appreciate what you do. Maybe another time...thanks! --Eustress (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: MiszaBot III Usage

Hi, I didn't see a thread on the bot of T:BYU, so I'll just reply here. I'm wondering what reasons you have for removing the bot at the moment. The reason why I installed it in the first place was to sort out old conversations less than I think it was 7 days to minimize scrolling (old edit wars were bundled with side conversations that were affecting general productivity). It was later on changed by another editor to change the counter to 105 days. Personally, having an automatic archiving bot should not hinder normal talk page operations and I have not heard any complaints regarding the usage of the bot apart from its initial archive during an edit war, something that was fixed weeks ago. Please let me know on your thoughts.  :-) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think 105 days is way too long for an article of this magnitude—moreover, any archival period would be difficult with such an article, as I think the editors involved in talk can best determine when text can be archived. I guess I'm just saying that the automation is nice on some articles but not as helpful on this one. I would just like it removed so we can archive the old-fashioned way :) Thanks for your consideration. --Eustress (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I still think automatic archiving of old conversation is not as bad of an idea as you're painting the picture. The BYU article has been known to have "waves" of edit wars. During which the article and its talk page often becomes dormant. During the last edit war, I did not enjoy scrolling through over 15 other rather long conversations before even beginning to read through the comments. I did inquire regarding implementing the bot and I did not get opposition. So far, after weeks of deployment, you are still the first editor who has come to me regarding the issue. Please be more specific as to what exactly you feel uncomfortable about using MiszaBot. Thanks.  :-) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gracias

Thanks for the Barnstar. I really appreciate it and also appreciate all the work you're doing on BYU-related articles. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No hay de que. ¡Tú lo mereces! --Eustress (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reid

I have since reviewed the guidelines for politicians and now agree that Reid is notable; however, please review WP:Etiquette. --Eustress (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend reading Wikipedia guidelines before placing tags. Besides passing notability guildeines for politicians, this person is notable per WP:N and WP:BIO, even if he didn't pass the guidelines for politicians (which he does). Please review WP:OSTRICH before placing notability tags. --Oakshade (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

American Leak Detection

Excellent work. Thank you for your efforts as well! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read the article. I immediately recognized its former name, Leak Busters! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Norman Ralph Bowen

Re: Your "notability" tag.

My "Norman Ralph Bowen" article concerns a noted newspaper editor and journalist, and includes third-party references. He is a published author and a well known church leader. Do not tag this article again. Thank you

Pbsolomon (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Marriott School of Management

Hi, Eustress, I've withdrawn the FAC per your request. Just a reminder: please leave the {{FAC}} template on the talk page so Gimmebot can update the article history. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Hope to see you in FAC again! --Eustress (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NY 9L

Thanks for the review. As seen lately, on WT:GA, Road GAs for NY have been a problem, and this one REALLY lacks history. However, I did some research and found more information. I also went and fixed the other problems. I have renominated it for GA. Thanks again.Mitch32contribs 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AWC Thingy

I replied to your comment on the AWC talk page. Enjoy --SharkfaceT/C 23:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I again replied. --SharkfaceT/C 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

MOTD Barnstar image

Hi. I created an MOTD barnstar image out of Public Domain images, and put it in paint. However, because the original file is in BMP, it just won't load! In fact, it shouldn't load, but I've done it before, by changing .bmp to .jpg in that other image, the experimental water anomaly (see my uploasion log). However, it just won't work this time. Is there a way I can convert the image to .jpg so I can upload it, or should I ask a highly active user? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

YesYResolved. ~AH1(TCU) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to your log when I got your messages. Let me know if you need any more help, and thanks for your understanding. --Eustress (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heidelberg

Please see article talk page. Thanks. Fred Plotz (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eustress, would you please see recent changes, and drop a note if, in the light of previous discussion, you still regard a content dispute as current; if so, please express your remaining concerns. If not so, please also indicate if you're willing to pass it, if renominated. As far as GA criterion #5 is concerned, I believe there can be no talk of an "ongoing edit war". Thanks Fred Plotz (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm done with that article. You may renominate it and let another reviewer have at it. --Eustress (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. No hard feelings ;) Bye Fred Plotz (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RPI and WorldAtWork

I have tagged the Recognition Professionals International and WorldatWork articles as advertising. Since you appear to have written the articles in their entirety, I wanted to advise you of this and provide an opportunity for you to edit these articles yourself. If you choose to do so, please be mindful of the prior discussion under the SHRM article. If you do not wish to, I will do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I removed any advertisement issues, using your SHRM text as a template for the Intro. If there are further problems, skip the tag and go ahead and fix the issues—they're short, stub articles. --Eustress (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

I appreciate it. I just took a look at the WikiProjects Awards page, trying to see if some of the projects I was involved with had awards or not. When I couldn't tell, I realized that something had to be done. So I did it. :-) Thanks again! --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for being bold and moving Wikipedia forward! --Eustress (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello - when you did your stuff with the various Matthew McCauley pages, you conducted at least one copy and paste page moved. I've undone this, because copy and paste page moves violate the GFDL, because the page history is lost. After undoing all that, I've re-created Matthew McCauley (disambiguation) (although without the Wiktionary link, which seemed to me to serve no purpose, although I left Matthew McCauley pointing to Matthew McCauley (politician), just because there are a bunch of pages that currently link to Matthew McCauley intending it to be to the politician. If you want to change all of those links, feel free to point the main one back to the disambig. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure how to do the moves best but wanted to be bold and get them done. I don't think your changes adversely affected any of my edits; your's just helped restore the page history for the politician...great job and thanks! --Eustress (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:FootnotesSmall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:FootnotesSmall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rockfang (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello! I'd like to take you up on your offer of adoption. >_> <_<...now what do I do? TMSTKSBK (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great...I've dropped a note on your talk page! --Eustress (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thanks for the barnstar and your very kind words, I am glad my peer reviews are both noticed and helpful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight: Physical therapy

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Ascending cholangitis was selected.
Hope you can help…


NCurse work 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is great news...thank you! --Eustress (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Succession crisis

Despite your request, I reverted to "unhide" the background section. Part of my reason for this is practical. How can someone, probably an irregular editor, provide citations if they cannot see that such citations are requested? Also, believe me, three months of posting is truly no time at all in the lifetime of Wikipedia. And, thirdly, I really don't like citation requests in the first place. I class them as a variety of vandalism -- think tagging on a nice clean fence -- and think they would be more appropriate on associated talk pages. It is my general policy, developed slowly during my time here, that I do not delete or "hide" material without cause. If I have concerns about a section, I research, document and rewrite rather than criticize, tag or delete. I hope you will understand my reasoning in this instance. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions, but your general policy is trumped by WP:PG—specifically WP:V. I have, however, facilitated the potential re-addition of the text (when properly supported with references) by moving the text to the talk page. This is standard Wiki protocol; if you would like to help, please look for supporting reliable sources. Best --Eustress (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been around here quite some time, kid. I know how the place works - everything policy related "happens" behind closed "doors". So, sorry, I don't care much about standard Wiki protocol or policies. If the Wiki ideal is concensus then all editors should "vote" on policy issues. But if all editors don't have a voice in developing policy and procedures, no consensus can be reached. Consequently, any appeal to policy and procedure pages leaves me cold. I would urge you to negotiate with other editors -- and sideline "authoritative" (as in "I'm right, look it says so here!") appeals to policy. I would vote for a return of the section to the article space, and will replace it there within a few days. WBardwin (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You're an imbecile and a jerk (It was not right of you,) calling me a "kid" and appealing to your experience over well-established Wikipedia policies...especially since I reasoned with another editor's logic and returned the page to its prior state yesterday. --Eustress (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"imbecile and a jerk" - obviously you chose to take offense when none was intended. I wonder why. Well, should I quote from well-established wiki policies on politeness and courtesy - Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Abusing other people on their talk page? You're in violation! Should I report you? Obviously, from your user page you are significantly younger than I, graduating from our Alma Mater many years after I did. You are also "younger" on Wikipedia. "Kid" is hardly derogatory in either instance, often being used in personal discourse as a friendly word in the "real world". Come now, let us grow up here. It is true that many experiences here have made me somewhat cynical about Wiki policies and procedures and particularly cynical about the use of templates and citation requests. I am consequently impatient with people who take action solely based on them or who simply quote them rather than actively working with other editors. I appreciated you leaving the material on the article page, and noted my ideas about improving the section on the talk page. My library on the Succession crisis is somewhat limited, but I have put out a call to another LDS project member who has better sources. Perhaps we can come up with the needed sources or rewrite the section. But, just as quoting policy doesn't help build an encylopedia, neither does taking offense or calling names. WBardwin (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my offensive remarks (which I have struck out)—in the future, I will strive to address editor actions and not editor character. To clarify my take on this situation, I felt that "kid" was derogatory (a personal attack, which I shouldn't have matched anyway) and thought your comment was out of place since I had previously resolved your issue, rendering our policy disagreements moot; i.e., I thought I was compromising by going along with you wishes, and then (I felt) you wrote me some condescending message. Anyway, I again apologize for my personal attacks and wish you the best in your future editing. --Eustress (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LDS templates

I've reverted some of the changes you made to some of the historical LDS templates. You can't just change a historical template to a "current members only" one, especially not without any discussion of changing it before you do it! If you think we need templates for current members only (which I am dubious of the need for), then make a new template, but don't destroy the work others have done on making the historical templates, which are in place on every historical member of the presidency of the seventy/presiding bishopric. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think my justifications (per the talk pages) made sense and were more organizationally sound, but I'll be reasonable and create other templates. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Community of Christ template

I've also reverted your taking Joseph Smith, Jr. off the lists of presidents of the Community of Christ. To do so is POV. Smith was never the president of any church except one called the Church of Christ, which was later renamed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This church doesn't exist anymore, and instead we have hundreds of schismatic churches, each of which argues it is the original church or rightful successor to Smith's church. Thus, every single one claims Smith as its first president. So he either appears on all the templates, or none of them, and it better reflects what the churches themselves claim to have him on all of them. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply on Template talk:CofCpresidents. --Eustress (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WBardwin

Hello, Eustress. I happen to have WBardwin's talkpage watchlisted. Please don't speak to him like that, or to anybody else, either. It's all right to take pride in your knowledge of policy, but I think you'll find you have better success in communicating with editors if you don't foreground that pride quite so much. As W pointed out, it was pretty inappropriate to speak to him as if from a great height. (I won't even get on to the names you called him—I'm sure you soon regretted them.) Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 08:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

I called it like it was and was right on the money. It is unfortunate that any more editor would use his or her experience as a way to circumvent policy and bite a newcomer (or, in this case, a less experienced editor). In reaction to WBardwin's comments, I chose to be bold and stand up for what I believed to be right, even if that meant being a bit uncivil in order to call out a more experienced editor per WP:IGNORE. If you ask me, WBardwin was the one commenting from atop a pedestal—calling me a "kid" and appealing to his high edit count. Anyway, our exchange was short and I consider it closed; this situation did not merit your additional commentary...if you're so bored you're watching the talk pages of experienced editors, I can give you some articles to work on if you'd like. --Eustress (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Right on the money"? I notice that the only well-known policy you fail to invoke above is WP:NPA, which means "don't attack people" and ""Comment on content, not on the contributor". Any special reason you leave that one out...? As for the rest of the alphabet soup, don't you think it's rather... elastic of you to be still milking WP:BITE after 7—8 months as a Wikipedia editor? Also, WP:BOLD does not actually contain any recommendation to boldly insult editors. And the troll's favorite WP:IGNORE is by no means an exemption from accountability. Quite the opposite, really. Please don't be so rude; not to Wbardwin, and not to me. (Of course you know nothing about what mainspace content he or I may or may not have contributed; nor am I about to inform you of it.) Just don't be so rude. To anybody. This is the second time of asking. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC).
I apologize for my rudeness to you and have already tried to make amends with WBardwin. Best --Eustress (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for June 2008

 The current WPBYU collaboration for the period ending June 30, 2008 is:

BYU Jerusalem Center

Our July 2008 project is TBD. If you would like to nominate an article for a future project or see what articles we've already collaborated on, please visit the Collaboration talk page.

Thanks to all those who helped out with May's collaborative project (J. Reuben Clark Law School) and other BYU-related articles. I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go Cougars! --Eustress (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Status

Hiya, thanks for the support, but yea, your thoughts were right, you don't have 600 edits made before 1 March 2008, so your name isn't on the list of people eligible to vote. Of course, that just means you have to wait till next year to vote (or maybe run yourself) :) MBisanz talk 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Wikispace must these edits be in? I have plenty of edits in WikiEnglish, but the voting must be for something different. --Eustress (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They rules are 600 edits total to any namespace before 1 March 2008. You have about 400 edits of that type, so that is what the issue was. MBisanz talk 23:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Choice

I was thinking the BYU Campus article, but we can do that later. Wrad (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Succession crisis

I'm concerned that I saw you called WBardin an "imbecile and a jerk", and were extremely rude to Bishonen as well when she tried to discuss this with you. Perhaps you should consider taking a wikibreak, or stepping back from things until you are able to approach things in a calmer fashion? Both WBardin and Bishonen are extremely experienced and could be a great asset to you if you do not burn your bridges with dismissive comments and personal attacks. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have apologized to both users. Best --Eustress (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well done, and I'm sure (knowing both editors) that they will be more than happy to "forgive and forget" and move on. Just remember in the future that if you find yourself getting heated or upset, it is better to take a brief break and avoid saying things you might regret than to try to amend later! Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance, or if you ever have an issue you're not sure how to approach. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

CofC

I greatly appreciate your message. I have worked well on many pages (Joseph Smith, Jr. & those related to polygamy and the succession crisis, etc.) with editors who self-identify as LDS and we rarely have discord as we strive for NPOV. We've also found a common front in battling POV/vandalism from 'antis'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism

Ah, it was a Grawp run. He hit the userspace of several users besides mine. Acalamari 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

BYU Project

Thanks for the note...I will do my best, though my area of "expertise" (if you can call it that) is pretty restricted to BYU-Idaho itself and a limited amount on BYU since I attended BYU-I for three years. On most BYU articles I will probably be good for making sure paragraphs make sense and fit together and minor things like that. Anyway, I hope the BYU-Idaho article can get GA status as well. It has come a loooooong ways already from where it used to be...--JonRidinger (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Challenges

Can you please provide links to the articles you've reviewed? iMatthew T.C. 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure...I listed them at User:Sharkface217/Awards Center#iMatthew.27s Challenges—the ten articles include University of Heidelberg, New York State Route 9L‎, Microsoft Visual Studio, Branch Wars, Harry Potter Trading Card Game, Wilkins Peak, Brain Gym, Naulakha Pavilion, Water privatization in Brazil, and Yao Ming. --Eustress (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to tell you this, but I can't get you your barnstar until later tonight, or tomorrow, as I have to leave right now. Cheers! iMatthew T.C. 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You know...

... If we wrote to BYU I bet they'd let us use some nice pictures of theirs for these articles. Wrad (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

lol...I was just looking at http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/pres-sm/images/14-242-1.gif and thinking the same thing :) --Eustress (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Image:Environment Barnstar.png The Environmental Barnstar
Awarded for support in WikiProject Environment OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the challenge! --Eustress (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
Congratulations on completing the challenge and reviewing 10 articles at WP:GAN. Great job, and keep it up! iMatthew T.C. 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the worthy challenge! --Eustress (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)