User talk:Brossow/Archives/2015-10
Re: endless list of ESP models
editJust to update. QelDroma06 (who created all those pages) quit Wikipedia over a year ago. Even when he created the article there was a quick buzz of conversation at the guitarist project that the pages were overkill. At that time I think they AGF'd that QelDroma06 would "do the right thing". Since he as quit I could safely say that all those pages should be re-directed to the main ESP page and any cited content (I don't think there is much) could be incorporated into that page. Just a thought anyways. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think they just need to be deleted, period. Even redirecting to the main article is far more than the pages merit and will just encourage others to do the same thing. It's essentially serving as a (bad) product catalog. Thanks for the input! -- B.Rossow talkcontr 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I hear ya. I think QelDroma06's heart was the right place when he created them. But for most when you open them up they basically just say... "its a guitar" and thats about it. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I have deproded all these article. I started merging them to List of guitars manufactured by ESP, but it is an exhaustive task and I could only get through so many in one day. I will continue to merge some each day until they are all gone. Please be patient though, as they are a ridiculous number of them (as you know).--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
dePRODing of articles
editHello Brossow, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
- Uhm.... lol? - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Brossow, Abu Torsam has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, Please guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rankers_Point_Coaching_Institute_Indore So you agreed with me in deleting the article, which is failing to comply with rules & policies. But debate been included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Organizations So what i need to do to get this article deleted , or it will be automatically deleted in few days..Whats next?. ( Abu Torsam 18:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC))
- Sorry for the slow reply. As I understand it, the AfD will be open for a week. After that time, an admin will look at the discussion and make a decision on whether to keep or delete the article. (It's not a vote but rather a way of gathering input and consensus.) Now all you have to do is be patient for a few days and then see what happens. --B.Rossow · talk 20:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Think there will be any use in filing an SPI on the three IPs active in that discussion? It's pretty easy to connect them...I think I looked them up with a different tool than you, but in my lookup both the 88.x and 213.x were registered to IPs in A Coruna (city in northwestern Spain) and 83.x was registered in Madrid—but that IP was only used for one spurt of editing, and had no overlap with the others (i.e., the operator was probably in Madrid for a day or something like that). Personally, I think there's already enough to block them just by DUCK (based on the fact that they all tend to repeat the same talking points and sometimes even take turns responding to others in the same thread), although since I've posted several comments at the AfD I can't intervene like that. It's harder to connect the account User:CharlotteGoiar to them without a checkuser.
Mainly, I am just hoping to end their disruption of the AfD. I'm not concerned about their arguments because anyone who takes the time to read them will see that there is obviously no foundation for them. The problem, though, is that they're flooding the AfD so much that it's become a distraction from the real discussion, and the whole thing is likely to be TL;DR for any admin who would be the closer. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure wouldn't hurt. FWIW, I used Geobytes to pinpoint the IPs geographically and the nslookup at DNS411 to find the IP block owners. While the obvious (and apparently oblivious) sockpuppetry is amusing, it is starting to overwhelm the discussion. Frankly, I think discovering that Goiar/Guren/whoever owns the site being used as the primary reference should by itself seal the deal, but I found some of my research interesting -- everything from outright ridicule and debunking of the HBS "theory" to an entry mentioning legal action against the HBS founder. If you do file an SPI, let me know and I'll support it gladly. --B.Rossow · talk 18:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- FOLLOWUP: It appears someone (Uncle G) has already done this: Wikipedia:SPI#CharlotteGoiar. :-) --B.Rossow · talk 18:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I filed it at the same time and didn't notice until after clicking save; both mine and Uncle G's are located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Confirmed by a checkuser: [1]. Now just waiting for Thatcher to update the SPI and block the accounts. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just saw that myself. Good stuff. I have NO problem with people arguing strenuously for things they believe in, even if they're WAAAAYYY out in left field. But when they use sockpuppets to make themselves appear credible, that's another story entirely. Good job! --B.Rossow · talk 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD votes
editHi. I noticed that you regularly make dozens of votes in favor of deletion within a matter of minutes at AfD. Given the rate at which you post, and the fact that the rationale is exclusively "per nom", I'm afraid I have to question the amount of research that you put into each discussion. In the future could you please take more time to assess an article and explain your reasoning? Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for questioning my integrity and ability to critically assess the value of stub or trash articles. I really appreciate it. When a nomination adequately explains the reasons for deletion, why should I waste my time retyping what was already said? I've given due consideration to each and every article I've voted on, delete or keep. When an article merits in-depth research, I've done the requisite research. See the discussion immediately above this one, for example. That I can read and form an informed opinion quickly shouldn't be held against me and I quite frankly resent you doing so. Your accusation is out of line, way off base, grossly exaggerated ("dozens of votes [...] within a matter of minutes"? Puh-leez!) and patently offensive. --B.Rossow · talk 01:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please also note that my modus operandi for AfD votes involves opening a number of candidates at once in separate tabs, reviewing each, and then voting on several; the process then repeats. Despite your exaggerations, I can see how you might have been concerned. Some benefit of the doubt for a long-time editor with substantial recent and historical contributions would have been nice, however. --B.Rossow · talk 16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was a friendly suggestion. I regret that you've taken it so personally, but thanks nonetheless for taking the time to respond. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- When someone says, "I have to question the amount of research that you put into each discussion," and asks me to "take more time to assess an article" without the slightest clue as to how much consideration I've actually given each and every article voted upon, then yeah, I take it personally. I've got pretty thick skin, but I think most people would see that as accusatory rather than merely "a friendly suggestion." Regardless, I've said all that needs saying and more, so I'm gonna drop this. --B.Rossow · talk 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never "accused" you of anything. But this is going to go nowhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- On a side note, I apologize if you took offense from my post—it was obviously not my intention. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never "accused" you of anything. But this is going to go nowhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- When someone says, "I have to question the amount of research that you put into each discussion," and asks me to "take more time to assess an article" without the slightest clue as to how much consideration I've actually given each and every article voted upon, then yeah, I take it personally. I've got pretty thick skin, but I think most people would see that as accusatory rather than merely "a friendly suggestion." Regardless, I've said all that needs saying and more, so I'm gonna drop this. --B.Rossow · talk 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was a friendly suggestion. I regret that you've taken it so personally, but thanks nonetheless for taking the time to respond. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please also note that my modus operandi for AfD votes involves opening a number of candidates at once in separate tabs, reviewing each, and then voting on several; the process then repeats. Despite your exaggerations, I can see how you might have been concerned. Some benefit of the doubt for a long-time editor with substantial recent and historical contributions would have been nice, however. --B.Rossow · talk 16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Rationales
editThere's a lot of discussion of what "the participants in the prior AFD discussion" meant. As one of the actual participants in that first AFD discussion, perhaps you would like to visit the second AFD discussion to make it clear what your view was, and is now. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:MSU logo.gif
edit
Thanks for uploading File:MSU logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Response
editSorry about that. I usually undo vandalism any and every time I see it myself. Admittedly, it was hilarious at the time being... but yeah it was completely stupid to go and do that. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
3RR
editI won't template you per WP:DTTR but really, edit warring to remove a refimprove tag? If you can improve the references and the article do so. But don't edit war to remove a tag that is sorely needed on that PR piece. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- (1) It wasn't an edit war but correcting your mistake or laziness. (2) I reverted your mistake once, not three times. Learn to count. (3) You obviously haven't checked the references if you think it's not referenced properly. Honest to God, Monsieur Monster, load up two screens side by side as I did and check the text here with the references cited. Clueless.... B.Rossow · talk 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- An experienced editor knows that 3RR is not an allowance and that you can be blocked for less than 3. Removing tags that have not been addressed is disruptive editing. Clueless? Grow up please and join the select few who are invited not to comment on my talk page. Refer to WP:AGF for the reasons why. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
John Stango Concerns
editHi Brossow,
I am not sure how best to reach other individuals on Wikipedia, so I have posted this message in multiple places. I hope that we can continue the discussion. Thank you for your time.
Hi everyone. I am happy to clear up the issues voiced here. As for the Coro article--that was my first stab at editing a Wiki. I am not employed by or even associated with Coro. I read about them in a college class and found that their article was lacking. As for the John Stango piece, I am John's cousin. After talking with him on numerous occasions, I noticed that his Wiki did not reflect his actual role in the art world or the type of work that he does. I hoped to remedy that by incorporating the sources you see and information from conversations with him. I am very open to making this a legitimate article and would like to know how best to proceed. I did my best to use information that could be backed up by references. Again, please let me know what else I can do. As a newbie editor, I am still figuring out how all of this works. Thanks for your help. (Wikiforyou82 (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC))
Just a couple of policy things
editLook, I'm sorry I lost my temper at you. However, please read the verifiability policy carefully with regard to accessibility and language of sources. Sources neither need to be in English -- though if English sources can be found they are preferred! -- nor do they need to be accessible on the internet. The New Grove, which most of us who write articles on western classical music use extensively as a reliable source, is only available by subscription. It's also available in a library -- both as the 29-volume set and as a free resource on library computers. I have both. Some people who write in the field choose to reference the hard copy rather than the website (the text is almost, but not exactly identical). Everything in the Pollice article I pulled from those two places. He's a minor composer from Sicily, and very little has been written about him, though I could probably find more sources in Italian. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul, no hard feelings -- in either direction, I hope! I appreciate you pointing out the policy on subscription-only sources, because I wasn't aware of it and clearly should have done more research of my own. Thanks for your patience. :-) B.Rossow · talk 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- No problem ... again, sorry I yelled at you. Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Simple Gifts edit on 19dec2011 at 16:10
editOne of us is about to learn something useful in the asking a question. :)
The description of your edit says you removed irrelevant information. The only information that was removed was the sentence "Of the recording by guitarist...".
I'm curious, if this is deemed irrelevant, why wouldn't more of the remaining information in the "In popular culture" section be removed too (e.g., In 2009, electronic artist Scooter...)?
I obviously agree that not all recordings of the song deserve to be noted. Perhaps one person's definition of popular culture might not include Mr. Parkening's recording and if that is truly the reason for its exclusion, then I would argue that it belongs in the "Modern arrangements" section.
Thanks. Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6times7 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I removed it because the line (Of the recording by guitarist Christopher Parkening, the liner note states: "I know of no other place in the classic guitar repertoire where a [bass] string is tuned down 'in flight.'") was even more irrelevant to the article than the other arguably trivial mentions in that section. It was a note about the way the track was recorded that wasn't directly related to the article subject but only remotely related. It wasn't intended as a comprehensive edit of the article, nor was it intended as a slight against the artist in question but rather it was something that struck me as irrelevant to the article at hand. If I'm wrong and there's something significant I'm missing, I'm certainly open to learning more. :-) B.Rossow · talk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion: Touring car and Tourer
editYou are invited to a discussion on the merging of the articles Touring car and Tourer at Talk:Touring car#Merge proposal. I look forward to your participation and insight. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Nelly rapped about how it was Hot in Herre while Herre clearly isn't hot. So why revert it?
editI tried to voice my refutes/arguments in the requests for page protection page but someone kept reverting so I had to talk about it on your talk page instead:
[quote] Hot in Herre is a farce because Herre is nowhere near hot enough to take off all clothes, as the lyrics suggest to do. I can't believe so many hip-hop listeners bought into his lie for over 10 years! So since Herre, Norway doesn't fit the description sung in Nelly's breakout hit, this must be pointed out. Under what other pretense did he make the song anyway?[/quote] --69.77.96.200 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nelly obviously wasn't talking about the town of Herre. You can't possibly be so stupid as to believe that. Quit trolling and find something productive to do. B.Rossow · talk 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Bogeyman link
editSee here: Talk:The Elf on the Shelf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.210.88 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Updated. 67.171.210.88 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)