User talk:Jongleur100/Archive3

Ray Prosser
Started it today. Will finish it tomorrow. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Gladys Morgan.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gladys Morgan.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Iguana
Hey there, thanks for your note...I meant to come back to that, but I edit from two locations, made the quick move, left the one spot, came home, and forgot to come back to you. I apologize.

The animal in the picture you took is a Ctenosaura similis, or Black spiny-tail iguana. It's a great pic and looks identical to a large male I've had for many years! It probably should be added to the Ctenosaura article,maybe even on the iguanidae page, but definitely not Iguana as scientifically Iguana only refers to the Green Iguana and Lesser Antilles iguana. I think it's one of the most photographed iguanids if not lizards on wiki, but one of my personal favorites.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it to Ctenosaura similis. I'm not much of a photo-guy, on here, but what steps would be needed to get that as a featured pic or pic of the day? Cheers!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good one, I'll see what I can do about nominating it. I might be a little biased as it is like looking at the 15-year-old lizard in the cage behind me as I type this!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominated as a featured image here and as a Quality image here:good luck!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Caryl Churchill
I've protected the page, and I'll unprotect it whenever content disputes have been resolved, or if there is no discussion and a few weeks have passed. There certainly is a way to document the controversy around Churchill's work without citing blogs. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it Wikipedia:Twinkle ??
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) You reversed one of my edits on Slumdog Millionaire. I need more details for this as I do not get it. How did you categorize it as TW? I think you are a wiki administrator.

Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you are asking me about Twinkle or why I reverted your entry, but I'll try to give you an answer.
 * You placed a link to the Three Musketeers right at the beginning of the plot summary. This would have been completely baffling to anyone who hasn't seen the film. What have the Three Musketeers got to do with Slumdog Millionaire? If this information had been included first and then you had placed a link I would have left it there, but as it stood it just didn't make sense.


 * Twinkle is just a set of javascript tools which makes it easier to revert inappropriate edits like yours. I could have used 'undo' but Twinkle is a lot quicker. Hope this explains it. (By the way, if you give a more detailed edit summary you're less likely to get reverted.)  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, let me see the movie - what I heard was from friends and internet. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Coconut
Ooops! Sorry, I thought those buttons were meant to remove the stuff that they said, not tag the pages for deletion because of those things!!!

I guess that doesn't make sense though, which is why I tried it. Just forgot to revert anything I messed up.

Next time I'll use the sandbox lol...

Sorry.

Thanks for informing me of that.

-Axmann8  ( Talk )  00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sport in Cardiff
Just to clarify, national means within Wales in this context, not the UK if that's why you reverted my edit to Cardiff. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of research on this some time ago, and while it is true that most Welsh mainstream sports like rugby and football are based in Cardiff there are many more of the smaller sports based outside it, eg. cycling, ice skating, wrestling, water sports, table tennis, judo, tae kwondo, bowls etc., Many of them do not actually have premises, but are a loose affiliation of clubs and leagues, with just a secretary working from home, so it's not true to say most sports are based in Cardiff.


 * If you were to re-phrase it as 'most national arts organisations and mainstream sports ....' I could accept that.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Rugby World Cup Sevens
You reverted my correction:. Why? --Bob (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was being dumb.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 08:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How a Juke Box works
Hi Jongleur 100. Thank you for the welcome. I am as you can see new to wikipedia and not sure how to placs an article within the Juke box section. Maybe you could help? Regards taylorraymond..(Ray Taylor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorraymond (talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ray. You obviously have a great fund of knowledge about the workings of a jukebox, so I've created a new article called Jukebox (mechanism) using some of your information. You can upload to this in the same way that you have been doing on the talk page. I haven't a clue what some of it means so you can rewrite, rearrange, or anything else that you may feel is necessary.
 * A word of warning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so, although you may be an expert, the information you place on the page may be challenged by other editors as being 'original research', so it's best if you can provide a few references from books, magazines, newspaper articles, broadcast media etc., to back up your postings. By the way, you should avoid all personal references like ' I will put .... on this page..' etc.,


 * Good luck, I'll be keeping an eye on the page. If you need any help please don't hesitate to ask.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Taylor (how a juke box works)
Thank you for creating the page set up. I have taken on your suggestions and will continue on with the program.Regards Ray TaylorTaylorraymond (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Inventors
These inventors are prolific! Not only did they invent the armchair in 1931, they created the Game Boy Color over 50 years later. I'm surprised their names aren't more widely known. Joyous! | Talk 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite remarkable!  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 14:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging Photo
Hello. Apologies in advance if this is not the right forum. I am going to use the you posted in a research paper, and would like to acknowledge you using your real name (otherwise I will acknowledge Wikipedia user Jongleur100). Please contact me at ktegan at cs dot columbia dot edu. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.17.223 (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Utopia
You are ignoring the other source. I have put in more complete information now. See if you are satisfied. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't ignore any other source, I just followed the reference, and read what was there. You have now provided a different reference, but it again doesn't back up your assertion that some reviewers prefer the Ohio recording. It states of  the Ohio recording: 'They are a semi-professional company, and one cannot expect from them the same polish that one would expect from D'Oyly Carte.', with the review by Robert Ray saying 'I feel it inferior to the D'Oyly Carte 1975 recording .Give me the DC recording any day!!! NO reviewer states specifically that they prefer the Ohio recording, which is what you need for a proper reference in Wikipedia.   ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 18:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the other source was there before, after the recording's bullet point. But, OK, you're right, the reference wasn't placed properly before. Ian Bond wrote, "this is delightful....", something that no one would say about the DOC recording. Daniel Florip says, "Had the D'OC Utopia been recorded 10 years earlier, when Sandford was in his prime, it would have been better, but I think Christopher's is the better of the two recordings." Ray Walker wrote, "For myself and members of Manchester G & S Society who have bought the set, we like it and much prefer the tempi of all of Act I and most of Act II numbers [to that of the DOC]." Paul Ensell concluded, "With this one exception [Eagle High] this will be my Utopia of choice when I reach for a recording." So, it is clear that "some" of these reviewers, if not most, liked it better. BTW, I don't know what Shepherd means when he says that the DOC recording is the only one currently in print, as the OLO recording is readily available from Amazon and other places: http://www.amazon.com/Gilbert-Sullivan-Utopia-Limited-Arthur/dp/B00005A8HP -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are an experienced editor. Are reviews of semi-professionals, by amateurs, an acceptable source in Wikipedia?  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohio Light Opera is a professional company. Why Shepherd calls them semi-pros, I am not sure. BTW, Shepherd gives both recordings three stars, so he considers them to be on a par. Shepherd's discography has been accepted at FAC as a reliable source. I found an Opera News review of the OLO disc: "Conducted with verve by J. Lynn Thompson and featuring a generally strong cast, it serves the musical values of Utopia well.... The principals sing with fine style and admirable diction, but some lack dramatic variety in the spoken dialogue  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that Shepherd wrote the phrase about the DOC recording being the best we're likely to see PRIOR to the OLO recording's release, and then when he added the OLO recording to the discography list at the bottom, he didn't go back and update his original statement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is Shepherd and what is FAC?  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See FAC. Shepherd: WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, fine. I'm not personally interested in any of this, but you see the problem I have. You quoted a review by a member of Manchester G&S society, and they are a bunch of amateurs. I don't know who the other reviewers are, although I accept that Shepherd is some sort of expert. This isn't obvious from the amateur-looking website you use as a reference. Perhaps you should try to find more credible sources, such as the music reviewers of major newspapers, in addition to Shepherd.   ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)