User talk:Makemi/Archive3

For old discussions please see

• Archive1
• Archive2

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. I will most likely respond on your talk page.

RE:Userpage

No problem, glad that I could help. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander in India

Hi. I saw you added this title to Pacini's works. Is there some special background to this? I thought the opera was Alessandro nelle Indie, given in Naples in 1824 - at least that what Grove has. Perhaps we can ask Buondelmonte as he is a Pacini specialist . . . Best. - Kleinzach 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I and G Tell worked out a kind of rule on English titles which we put on the project page. It was in line with existing Wikipedia policy, however the idea was to leave the obscurer operas with their original names to avoid confusion. (When I saw your entry I thought Pacini must have gone to London.). - Kleinzach 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Eugène Bozza

I noticed that you contributed to the article about the composer Eugène Bozza. I am very grateful as a greatly enjoy his music. I am a young clarinetist and have played a couple pieces of his in various woodwind ensembles I have been in. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.6.148 (talk • contribs) .

Title (Rachmaninov)

Thank you for the message.

Schubert wrote 6 moment musicaux (D780) (which are actually more known than Rach's), and maybe other composers did, so I think it is best renamed again. I thought the title should systematically contain the composer, so there is no confusion possible, as there might be compositions unknown to the creator of the article at the time of writing. Almost all articles about compositions contain the composer.

This got my attention since other editors added the composer to articles I created. I don't know if there is any standardisation on composition articles. Since relatively new on wikipedia, I'm maybe not in the position yet to impose standardisation, but after this horrible exam period I'll think of some propositions.

cheers --Dr. Friendly 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To prove my point, I found that Trio Elégiaque is also a composition by Arnold Bax and is also the name of a piano trio ensemble. Isn't it confounding if users should discern the different versions (e.g. Trio Elégiaque No. 2 in D minor) only by the key designation?--Dr. Friendly 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, while searching I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. Maybe you will find this interesting if you haven't found this page yet. It appears to be moderately active and there are some directions about the titling. Regards , Dr. Friendly 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lowercase works also

Lowercase redirect works perfect.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just looking at it in the diff. view, so I thought it wasn't working because there was no arrow. Um, but it was. I didn't think it was a big deal. You can change it back to your version if you want. Mak (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a big deal, and I will not change it back, just that it is something unneeded to be done at a regular basis. Just a reminder to save yourself work. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Musicspeak

Thanks for the correction. I think the guy who added that stuff is French. I didn't quite dare rewrite it myself.... Hayford Peirce 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Elliot Yamin Fansites

Thank you for adding that note, hopefully it helps and I can spend less time on that page and more time stirring up trouble elsewhere :) Batman2005 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets?

Guessing from the talk pages and edit targets, Hephesus and The Wookiepedian may belong at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal...I don't know enough baout this vandal to be sure, though. -- Scientizzle 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. -- Scientizzle 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Out of this World

I apologize for cutting and pasting the information about the Cole Porter musical, Out of this World. I did that with the intention of editing it online. I now know I should have used a sandbox. However, when I was told to take it down the first time, I deleted the text and then I re-wrote a much shorter description myself while taking the time to write a longer version of my own (my mother was one of the original cast members and she is going to tell me the story line in her own words). Anyway... I then put information about the entire original cast with information about the songs they sang. I also included links to IMDB and IBDB in External Links. I'm not sure why you deleted all of that as well? I'm learning how this Wikipedia works and don't want to make another mistake and just have everything deleted again. Thanks for helping me. Aldengirl 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I'll re-write the article and post it when I'm done Aldengirl 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Ann Collins

Listed the article for AfD so it can be sorted, as I still can't find good WP:BIO for it. Be sure to cast your opinion, since you contested the speedy. Kevin_b_er 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sonnet 1

I just posted a response to your comment. I would appreciate your input before I embark on this dauning task. Thanks. Adambiswanger1 04:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

deleting

Actually, there is a trick to do it fast. Delete everything. Restore only bad version. Move that to to be deleted page. Go back to original version, restore remaining. Bad version is gone now, no sweat. I just figured it out a bit to late.... :-). Is there a place where this personal info removal is described, I searched, but could not find it. If there is I can add this trick there is it is not yet there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YTOL

Makemi, thanks for blocking the YTOL sockpuppet. Now User:Saginaw Sables has taken over vandalising the same article in the same manner. It appears to be a second sockpuppet. Regards, Accurizer 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. One more thing, could you put {{sockpuppeteer}} on User:BBIH? (It's a protected page). Thanks again. Accurizer 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Many thanks for watching AIV tonight. Your dog rocks, too.  :) Kuru ^talk 04:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to sound lame, but I received an e-mail from User:Ron Richard that seems to explain his confusion over external linking. I've responded with an outline of the policies and encouraged his future participation. Is it out of line to request un-blocking? Kuru ^talk 05:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all good. My fault, really - he responded to my warnings through e-mail and I didn't have my client up. Just about every article he put the link on is on my watchlist, so I'll help him along in the future. Thank again for the admin support. Kuru ^talk 05:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Per further e-mail correspondence, he's asked that I clean the warnings from his talk page so that he can retain credibility. Since the message has been conveyed, I have no problem with this - I'm also going to be bold and drop the block/unblock text. If this isn't kosher, please let me know. I'll keep up with his edits in the future - thanks again for the assistance. Kuru ^talk 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New articles

Thanks for your comment. I will write articles on these people shortly. Adam 04:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dewy9

Hey Makemi,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't accounts only used for vandalism get blocked indefinitely? —Khoikhoi 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Assam University really a copyvio?

Hi Makemi,

You deleted this article twice as copyvio. However, I have been unable to find the exact text of the article or even exact parts of it on the University's website linked from the article. I'd be glad if you enlighten me on how you determined this to be a copyvio.

P.S. The article has been deleted another two times as a repost. Regards, Kimchi.sg 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fairy-Queen

Thanks very much for your praise - I really appreciate it, and it's little things like that which make it feel as though all the time and effort we put into Wikipedia is actually worth it.

If you like what I did before, however, have a look now. The synopsis section has been finished and I've added a new "Context and Analysis" section. Following your approval, perhaps a resubmittal for GA status again? Cheers, Moreschi 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

I Needs Me Some Help!

How do I upload pictures to my articles? I don't understand how at all! ...please help. :)

Thanx, Ddrfreak 23:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)ddrfreak

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian chant

Hi! I've been adding pages on some of the plainchant traditions (Beneventan chant, Celtic chant, Gallican chant, Ambrosian chant, Mozarabic chant, Old Roman chant) and I've just finished a major overhaul of Gregorian chant. If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look and giving some feedback? Thanks! Peirigill 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the sections on chant notation. It should be clearer and more accurate now. Thanks! Peirigill 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the cleanup on my draft, Mak. I'm gratified that nearly all your edits are on the parts I didn't add!  ;?) I did have some thoughts about women as singers, which I left on the talk page. Peirigill 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! I'm hoping to get this brought up to FA status. The main things that need added before peer review are citations, some additional sound files, and whatever suggestions the earlymuskipedians have.

Speaking of which: "There's sort of a possible problem with a division between a history of chant and info about chant in general, and Gregorian chant specifically. I'm not sure how this can be easily fixed, as in fact the two are closely intertwined." Simple enough, I think; just retitle the pre-Carolingian history as "Plainchant prior to Gregorian" or some such. You also mentioned: "I was taught in my somewhat lame music history class that the spread of Gregorian chant was much more forceful than it's shown in the article." Yes, I think that's correct. I revamped the Gregorian chant article after writing the Ambrosian, Beneventan, etc., articles, so I was thinking from the perspective of the vanquished rather than the vanquisher (Charlemagne). I should expand the "Hegemony" section to be more of a section on the "Dissemination of Gregorian chant," which would include Charlemagne's aggressive exportation of the chant. Definitely a good idea. Peirigill 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Question for you, Mak... You had added the phrase "Common modern practice is to perform Gregorian chant with no beat or regular metric accent, in which time is free, allowing the the text, which often includes sections of unequal length and importance, to determine the accent, and using the groupings of ligatures to indicate more subtle phrasing." I'm not sure what this means, and I haven't been able to verify it. Are you talking about Mocquereau's theory of rhythmic interpretation? If so, "groupings of ligatures" may not be the right way to express this. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Peirigill 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I'll have to go brush up on WP:MSU.  ;?) Seriously, there's a core controversy between the Mocquereau school of intuitive subtle nuance and the Wagner school of sticking to the historical documentation (sort of a clash between Gallic romanticism and Teutonic practicality) that's worth mentioning. I don't have a full section on the Gregory legend, although I do mention how it was likely Gregory II who was the real namesake and Gregory I got co-opted later, and I have a pretty picture. Hiley has a subsection or two on the Gregory legend; I'll see if I can find something scintillating to add. Thanks for the peer review suggestion; honestly, I'm looking at you, Antandrus, Rigadoun, and MarkBuckles as a pre-peer review, and I want to add a couple of sound files before submitting it to peer review for real. This is the first day in a week I've had any voice at all, and I still have to figure out how to record and convert to .ogg and deal with all the licensing rights stuff, so it will probably be a week or so at best before the sound files are ready. I'm optimistic about getting this through FA, though, thanks to everyone's help. Peirigill 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted Gregorian chant for Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregorian chant/archive1. If you get a chance, please comment! Thanks - Peirigill 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The spammer

I wasn't aware that it had to be multiple articles. —Khoikhoi 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

Nice to know that there are people who appreciate my little jokes (and, I presume, Princess Ida). Best, Andrew (aka GuillaumeTell 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Manners

Paul Bern, if you ignorants can only look under history, i put a special link to proove my point but you guys deleted it, and dont call me Goran it's either Gordon or Gog, but feel free to email me or I have to do same what I did to other administrators with revealing of their info, it's amazing how you can not follow up on your own rules, amazing. When I was doing correct edits you guys called me vandal and few others, so shame on you. And at least I am not as sick as you are, by posing links to curved private parts, ugly...

Firstly, I haven't actually posted any links to any sort of private parts, curved or not. Sorry I got your name wrong. Please do not threaten me with revealing personal information, I don't appreciate it, and it could be seen as harassment. Can you give a link to the sourced version? The history page is so flooded with people reverting your edits that I can't find it. Mak (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bern

First of all, you are abusing me, go under Paul Bern talk page history you will find a link to a very rare file which explains everything in regards to the aftermath of Bern's death and his wife's actions, emotions, etc...

I'm not abusing you. I looked in the history, I didn't see it, I'm simply asking for the link. If the link is that one to the georgereevesproject, sorry, I'm just not interested, as that's not a reliable source. Mak (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Early singers

Thanks for your note. I assume you're referring to my list User:Kleinzach/Singers of the 17-19th centuries. A work in (not a lot of) progress as I don't in fact have a good source. Tom Kaufmann (Buondelmonte) was promising to help with it. Perhaps you can add some names to my list as you know much more about early opera than i do? If so please just add them to the page.

Does La liberazione di Ruggiero still exist? Have you heard it? The title looks fine, we seem to have a convention of using shorter ones (e.g. with the Handel operas). Maybe we should add an explanation on the main project page? - Kleinzach 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth saying that it has survived, and that there's a recording?

Regarding my list of early singers, it was intended as a checklist but I also think it might be a good idea to do some kind of article on early singers to make them more accessible. - Kleinzach 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree a pre-recording era singers article(s) would need a good handle - in the way that The Record of Singing helped cover Caruso to Callas, but obviously from a different angle. Kleinzach 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

user subpage

Hello, I do not really understand wat you mean. I suppose you are talking about the subpage on my user page where i keep useful wikipedia links. I put it on a subpage because i suppose this is not relevant on my user page. but it's no private information that i'm keeping there.

Is it not done on wikipedia to keep this information on a user subpage? --Dr. Friendly 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been having a blast. To see what I've been up to in my short time as a Wikipedian, check out my list of contributions on my user page. I wrote the stub on MCM and practically wrote the article on Ryan Wieber in addition to my small bits of editing here and there.

--Patrick 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yes I was aware of that link, but I figured it certainly wouldn't hurt to document my changes neatly.

--Patrick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oy

...but I'm glad you have a sense of humor about it! lol... Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And a further "oy" -- what do we do with editors like this [1]? Good grief. Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean?

You told me to stop posting "blank" articles -- were you referring to the Christian fraternity stubs I made last night? Why is stub-building bad? I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to learn since I'm relatively new to WP.

Thanks. Diezba 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

MMDB

Wow ... (stares in amazement) Antandrus (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thx

Simplicius 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The McAulay Calkins

Did you just delete my article on the McAulay Calkins? Something strange seems to be going on. MatrixFrog 00:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But

But I did not blank it out... mabye it was my brother... Hes getting me in trouble...—Preceding unsigned comment added by SerpentsTail (talk • contribs)

DYK

On June 16, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article La liberazione di Ruggiero, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Excellent! Nice job on La_liberazione_di_Ruggiero! Oh, and regarding the other topic, I don't think it's the same person, though it could be the same nationality, since there are similarities in the non-native prose style. Yes, Wikipedia does encourage this sort of user... it's that "edit this page" button ... LOL ... Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, "If you want another party to say something to him" -- feel free. I'm rather short of patience at the moment, for off-Wiki reasons you know about. I honestly don't know what is hard to understand about NPOV but then I've been here for more than two years ... maybe it is a difficult concept for a newcomer. Oh, and I'm accused of "censorship" ... I feel validated ... see the first bullet point on this thing I put up, just in the nick of time, [2]. Gotta laugh... :-o Antandrus (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL

we blocked simultaneously [3]. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bern link

Just read the link first mr. smarty pants, not where is it posted, it's original historical file, duh! Shows wikipedia ignorance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.83 (talk • contribs)

Watchlist

Hi Mak! Thanks for the message. Are you saying the watchlist only shows the most recent changes on a given day? That's weird...I never noticed before. Eh, I guess I'll just have to keep an eye on the phoenix's history page...not too much trouble. Take care! ~ Sarabi1701 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sticks

Congrats on the DYK, Mak. A very worthy contribution - I didn't know that was the first opera by a woman. Are you into stick insects or something? :b -- MarkBuckles 03:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaning!

I haven't seen this term before. Sorry I forgot to put an edit explanation. There were only two names in the old category - and they looked arphaned to me! I work in the area of religious journalism, and I reacted to what I saw as anachronistic terminology. The reason being that "Augustinian" is not gender specific, and the term "Augustinian nuns" is quite a narrow category as it exlcudes Augustinian sisters (who are "Women Religious", but not enclosed). I was looking for female Augustinians (not by the category page) and found them difficult to locate. My suggestion is that all Auguistinians (male and female, enclosed or not) appear under "Augustinians" (like Actors or Priests - not gender specific). The other current category I see "nunneries" is positively Shakespearean - and an English speaking nun would laugh to see it. It is almost pejorative now. "Augustinian Women Religious" would also be a way of categorising without sounding arcane - but Augustinian covers them all, and at this point there aren;t so many that they need breaking up.

I've also created a new short page on Enclosed which might help explain my category suggestion.

cheers Cor Unum 07:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And Music

Yep- I am a musician too. Went to the University of Sydney Music dept- and I'm not a keyboard player- but did play all the recorders, Krumhorn, Baroque flute and stuff. I didn't finish music but instead went on to study theology and did a double degree in that. I am still a singer now- and take to church music with great interest and enthusiasm I love early music too - and noticed your profile stuff on this with interest (and approval!). Cor Unum 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user talk page and blocking that troll at 71.107.251.78. -- Scientizzle 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bern Link

Well, I have been doing everything in accordance with the wiki rules, I have corrected many things, even though my time is limited, I told you to print that rare bern file dude, before you go to sleep, read it, you will thank me... and then fix what you vandalized... None of the "squid" attacks would ever occur if I had an administrator to work with in the first place or email me, but loosers like herostr, phroziac, curps and few others, they are the ones who contributed to this problem, every time, including good stuff and correct stuff was reversed, just like that, shame on u all! GR dude —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.182 (talk • contribs) .

Look, I asked you in good faith to provide the link again, because I can't find it. All I get in return is insults. Clearly if you're getting reverted by that many administrators you're doing something wrong. Revert warring is not the way to get what you want on Wikipedia, and you don't seem to be able to learn that. Which is actually not my problem. Just figure out how to communicate with other editors in a non-confrontational manner, especially when they're trying to help you, and don't edit war. A good way to start is to stop calling me a vandal, because I'm actually trying to be reasonable with you. Mak (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to non-sense

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Bern&action=history now dont tell me you cant fine it, because this is all i can give you...

I have to call you a vandal as I called other administratives... but it seems you may be the only one who knows more than they do, so I will stop calling you vandal in due time... First of all I am not reverting, every time I did something even if it was correct, soemtimes I spent hours doing it and then aholes like Herostratus, Cuprs, Phroaziac, etc, REVERTED IT, you must imagine my frustration, but even that I dont mind, what made me angry was a simple fact that when they say I was the one who was doing something, it was not true, on squid page, 70% of the people and articles I never touched, period, and well, long story... The point is, I was very professional, understanding in the beginning, when I saw a revert that was a sign to go to war which I did well, but even so, that's not the point, as a historian, I know what I am saying and I wanted to contribute, again, when I was pushed aside, it was a call to arms. After all, reverting good stuff is wrong, i dont mean correcting, do that, but good for nothing administrators did not care, not only that YOU USED OUR CLUB'S WEBSITE against us, there are many members who have nothing to do with wiki and you attacked them. read the link, print it, you will learn a lot on bern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.153 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, like I said, give a reputable source, not Georgereevesproject, which seems to be a club consisting of you and your sockpuppets. I'm not sure how the site was used against you, except to say that it's not a reputable source. And people disagreeing with you isn't a reason to go to war. I've managed not to get into a single revert war on the wiki, and people have been known to disagree with me. I deal with it. Mak (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

My mistake, I was so excited to point out what I thought was someone else's ignorance that I made myself look like a fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.0.73 (talk • contribs)

No problem :) Mak (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks very much for your welcome.

Jmcrowley 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:84.169.131.21

You blocked him before I had a chance to. Now I'm mad at you for denying me the pleasure. LOL! - Richardcavell 03:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Refs, etc

Greetings! I also think that calling an article unreferenced because it doesn't have inline references is silly. Indeed it is worse than silly: it's untrue. List the sources at the end, and footnote the quotes or statements that seem "over the top" enough to require a note.

Yes I noticed the latest with our mutual friend ... truly I'm glad someone else was noticing this going on, since I was dreading logging on this morning and having to deal with another frothy-mouthed rant. Oh well the joys of Wikipedia. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks…

…for the revert on my user page. I am certain that 24.43.184.166 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is also Icylightning (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Starcircloco (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). --RobertG ♬ talk 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Finnish tango, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 16:00

Re: Kutiyapi article

Thanks Makemi for your insightful comment. Yeah, I'm trying to get more coverage on traditional music like this stringed instrument since they are rarely covered. A few people know about them and those who usually have the knowlegde about don't have access to such technology yet. Hopefully, these articles will help with brigdeing that gap. PhilipDM

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kutiyapi, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BRIAN0918 01:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Ben_Burch

Thanks for fixing that. Please watch this AfD like a hawk because we have a whole message board full of brats spoiling for some way to get back at me... BenBurch 04:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if there is some administrative way to short-circuit this process and just delete the page, you'll save everybody a load of grief. Thanks so much. BenBurch 04:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be instructive for you to look here; http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?s=9915f955c6789a34e9754696ebe2446f&t=75725&page=4

William Robert Woodman

My mistake. I didnt know it was a copyright violation. Other bios are being used the same way to create articles. I'm going to recreate it and cite the bio this time. Zos 03:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh...

...is that what happened? confusing... :-) But hey I'm finally writing articles again... Antandrus (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My Fear! O.o

Now, how hard is it to upload a picture to Wikipedia? No, seriously, I want someone to tell me, 'cause I just don't get it! I went to the page you told me to, and I read it, but when I get to an important part, there was a link to better explain it, and then I clicked on it. The problem? THERE'S ALWAYS A NEW LINK TO CLICK ON TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THINGS!!!

I just, I seriously just cannot believe that I have to read over about infinity extra long articles about the American government, just so I can upload one, just one picture to one just ONE article! It will take forever just to read all of the articles, and by the time I get through, I will either: a. STILL not know how to upload a pic to an article, b. be so old that my eyes are too bad to read anything else, or c. run for president, because I'll know the government that well from all of these articles!

...okay, I am feeling a lot of emotions right now, and I might sound a bit harsh, dumb, loud, or just plain ignorant, but I don't really mean to be. Just trying to get a point across!

...So, why did I just waste my time typing my problems here? For an answer of course! And, this time, please don't give me any dung (I don't want to be profane) like, "go to Wikipedia:Uploading images", 'cause you'll just get me into the infinite circle again! This time, I want the scoop, the cheese: I want to know the SECRET! I do deserve to know; am I not a Wikipedia user, too? No long links, no endless circling. Just the answer.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I FEAR the secret art of uploading pics because I fear the endless circle of reading. I fear the circle because I fear the government. I fear the government (in this case) because they can put me in jail. I fear jail because I fear my roomate who might try to strangle me, and the lack of privacy. I fear the roomate because I'M TOO YOUNG TO DIE! ... so, in turn, I fear uploading pics to Wikipedian articles because I don't want to die. :)

PLEASE HELP! Ddrfreak 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)DdrfreakDdrfreak 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Chord form"

I had to look at this pair of words several times to make sense out of it ... lol. Yes, I think it means quality, e.g. major/minor/diminished. I sense the Makemi red copyedit pen on the way... :-) Antandrus (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

71.109.223.215

Thanks for blocking this vandal, but he/she needs a block tag on their talk page.Rlevse 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Stco23

I need you to delete Ruben/Experiemnt 625, Because every time i type Experiment 625 it redirects me to that page. If I was a admin I could do it but since I'm not I am asking you to do it. I hope you can and if you do can you redirect it to Experiment 625/Reuben. Thank You.--Stco23 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess somebody already did. Mak (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The person did not delete it completely because when i type Experiment 625 it still shows up. Can you go to Experiment 625 and delete it for me. Thank you.--Stco23 03:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing what i ask you to do. Someday i will be a admin and be able to do those things. Thank you very much.--Stco23 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that before i gave that last message i found out that after i put down that message you have already done it. I'm sorry i put down that last message. I deleted my last message when i found out it was already done. Sorry about the last message.--Stco23 04:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you like you can put your last comment that was on my talk page back on, Because i did not know you were going to talk to me again on my talk page. Thank you for the comment.--Stco23 04:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dismal's Paradox

Wanna tell me why this doesnt qualify for speedy deletion? I had an author bio article deleted twice, even with citations so fast my head was spinning. And this article is nothing more than a paragraph. Zos 04:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said I didnt care about the article Dismal's Paradox. I just think that there is no future in it. You feel it can be expanded? A simple paragraph cannot even be called a stub, more like a mini stub. And with the article I created, mine had more notability than this one. So this is showing mere bias as to what can and what cant be deleted. Zos 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus notablity is a guideline, not a policy. Zos 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I do apologise about my frantic campaigning - I was caught up in the heat of the moment, and was taking it slightly too seriously. Sorry! Kingfisherswift 08:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Brickbat

Clearly my occasional attempts at humour are not coming off. First Meladina cuttingly reminds everyone just who my namesake was, and then I receive a literal brickbat from you! Moreschi 12:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I was joking with that last message, it was funny. Cheers, Moreschi 16:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You are a hopeless case (Bern)

Listen up, DID YOU OPEN THAT SITE, OPEN AND READ IT, DID I WRITE THAT ARTICLE MANY DECADES AGO, IS IT MINE? NOW YOU KNOW WHY THERE WAS WAR, BECAUSE OF FEEBLE MINDED PEOPLE LIKE YOU, HOPELESS CASE... READ IT, THEN ANSWER, DONT GIVE GARBAGE ANSWERS THAT IT IS FROM G. REEVES SITE READ IT AND THEN TALK, PERIOD.

Back in December when I asked for an administrator, non were found, I wanted to correct few things, you were nowhere around, so you created the war, not me. I have not touched anything since Chopin, when you changed and put the footnote. Ok..... and put the end on squid attacks, long over-on the date, if somebody else does, it's either you or somebody else trying to get their point across and blame it on somebody else. In psychology, somebody always wants to blame somebody else, I am not blaming you directly, I am saying, you guys, the so called just administrators on this site have no clue what you are doing many times.

--WP:SQUID

Whatever. I never count geocities sites as reliable sources. Ever. Never, ever. When you decided to have a revert war on Chopin I was brand new. As in don't bite the newbies new. My first edit was in the middle of December, and I've somehow managed to become an administrator in that time, and you've managed to get your own vandal page. Think about it. You have made edits against consensus on the Bern and Marciano pages since I put in that footnote, edits which were against Wikipedia policy. Are you saying that you think I'm framing you by doing Squidward attacks? That's simply ridiculous. Stop posting rants about the past, and if you want to make a positive change on this site stop attacking other users and administrators. The reason your edits are not succesful is because you fail to follow Wikipedia policy and basic human civility. Not because anyone has anything against you, or because we are too stupid to follow your poorly formed arguments. Shape up, or I'll revert and block you on sight, as I have every right to do under Wikipedia policy. Mak (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

durations

No reason not to make it indef, if you care to, on the basis of being a sock or a username block. Indefinite blocks for vandalism, as far as I know, are still not thought of as appropriate. I picked a week as long enough for us to not worry about him any more. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Test Template?

So how exactly this that work? If you revert a vandal, and on his/her talk page there're alrady {{test1}} through {{test4}}, then what steps are to be taken?Seidenstud 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Um

"Mak" I did not blank it out, I dont Edit pages Unless I need to. I did not blank the page.

This says that you did, although as I already acknowledged it could easily have been a mistake, or a known bug with Firefox. "Bygones" means that I'm over it, and not particularly concerned, and not pissed off, or anything. Best of luck, Mak (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Letoya Luckett Dispute

As you say we have a dispute on LeToya Luckett page with user Musicpvm and Escorbit. Can you help me and tell me how can we resolve this problem? Thank you. --Letoyabrigade 02:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but we already tried to talk to him. I left the revert u made but I had to put back the chart table because this is the one that is use for most artists like. u can go check by yourself: Christina Milian Monica Brandy Ciara and others. Plus he put a false information sayin her next single "she don't" will be release july 25. and it is not the case it will be release early july. Plus He's removing Letoya's award information. She won a grammy award under her name inm 2001 but he keep removing it. this person seem to not know what is he talkin about and try doing good and fix everybody's pages. Thanks for your help. --Letoyabrigade 03:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

South Eastern Electricity Board, SEEBOARD

Please restore the South Eastern Electricity Board and remove the speedy note from it. It was a redirect to SEEBOARD, an article which didn't exist but now does. I couldn't find an entry for SEEBOARD in the deletion log, nor for variations of that name such as Seeboard_Energy or SEEBOARD_Energy, so I created the article SEEBOARD. TruthbringerToronto 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thousand Island Park Yacht Club

Our Speedy Deletion request was not an act of vandalism. I am sapeaking on behalf of the Yacht Club, and the History of the entry contians slanderous information that has caused quite a problem. I am putting another speedy deletion request up now. In order to avoid alot of trouble for our Club, please delete the entry in full. If you do manage to delete the entry, please notify me at pinkieyella@excite.com

Erm, so on behalf of the Yacht club you moved the article to 777 Unicorn Turd? I fail to see how that was helpful. I don't see any slanderous info in the history, can you link some diffs? It doesn't actually fall under any of the speedy guidelines, you could PROD it or put it up for AFD. Mak (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you edit my Giuliani contrib?

Pistolpierre 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No...

No, I am not intoxicated, but I can be a little dramatic, crazy, hyper, etc. This is just to get a point across effectively.

DdrfreakDdrfreakDdrfreak

Hee, hee

[4] That one was kinda fun.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my back

Hello there. Thanks for your nipping that non-issue in the bud. I think you have probably saved an awful lot of everyone's time! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 08:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Louis-Claude Daquin Sviatoslav Richter Francisco Tárrega Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 538 Semiramide Gustave Reese Orlando Gibbons Antonio Caldara Wilhelm Hieronymus Pachelbel Jeremiah Clarke The Passionate Pilgrim The Cave Music of Innsbruck Arthur Rubinstein Johann Joachim Quantz William Croft Fantaisie-Impromptu Music of Sumatra Henri Dutilleux

Cleanup Ruffus List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach The Tempest (play) Merge Suite Klezmer Hammond organ Add Sources Girolamo Frescobaldi Michael Praetorius Titus Andronicus Wikify Freddy Martin Liza Minnelli Jason Barry-Smith Expand Michael Tippett Polyphony Persian Constitutional Revolution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Brancaccio

Good! You got that Newcomb book on Ferrara--I'm jealous!  ;-) Nice work. Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

Cool image! Don't know that it's the best for the Gregorian chant article, though... I finally tackled the Neume article, where someone had injected a number of inexplicable and apparently erroneous comments, and suddenly realized: there's been a snippet of square notation staring me in the face, in the "Chants of the Mass" table. I think the Finnish Gradual makes for a better lead image; my gut feeling is that the Kyrie snippet is a better example of square notation than the "Ad te levavi." The Neume article would be an excellent place for the "Ad te levavi," though, since it's a better example of different note styles. What do you think? Peirigill 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

about the page "dota"

You said that I`ll be blocked if I continue to remove text. How about that stupid who removed all external links. There were community links. Is that bad?? He said that he let only the officials links. O`rly? Only the first two are official websites. Please remove all links except the first two, or add the list that was before that guy removed. The page is "dota". --Cristian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.86.54 (talk • contribs)

oh joy

You might want to check your talk page history, then WP:SQUID. Herostratus 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

melomaniac

It's actually melomaniac (one whose mania is music); he wasn't a megalomaniac. But you can take it out if you want.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I'd never heard of it and it was a redlink so I assumed it was a typo. My bad. Mak (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where begins advertisement?

Two days ago I added Weblinks to the some classical artists. You deleted them all. The links opens the Website from the little German music label Troubadisc. Sure, a label produces music and as an service you can find an CD's catalogue but the Website offers more. The founder of the label are classical musicans. They attend to a very specialized sometimes unknown part of classical music. You can find biographies of composers and artists, articles, discussions and news. Have you been on the site? I think the site is a platform for lovers of this music and they should know this. I'm unhappy that you label me as an commercial advertiser. It were my first activies on wikipedia and my experience is now not the best.--Ron.kappler 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dundurn

Hi there. Thank you for your feedback. However, I see many images and text that would technically be copyright all over wikipedia. My objective is to help promote Canadian books (since I am Canadian) and even according to regulations and laws, it is fair to post an image and text provided it is under fair use. I welcome more discussion on this topic. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dundurn (talk • contribs)