User talk:Andy M. Wang/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fawcett5 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Deletion of Mahler_8_i_pic.jpg
''Would an administrator please delete a blank page that I created? It is Mahler_8_i_pic.jpg, not Image:Mahler_8_i_pic.jpg.'' Andy M. Wang 22:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Berliozrequiem.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Berliozrequiem.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mahler2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mahler2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 12:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Smith
Thanks for changing it from "Carer". I can't believe I didn't notice it when I expanded the article.. JackO&#39;Lantern 02:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Typo
Hi. I think you have made a typo on your user page, having typed recieve instead of receive. -Atavi 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC).
 * You're welcome.-Atavi 14:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bergen County Academies
You're right, I am currently a student at the Bergen County Academies. I didn't know what to cite for some of my edits, since there really was no public documentation. The inter-academy problems, for example, are never mentioned to the public, or even really to the school. I know about them because I know the people involved in that specific incident. But I see your point---that kind of information doesn't belong on Wikipedia if it can't be corroborated. So I'm deleting that section. Maybe later I'll find the sources to bring it back.0702034 00:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You Rock!
Can't tell you enough times :) Abeg92 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't have enough cobalt in your blood. Abeg92 20:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was kidding. But seriously, if it might be true, it is not vandalism. Check the facts at Encyclopedia Britannica. And don't forget to sign your talk page comments. --Abeg92 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm on RC patrol, and I can sign. Abeg92 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And on the f*ing welcomepage too... -Abeg92 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sig tip. Did it work? --Ab e g92 contribs 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigga&diff=prev&oldid=84590854 would not make a bad Uncyclopedia article http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Sorry, I haven't figued out how to "pipe" external links yet. --Ab e g92 contribs 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed a typo on your userpage. Ab e g92 contribs Boomer Sooners!  16:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your article is very good! The reason I don't make articles is that I really don't know what to write about, and I have Uncyclopedia. Again, great article! --Ab e g92 contribs Boomer Sooners!  23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on number 1000, again. Ab e g92 contribs Boomer Sooners!  05:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POP for the things that pop up when you hover over a link, and WP:LAVT for the anti-vandal tool. Hope it helps. Ab e g92 contribs Boomer Sooners!  23:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! I see you're using the anti-vandal tool. Ab e g92 contribs 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on 1400. Ab e g92 contribs 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to join the purple snowman cabal. Ab e g92 contribs ☃ 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:wakkawakkajuju Nice! Ab e g92 contribs 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Ab e g92 contribs 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation
Hi there, looking through 's contributions I cannot see any reason for believing that this user is out to impersonate you. Andy/Andrew is a amazingly common forename, and using one letter of a surname is a normal thing to do when thinking of an account name, so... Thanks/wangi 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... I thought this may be a case of coincidence as well. I'll keep watch to see how things go, but I'd say at the moment to assume good faith on the other editor. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Daiblo on this one; though I'm surprised the software let such a similar user name be created. You could always ask him politely if he would consider changing his username, if you feel it's going to be a problem. --Robdurbar 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Though bear in mind that hasn't actually edited since March. --Robdurbar 18:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Berlioz and harps
I did some fact-checking, and Symphonie Fantastique does in fact call for harp(s). This article says four. This doesn't specify a specific number, but uses the plural. I don't have the score so I can't tell you for sure, but it's definitely not vandalism. As far as the Requiem, this article mentions 30 harps, but it's in a hypothetical sense. I will check the scores if I remember. – flamurai (t) 05:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CM
You should check out the WikiProject on Classical music. Even if you don't want to join or participate, there are still some interesting naming conventions, etc., for individuals who contribute to classical music articles. Bottesini (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Testing purposes?
Hi Andy, could you please clarify the edit summary you used for (the second edit of) this? &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was just to check if the anon was still editing the article. Never mind it. It does not mean anything to me, the anon, or the article now. -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which isn't a good thing, sorry. BTW, you removed the word "simply". Was that intended or did you just remove it to make the edit non-null? &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was just a minor edit. It does not change any meaning. Anyway, I restored it, so never mind. Basically, if I edit the article, the history does not show if the anon is still editing the article. That held true once. I tested it again to make sure the "vandal" anon wasn't still wasting time vandalising. Anyway, never mind. -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

just a small reminder
don't forget to warn vandals after you revert vandalism using warning templates such as test1,test2,etc.---JWJW Talk Long Live E speranza! :) 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon note
Thank you for the reversions on Plasmodium. I am not familiar with the suggestion that 'stress factors' cause hyponzoites to become undormant but it is a possibility. It is known to occur with other latent infections - tuberculosis in particular is well known for this. Regardless even if this is true, the comment does not belong where the anonymous user put it. -- DrMicro

06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thank you, Abeg. I didn't know you could give barnstars. Now I suppose anyone can. Those edits were of a long time ago, but thank you. I'll give you a barnstar sooner or later. -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yellow River Piano Concerto
My Revision in Yellow River Piano Concerto is hope to get more knowledge for this music, not for vandalism, personal attacks and copyrigt infringements. If there have any discrepancy, I would check them throughly and revise them. -- Lawrence TAM Feb 24, 2007.(HK) User:Lawrence H K 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of Thanks
I am honored to have received the "Exceptional Newcomer Award." Thank you, Andy, for your continued support! It's wonderful having a friend to guide me through the maze of Wikipedia. --Birdman1 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is is permissible to use this picture? --Birdman1 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but where can I find the license? --Birdman1 02:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect the Environment Userbox
Hi Andy, I'm the creator of the Protection of Environment userbox. Thanks for adding a period to the end of the sentence, however, I reverted your edit because white dot (period) after the blue font "environment" on green background is very awkard. I purposely done that when I create the userbox. OhanaUnited  04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine. Sorry. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't feel sorry about it. You didn't do anything wrong. I should have left a note on that page regarding this matter but I'm too lazy to do so.  OhanaUnited   05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your gracious welcome, BCA Userbox
Thanks for the red carpet, Andy. Your help is appreciated. -- f(x,y) (talk/contrb.) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to make userboxes? Perhaps we should have a bca box. -- f(x,y) (talk/contrb.) 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Orchestrations of Mahler Symphonies
Thank you for your reverts. If you haven't noticed User:Opus33, User:EldKatt and User:ILike2BeAnonymous have all taken a vendetta against my orchestration format. Since I am refusing to get directly involved for now, I would appreciate it if you did revert at least the Mahler Symphonies alone. It seems that almost all of them need fixing now. Their format does not work at all with complex orchestrations like the Mahler Symphonies. Do you agree? Justin Tokke
 * Yes, I do, particularly the Mahler symphonies. I understand your position. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Classical music/To-do list
Hello. I've seen you've editted the todo list page. This page is autogenerated by a bot every Wednesday night, so your edits will not necessarily get kept unless the appropriate maintenance tags have been added to the referring page so that the bot will automatically add it to the list. Just a friendly heads up. DavidRF 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky)
Thanks so much for the extra time you've been putting into editing and reorganizing this article. What you did with the "Form" section was something I had in mind already but, being new to Wikipedia, did not know the commands on how to lay out in the way you did. The secton looks beautiful and the article in general really flows now. Again, thanks! Jonyungk 01:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Symphony No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)
This morning I was adding info to this page and suddenly only the first half of the article would appear on display. Thinking I'd inadvertently deleted the "Sources" and "Notes" sections, I re-input them this evening, only to have the same display appear, without any additions. Is this a problem on Wiki's part, and will it eventually correct itself or be corrected? Jonyungk 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that edit on the Spectacular Blue Smith page..u kinda beat me to it..lol..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

..=] Aint no stoppin me + ma sis cuz we da baddezt! 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

new topic
Hi. I chose a random english wikipedist, thats you. I am a czech wikipedist beavel I would like to ask you to create a new topic. the word is coude. It appears in an article about Lick observatory and it is definetly not the thing that appears at the first place with 100% relevance, when you search for it. You can check it at Google. Its some type of tellescope. Just create an empty topic. Thanx

-http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Beavel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.102.238.133 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Hello. Please specify exactly what you want me to do. Do you want me to create an article? They are called articles. Do you want me to create the article Coude Auxiliary Telescope? I think that is what you mean. Please specify on this page and I will do it for you. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

yea, thats what I want. At least an empty article. I dont know how exactly does english wiki work, but in the czech one, anyone can create an article. Here I ask you. Thanx --beavel


 * The article is created: Coude Auxiliary Telescope. I formed stub. Now, feel free to edit it. You are welcome. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 00:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Coniston massacre
Andy I discovered you reverted a pointless anonymous edit to my contribution on this subject (for which, thanks) and that it has quickly been damaged again. As it stands, the article doesn't make sense. I'm new to this & not sure wht to do. Any advice? John PriceJohnHarmonPrice 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please search around Wikipedia about reverting. Check Help:Reverting. It should help. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warning toolbox update
I've finally updated my vandal warning toolbox to use the new array of warning templates. Even if you're already using an updated derivative, you might want to take a look at the documentation to see how I may have handled it differently. I tried to keep things compact. Suggestions are welcome on the documentation's discussion page. Thanks for your interest. --Kbh3rd talk 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, a bot will be adding this tag to talk pages tonight, so there is no need to waste too much time in tagging articles.

If you want, you can tag any classical music articles that isn't listed in the Compositions by composer category (eg. Butterfly Lovers' Violin Concerto). All the best.  C e n t y   14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bergen County Academies
Why do you keep bouncing the article back and forth between what you call the "full version" and the "referenced version"? If you want to keep the removed data around for sourcing, why don't you just put it on the talkpage? Or on a subpage? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll create a section on the talk page. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:CChaplin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CChaplin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Carlpoke
Sorry, didn't notice it! J Milburn 02:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal
Andy - I'd be grateful if you could start learning your way around the portal. I might need you as an assistant some day soon. Thanks. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 03:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A "B"
ie the school. Well done all involved Victuallers 21:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Victuallers! Yes, I noticed the rating. I agree with your opinion to add more pictures; they will come. Thanks for the advice; I am sure that the article may reach GA status with some more improvements. Thanks! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How to categorize this?
I recently created an article on the Compositional style of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky to link to the main article on him. However, I'm not sure in what categories to place it. Are there similar articles on compositional style of other composers? I'd really appreciate some sugggestions. Thanks! Jonyungk 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonyungk; nice to talk to you again. Personally, I find that there are not many articles addressing a similar topic to your article. It is quite specific and I would only put it under Category:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Put Category:Romantic composers and Category:Russian composers only if you want to go further. I hope this helps. (Currently, I find that not many articles on the English Wikipedia link to your article. Try to find articles that are suitable for a link to your article.) Anyway, you created a nice article, congratulations! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to talk with you too. Thanks very much for the help! I'll keep an eye out for places to link. Jonyungk 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain
...why it's considered vandalism to blank my own user talk page? 76.180.120.161 15:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, 76.180.120.161. Maybe you may not understand, but blanking your talk page is destroying your history of posts by other users to your talk page. If there had been no vandalism, your talk page would not have appeared like it does now. However, you must also realize that numerous IPs have done much worse than you have. Let me show you some examples: User talk:65.94.56.125, User talk:155.198.13.40, User talk:24.106.176.19, and registered users: User talk:Wakkawakkajuju, User talk:Christopherse, etc. I must say that you have already learned a lot about Wikipedia. I decide that I am going to place the welcome template on your talk. Anyway, I hope you would understand. If you really don't like the comments, I suggest placing them on an archive page. Yours would be User talk:76.180.120.161/Archive 1. Place those comments there and link to your talk page. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. 76.180.120.161 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
Sorry, I was re-inserting an internal comment and inadvertently restored what you had commented out. No problem with your changes, although you might want to change it back to the version that was commented out. Also, please leave any internal comments that I have inserted elsewhere. Thanks. Ward3001 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's okay. Yes, I restored the reversion commented out. I found that comments in comments do not work well; so instead, I placed a large comment at the top of the article. That might be better, but if you know a way to leave the internal comments, go ahead. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Online
Online. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! I have not seen you in a while. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Polyurethane
Andy: Thanks for undoing the vandalism on the Polyurethane page. Cheers. P Cottontail 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

2015 World Championships in Athletics
Hi there; you marked this page for speedy deletion but omitted to give a reason. when adding a db tag, could you please expand it by using one of the accepted tags which are listed in WP:CSD? Speedy deletion, while there is some admin flexibility, is only appropriate in the case of one of these stated reasons. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I tried to find a reason. Don't worry, I know how it works. I guess it does not fit any reason, so I am removing the tag. Thanks for your reminder. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP:AfD appears perfectly formatted. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky
Andy, could you PLEASE do me a favor by reading through the Tchaikovsky bio and give me your two cents' worth on how it reads in general. The last comments about "flowery," "unencyclopedic" writing and a lot of material "cut and pasted together from different sources (albeit references)" ha me really (perhaps inordinately) rattled. If Wikipedia does not want to write iin the way I do, I'll quit. But I don't take kindly too someone implying I'm turning an important Wiki article into a Harlequin romance novel, either. Hope you understand—and thanks. Jonyungk 05:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a note on your article regarding Chopin's preludes op.28.
Hi Andy,

First, I wanted to thank you for your very interesting article on Chopin's preludes. I also wanted to add a bibliographical NOTE on your article, but unfortunately i cannot add it the right way (this is why i yesterday put it in external links)...It is a book i ordered about the preludes (Analysis and comments) by Jan LEONTSKY...If you judge this note interesting, could you add it ?

This is the note:

Leontsky, Jan. ''Interpreting Chopin. 24 preludes op.28. Analysis, comments and interpretive choices. Tarnhelm editions.''

Thank you for your help,

Best greetings,

Jean Michel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.120.137 (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'll try to insert it right now. Anyway, happy editing! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

I do thank you for having added this note about the Preludes of Chopin...I was unable to do it and you helped me greatly...

Thank you also for all your musical articles on Wikipedia, they are all well-documented and most serious...

Best greetings from France,

Jean Michel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.120.137 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky the morning after
Thanks very, very much for geting back to me so quiickly, and by doing so confidentially. Both are greatly appreciated.

Read through your reply several times and, after looking over the article as it previously stood plus the other articles, I have to admit I took Tchaikovsky totally off-base by what I've done. I'm not trying to sound like I'm thinking low of myself, but to see the situation as it apparently is.

My conclusion at this point is that the January version of the article was much closer to expectations from Wikipedia articles than what is there currently. I was already familiar with the Stravinsky and Shostakovich articles, so maybe I knew in the back of my head that something with Tchaikovsky was not right.

I would also conclude that, while I may be a great editor, I am not a Wikipedian. Too many opinions, not the right tone, too many references. I may be an excellent essay writer, but essays are not what is called for here.

Thanks again.

Jonyungk 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jonyungk, don't leave. I replied on your talk. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Got your reply. It wasn't just that I wanted to leave but also that what I was writing didn't fit in, for all the reasons you mentioned earlier. Once I looked at the diff and FAs, then at Tchaikovsky, it was obvious that practically none of how I had approached the ... eh, "essay," was going to work.
 * I only reverted to the diff as a template upon which to update with information from my writing. Too much of my previous version was subjective, either from my viewpoint or from someone else's. That meant Dostoyevsky had to go, unfortunately, along with many other things, including probably everything about the music. (I still have to look over that to see what I can salvage. And I guess it will be me, guessing from that bold-face message on both out talk pages, right?) Hopefully I kept enough of the facts to make the article viable while losing the parts WP does not want.
 * Actually, the whole reason for the peer review on Tchaikovsky was to prepare the article for the FAC. So it wasn't your mentioning FAs that inclined me toward that direction; that was intended long beforehand.
 * Jonyungk 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied again on talk. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read your reply. We're on the same page on bringing out the best in both versions. Before, my motivation was to at least leave something properly formatted yet textually worthwhile enough for others to continue and finish without me. Now I'm sticking around.
 * I apologize very sincerely for all the confusion and frustration I created by reverting to the January template, that you placed yourself in the middle of on my account. I am both grateful for your atempting to shield me from the fallout and regretful that you are doing so.
 * What I did was not meant as an act of frustration, though I was deeply frustrated when I did so. To me, after making comparisons, cutting down the 90,000+ article was going to be difficult. Starting with a new template upon which to structure the article, then copying and pasting material as purely factual and objective as possible, was an easier and quicker way to go. This was not just because I was going to leave and wanted another version of the article ready quickly. It was also an easier way to put together an alternate article altogether. There was way too much subjective material in the 90,000+ version to cut, and that would have been time-consuming and tougher mentally than it had to be. Sometimes it's easier to "push the re-start button," which is essentuially what I did.
 * Thanks very much too for the extra help editing. An extra set of eyes really helps. If you could please read through what's there now and let me know what else from the 90,000+ version might be good to add, I'd really appreciate it. At this rate, we will probably have a fully viable article that should pass WP muster in the next couple of days.
 * Jonyungk 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Late Sept 4

 * Sure. Replied again on talk. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerned the last part of the article is too essay-like; it's definitely neutral (whether NPOV, I haven't a clue). Your thoughts? Jonyungk 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a bit borderline. If you can just change it a bit, it would be fine. However, I would say, leave it in for now. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 03:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're back
Thought I'd lost you (and everyone else, for that matter) with the grand reshuffling last week. I suspect several were angered. I don't blame them. In any case, it looks like the article's almost ready. Jonyungk 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, it is! The article looks much better. I am just going to do some very minor editing on the article; pardon me if it interferes. Anyway, good job so far. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 19:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, nice editing job! (-: How does the end work for you now. Slightly odd at first to me ending with Mussorgsky's quote, but it works. Jonyungk 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, it should be fine for now. Yes, it works, and I don't think it violates NPOV. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Thanks again. (-: Jonyungk 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SineBot; I was just testing at your high-priority sandbox. Good job filling my comments. Anyway, I guess your above comment does not technically apply to me, since I do sign my comments. Thanks, see you later, — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five
I've been copyediting this article, trying to pare it down to essentials and get as close to NPOV as possible. Since you did such a great job going through Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, could you also go through this article when you have the time? Also, should I change the title or leave as is? I'll probably finish my edit soon and will sww where other than the Tchaikovsky bio I can link this article. Thanks again! Jonyungk 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jonyungk, nice to talk to you again. I have to say, good job on the article; it is NPOV and its style is definitely acceptable. It is a nice article. Just a few things to say: the article is fine as it is right now, since you have been doing great with copyediting. There are minor phrases that I personally would let slide (such as sentences beginning with "but", or ones that do not say much to contribute to the article), since this article's topic itself is very specific. I can still see your style of writing, but it is better and it is fine here because it is specific. If you have other questions, feel free to ask! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tchaik advice, please?
don't remember if I mentioned this, but the ultimate goal $PЯINGεrαgђ  had shared with me in revamping the main Tchaikovsky article was to submit it to FAC and hopefully pass to Featured Article status. Since the peer review and my subsequent re-revamping, $PЯINGεrαgђ  and I have held separate views. His view: The article was trounced thoroughly by the peer review and you still want to send this to FAC? My view: That was an entirely different article. Read the new version. Go ahead and send it to FAC, or at least submit it to another peer review.

$PЯINGεrαgђ has subsequently dropped out of the picture. No contact with me whatsoever. (Then again, considering what has happened with this project, I'm not really hearing from anyone except you. Considering my actions, no surprise.)

Here's my point: The overall quality of the article has, to me, well passed what would be considered a B Class Article. The question is, how far up to shoot for reevaluation—FA, A, and so on. And should it go through anoother peer review first? As much as it might help, I don't know how the article could be improved, even with others' opinions.

Where do I go from here?

Thanks a lot!

Jonyungk 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jonyungk, the article is definitely at least B to me. This Tchaikovsky is entirely new, unlike that previous one; there is not question. The article definitely has improved. It would say it qualifies A or something. You would just need to let someone know that you are interested in promoting the article. (That would not be me.) Let me tell you something, I am not as familiar with article ratings as you think I am. My advice to you is to leave the article as is for a while, since you have done very excellent improvements to articles recently. I applaud you for doing a good job. If you are so motivated to get your article up to a greater status, just search around Wikipedia about how to get your article assessed. I would recommend contacting the article's Wikiprojects on its talk page. It is difficult to answer this question, since I am not familiar on this topic. Anyway, I hope this helps. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Andy, thanks for both the advice and the encouragement. I'll eventually search around Wikipedia as you suggest. I'd already finished working on the article, but leaving it alone for awhile longer is a good idea. Thanks again! Jonyungk 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow, thank you very much for the Music Barnstar! Hmm... I am not sure if I have seen this barnstar sometime before; it may be quite new. Anyway, thank you; I appreciate it! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. It looked to me that it was long overdue. This particular star comes from WikiProject Music. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)