User talk:Egnever

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Nelson Mandela. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Gurubrahma 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Nelson Mandela and msg. on my talkpage
Hi, this was your edit to the page:

Tony Blair is currently pushing through legislation 2006 which will make it a criminal offense to praise Nelson Mandela, since he was originally catalogued as a terrorist.

While Mandela was classified as a terrorist, he is no longer regarded as a terrorist. The law that the government is passing would not be with retrospective effect. Also, on Wikipedia, we follow a strict policy of verifiability. Conjectural inferences like the one above do not stand scrutiny unless verified a credible and reputed independent source. btw, when you add a message to a talk page, add ~ at the end of the message - that automatically adds your signature and the time. --Gurubrahma 12:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, that is false, as there is no a priori way of knowing in advance who will in future cease to be regarded as a terrorist. If someone is prosecuted now for lauding say bin Laden, then later bin Laden is no longer regarded as a terrorist, that term in prison will still have been served. If you want verification, look at any critique of the legislation. Note also that Mandela regards Bush as a Terrorist. The law sucks. Egnever 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexa spyware
Please cease vandalising the Alexa toolbar page. If you wish to make claims, please provide evidence 80.0.29.170 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please cease calling my comments vandalism. Evidence has been provided. Egnever 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Hill (pianist)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Peter Hill (pianist), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.shef.ac.uk/music/staff/ph/hillbio.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Peter Hill (pianist). Then you should do one of the following:
 * Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Peter Hill (pianist) where we can find that note; or
 * Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Whpq 19:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Hill
There's a Peter Hill (journalist) (editor of the Daily Express) and a Peter Hill (pianist). Wikipedia convention is to have a disambiguation page at Peter Hill linking to the 2 pages Peter Hill (journalist) and Peter Hill (pianist). You'll have to fix a lot of links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Peter_Hill if you move it back to Peter Hill. (It should be lower-case pianist; that was the only change I was making.) I myself have never heard of either PH. -- roundhouse 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have corrected all the links now. 11:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will do the disambiguation page later today. 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be Peter Hill (journalist) rather than Journalist - I'll leave that to you since I see that this is all very recent. (I watch the UniSheff page.) There is an advantage in Peter Hill (pianist) as it shows up in category listings. -- roundhouse 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's OK, I've done it all. --RobertG &#9836; talk 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Egnever 14:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambisonics
I have undone your edit to the Ambisonics page in which you wrote: ''Mike Gerzon used to say in the late sixties and early seventies that you could produce a better sound stage than the then current square four quad arrangement by placing the speakers at the vertices of a tetrahedron and the listeners at its centre. Effectively, all the non height-related information could be done with just three speakers. The fourth would add depth. The theory of this was well known to mathematics undergraduates but completely ignored by the industry.'' Four speakers in a tetahedron is unconnected with Ambisonics. Also, Gerzon has stated in print that such an arrangement could not be made to work. For example, in M.A. Gerzon, "Practical Periphony", Preprint 1571 of the 65th Audio Engineering Society Convention, London (1980 Feb.), he writes on Page 1: Another impractical means of full-sphere reproduction is the tetrahedral system shown in fig,2, or any other system using a tetrahedron of speakers. and on Page 5: ''The tetrahedral speaker layout shown earlier in fig. 2 does not satisfy the diametric decoder theorum, and the Makita and energy-vector localisations do not coincide. In fact, computations of the energy vector localisation show that sounds at high frequencies are very much drawn towards the four loudspeakers of the tetrahedral layout, ... This problem of sounds being pulled towards the speakers was in fact noticed in early experiments in tetrahedral recording, and is the reason why other speaker layouts must be used.'' Martin.leese 17:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:TaptonYouthBrassBand2003.jpg


The file File:TaptonYouthBrassBand2003.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, unclear use/purpose"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)