User talk:Classicalfan626

Re: U.S. Senate 2018 elections
You have received a reply from myself at Talk:United States Senate elections, 2018. Have some thoughts about two the states you've mentioned, and I've never tried the "request for comment" page. Mlaurenti (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:114th United States Congress#Spelling of "reelected" vs "re-elected"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:114th United States Congress. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:History of Western art music
Sorry, my edit was a missclick- I looked at your contributions after I reverted your edit at Dexter's Laboratory (which I stand behind) and must have clicked "rollback" by accident. Sorry! J Milburn (talk)
 * And, judging from the time difference between the two, I probably had the contributions list open in a separate window from my main one... My "mouse skills" leave a lot to be desired... J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Hi, your recent edit summary is inappropriate. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Collaborative projects require civil discussions, not personal attacks, and the place to do that is on the article's talk page. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Cartoon Network - presidential era vs. decades
Hi Classical, an FYI that Phil A. Fry reinstated the presidential-oriented subject headers. I've reverted him, but you might want to open a discussion on the talk page, since this is somewhat a matter of preference. I'm leaving him a similar note. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Classical, Phil A. Fry has resubmitted the presidential headings again. If you have a specific objection, you should open a talk page discussion, otherwise you'll have no basis for reverting him again. Since you've previously expressed a problem with these headings, it would behoove you to comment, otherwise, it will be assumed that you've dropped the matter. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Sonic100jam
Show no longer used the Cartoon Cartoon brand but the brand was still used until 2008.Sonic100jam (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page
Hey Classical, you really need to take this kind of stuff to the talk page. If you have a perspective, assert it. If you voice a clear objection and people revert without participating in discussion, that's something you can ask admins to help you with. Yes, it's a pain in the ass, but reverting with angry edit summaries isn't going to help you, and you could unfairly get caught up in an edit warring situation, which would just suck. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Grease (song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:
Please do not undo edits without providing a proper justification. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please tone it down a bit
Rather than WP:BITE an IP like you did with this edit: you could just put something like "per WP:BRD please discuss this on the talk-page". Looking at the IP's talkpage this edit bothers me:, per WP:NPA you should never go after the editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBS (TV channel). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even late Beethoven is Classical
And there are good arguments for denying the label not to late Beethoven, but to early Beethoven. I will definitely grant that his personal and political viewpoints are very much from the next generation after Haydn and Mozart, which makes itself felt in his music's emotional climate, but the key is in his forms and proportions which are certainly of a Classical character, even as late as the last string quartets. (As for Schubert, even the Great Symphony and the C major String Quintet from the end of his life deserve the label, even if the earlier works often do not.) I'm going to summarise some of Rosen's points here.

Early Beethoven tends to misunderstand Mozart's principles even as he imitates them, just like the proto-Romantic generation he was part of. His C major concerto and early A major quartet focus more on the contrast of theme, and the Piano Sonata Op. 2 No. 2 weakens the fundamental tonic-dominant opposition key to Classical style (which is not based on contrast of theme so much as harmony; otherwise, how do you explain all of Haydn and Mozart's monothematic sonata forms)? Paradoxically, just when the emotional climate of his music breaks into the Napoleonic era with the Eroica Symphony, he returns decisively to this classical I–V opposition. Even when he substitutes III or VI for it (e.g. op. 53, 106, or 127), he treats it exactly like V: "they create a long-range dissonance against the tonic and so provide the tension for a move towards a central climax". It is thus in the context of Haydn and Mozart that Beethoven is best understood, even if his viewpoints are those of a later age and he cannot completely be judged by their standards (since he expanded them so much in his "middle period" and distilled and contracted them so much in his "late period").

As for Schubert's Eighth being the first Romantic symphony: certainly there are early examples of proto-Romanticism (consider the exposition of the finale of the Third, which goes to the subdominant). But with the Unfinished we enter a new world distinct from even those early post-Classical imitations. Apart from Newbould's commments, I am not aware of any earlier symphony with a completely rounded first group, no transition to the new key, and a relaxed theme in G major (indeed, it resolves so well that it takes a tutti sforzato to bring us back home simply by forcibly playing the tonic B in several octaves). In fact, this seems to be one of the easiest ways to tell a Romantic work from a Classical work in this period: it is the former if the second theme feels more relaxed than the first in harmonic movement (for some extreme examples, see Chopin's sonatas). Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you would like the quotes from Rosen
I tried to summarise this, but I don't believe it is possible to do any better than Rosen did originally. I've cut everything that doesn't go straight to the point due to copyright concerns (in any case, this is from five pages of a 550-page book, so I think we're fine).

"The question of Beethoven's position as a 'classical' or 'Romantic' composer is generally ill-defined. ... Instead of affixing a label, it would be better to consider in what context and against what background Beethoven may be most richly understood.

To begin with what may appear the larger issue—the spiritual content, the emotional ambiance of the music—would be to lame discussion from the start. It would be to risk confounding personal expression with general stylistic changes, and inevitably to muddle the different significance of similar expressive devices within disparate systems. That Haydn and Beethoven, or Schumann and Beethoven, used the same details or worked within forms that resemble each other, implies no sort of musical kinship if the details have entirely different meanings. Meaningless resemblances between composers can be found wherever sought for. Until we know how the details work and to what purpose, comprehension can only be, not simply provisional (for that is what it is at best), but illusory. It is, of course, difficult to avoid assuming a knowledge of the larger context in advance, regimenting the details accordingly: Beethoven often appears to speak too directly for us to admit the possibility that we have misunderstood him. A little methodological false humility in criticism, however, may go a long way towards revealing a genuine ignorance.

... It is tempting to think of Beethoven's substitute dominants as having something in common with the harmonic structures of the Romantic period, but his harmonic freedom is of a different order and nature. When the Romantic composer is not following an academic theory of form—that is, when he is not writing what he felt should be called a 'sonata'—his secondary tonalities are not dominants at all, but subdominants: they represent a diminishing tension and a less complex state of feeling, and not the greater tension and imperative need for resolution implied by all of Beethoven's secondary tonalities. ... Beethoven, indeed, here enlarged the limits of the classical style beyond all previous conceptions, but he never changed its essential structure or abandoned it, as did the composers who followed him. In the other fundamental aspects of his musical language, as well as in the key relations within a single movement, Beethoven may be said to have remained within the classical framework, even while using it in startlingly radical and original ways. ... We cannot even claim that Beethoven's harmonic licence within the classical style was a step towards the greater freedom of the Romantic generation, or that his magnificant stretching of the tonic-dominant polarity made it possible for those who followed to supersede it, or at least to bypass it. If Beethoven's daring had provided an example of such consequence, the Romantics would hardly have produced such uniformly conservative 'sonata' forms. ...

That Beethoven's musical language remained essentially classical—or, better, that he started with a late and diluted version of classicism and gradually returned to the stricter and more concise form of Haydn and Mozart—does not mean that he stood outside his time, or that his conception of classical form was the expression of an outlook identical to the late eighteenth century's. To cite only one trait, his music often has a sententious moral earnestness that many people have found repellent, and which is presented with an enthusiasm far more typical of Europe after the French Revolution than of the douceur de vivre that preceded it. Much of his music, too, is autobiographical, sometimes openly so, in a way that is unthinkable before 1790 if not presented playfully; it is embarrassing when historians read into the music of Haydn and Mozart the kind of directly personal significance appropriate to Beethoven and other nineteenth-century composers. Yet it is certain that Beethoven assumed a position not only contrary to the fashion of his time, but also in many ways against the direction that musical history was to take." (The Classical Style, pages 381 to 385.) Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular Vote 1816/1820
First of all, thank you for your contributions. I wanted to point out that there really were states that had popular votes before 1824, and there are non-"dubious" records of those votes. It would be a real shame if we lost the popular vote column on these articles. So here's what I'll do. I'll check OurCampaigns, the site from which Wikipedia got these vote totals. Please trust me for now when I saw these vote totals absolutely were cited from primary sources. By tommorrow night, EST, sources should be in. Thanks.

71.244.212.68 (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls
It's not a spam section. Other Cartoon Network shows have it. It's covered in reliable sources too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:6201:8800:8990:10E:620A:A2C1 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Frankie Valli
Hey, they make the grade per the reliable sources guideline; you could do a lot worse, at any rate. Nope, I don't know anything about Texas Jean. On the subject of sources, do you have a better source for FindAGrave for his first wife's maiden name? Graham 87 15:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, it would. Graham 87 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing citations and sourced information
Why are you with false edit summaries? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What I was doing was deleting false and/or dubious information to the article in question. And why are you accusing me of making false edit summaries?! Classicalfan626 (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I just meant to take out some over-hype about Ren & Stimpy. I didn't mean to take out that whole chunk of sources. Taking out all of them was a big mistake on my part. I apologize for that little bit of inconvenience. I just wanted to delete information of questionable accuracy. Classicalfan626 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please use the article's talk page to explain why you think the information is questionable. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello, I'm Knowledgekid87. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to The Powerpuff Girls. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remain calm while editing as these diffs are not helpful:, . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi, nationality is a basic parameter in that infobox, as shown in the template documentation. If you want it removed, then there'll need to be a proper reason based on guidelines and/or policies, and probably a discussion. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What?
Literally who is this? Googinber1234 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —  Newslinger  talk   21:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —  Newslinger  talk   21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

WND
Regarding this thread you started: Talk:WorldNetDaily

You've been here long enough to know better than to advocate fringe POV and deny what RS say. You know that content is based on RS, so the fact you even started that thread without first reading the sources behind the wording and then changing your beliefs so they align with those RS is worrying. It shows you lack competence to edit such topics here. To show such ignorance of facts and reveal that you fully believe the birther conspiracy theories simply boggles the mind. Start reading that article and what the RS say, learn, and change your mind. Always keep your thinking aligned with RS. You need to show a positive learning curve if you want to be trusted here because fringe editors have a short shelf life. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How dare you disparage me with this garbage! Also, what Wikipedia calls RS are actually incredibly biased arch-leftist sources, showing Wikipedia's bias in many politically charged articles. I thought I'd make a positive impression upon you people by pointing out Wikipedia's bias in favor of "reliable sources". But I guess I should've known better than to argue with a bunch of you guys. Also, saying I should "change my mind" to align with the "RS" and your way of thinking is a blatant assault on my psyche! Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)