Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 4, 2005 and March 8, 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Now that this page has got so long, and much is no longer current, is there a way to archibe the page? Or some of the entries to it? Vhjh 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I despair. I was on the verge of archiving it, but held back cuz I predicted it would just cause trouble. Somehow doing anything to this article seems to cause trouble. Archiving would be a most sensible idea - in my opinion there's plenty of material on this page which is no longer being actively discussed. I'd advocated archiving all but the latest three or four sections. It's still available to view on an archive page, afterall (in fact it's really just like paginating the page), but would make it more manageable and easier to see new additions. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and if you'd like to see some methods for archiving, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.  The page was 106k, far past where you'd normally archive.  As you can see, all the previous discussion is still easily accessible via the link at the top and the most recent (and still active) topic is still here for discussion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How do you archive?

message: Why is this page in the CATEGORY of pages lacking facts? It seems it is now overflowing with references, citations and links! 213.249.155.231 18:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The category was actually removed yesterday after sources were added; most likely you saw a cached version of that category page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops - mea culpa.  I used the template earlier in the disucussion; i've nowiki'd it. Thanks for pointing that out. And please, stop with the personal attacks.  .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category confusion

message: Just one more suggestion.  Can someone remove the word 'recent' and replace it with the date of the performance.  It sounds odd.Crusading composer 20:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compositions 

message: "It is just that bit too long, however, and would benefit from some serious trimming."  The list (of lists) of pieces of music is getting rather long.  Unless each and every one of these is notable unto itself, wouldn't some selectivity here be useful, with an external link to the rest?  Alai 05:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely... └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 08:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe instead of lists they need to be contained more in prose. I was just following the template set up by CC. Will give it a go in next few days. Certainly all major works/works with interesting "histories" and recorde works need a mention, don't they? Will see what I can do. Vhjh 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also why I started providing the external links I did. Vhjh 14:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, on both counts.  Alai 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you may instead be looking for this page, or perhaps this one.  Alai 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there no page about misuse of phrases then? 86.136.161.163 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To (essentially redundantly) expand on my previous comment:  that is the idiomatic meaning of the phrase;  and, you're wildly off-topic, and given your other contributions, one is tempted to suspect are so for purely trolling purposes.  Alai 17:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To coin a phrase... 

message: Can you tell me why adding a link from an article about Ropbert Steadman to the Wiki user page of Robert Steadman is an invasion of privacy?Crusading composer 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is supposed to be about him as a composer - why do you think his dealings on Wikipedia are relevant? Why have you only added this when he's banned and can't do anything about it? SOPHIA 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SOPHIA that his talk page is completely irrelevant to an article about him as a composer. Also, since you know that he has been blocked for sockpuppetry (and have mentioned that above on this page), it doesn't seem in the best of taste to link to a page which discusses this block. AnnH ♫ 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links