User talk:Chaognosis

Edit Summary Request
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Logging in
I would like to thank you for your contribution, but also suggest that you be more careful about logging in first. I have also made this mistake, but it helps greatly as the edit logs then show correctly who has added material. Based on the subjects edited—including your user page—I believe that all of the contributions by user 71.254.5.91, user 69.162.162.237, user 128.135.53.22, & user 128.135.155.12 are yours also? —MJBurrage • TALK  • 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vermont Mozart Festival
Except to one anonymous user—64.223.94.36, who based upon their edit history seems to be Tim Riddle—the section was not contentious, and the personnel change was notable enough to receive news coverage (both Burlington Free Press, and VPR), making it notable for the subject article.

From the article history, I see that you started the section in question yourself on 16 August 2006, and that except for minor changes the section was fine until 64.223.94.36 started trying to delete it on 4 June 2007 —MJBurrage • TALK  • 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response on my talk page. All of the detail in the currently removed section, 1) amount of debt, 2) the percentage of debt retired in the past two years,  and 3) Stone's leaving, were all detailed in the Free Press article cited.  And I believe that my rewording of the most recent anonymous change was NPOV.
 * I too have heard more via word of mouth, but left any of that out for POV, and citation reasons. What was there was all directly from the news article.  I agree that more on the Festival's finances from before two years ago would be good, but in general you would not remove a section for being incomplete, only for being wrong or POV.  (After all most of Wikipedia is incomplete to some extent.) —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 18:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vtmozart.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vtmozart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you link in "Tennis male players statistics"
Hello,

I've read very quickly your blog because I have no time. I globally agree (not at 100%) with your remarks. Thank you for adding it in the "Tennis male players statistics" article. Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brett! --Lucio Garcia (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)