User talk:Jonyungk/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 some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Symphony No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)
I attempted to recover the lost text. It is just that you forgot to close a reference. You forgot to put the "/" on a closing ref tag. So the reference never stopped until the end of the article. Anyway, I fixed that problem. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. By the way, excellent job on the Tchaikovsky articles! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 03:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

4.233.119.10

{unblock-auto|1=4.233.113.145|2= Persistent abuse on this IP range. Please log in or email  to register an account to contribute. |3=Dmcdevit}}


 * There's something wrong here; I don't think you're blocked. There is a block in place on User:4.233.0.0/16 (a rangeblock), but (1) it's set up as anon-only, so you should be able to edit when you're logged in, and (2) the block was on the 12th of may and you've managed to edit since then.  I think you must have tried to edit while logged out and assumed you were still blocked when you logged back in.  Try editing the Sandbox and if that doesn't work, post a new request.  Mango juice talk 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jonyungk. I've accepted your invitation and had a look at the article. I've made various minor edits, as you will see. I'm slightly concerned that it is perhaps a little too full of material that doesn't directly relate to Winter Daydreams. But I'd much rather have that than not enough information. I'll revisit it again down the track and see what I think should be done to reduce it, if anything. Great work, and congrats on a fine effort. JackofOz 02:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky image
Why did you revert this change? To me it looks better when the initial image is on the right. &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've explained this already on your talk page, but here goes. To you the photo may look better on the right, but Tchaikovsky is facing away from the text and outside the page.  This, in terms of professional layout basics, is a huge no-no.  You want the person in the picture facing into the page, toward the text instead of away from it, which gives the reader a visual cue to look in that direction instead of trailing away, as he or she would with Tchaikovsky's picture on the right.  With Tchaikovsky's photo on the left, the composer is facing into the page, which is the way he is should face in terms of layout.  Jonyungk 03:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I see how it goes now. &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  03:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey mate, I've seen you adding some refrences and thought this might help (although I don't know whether or not you already know this).

If you're going to use the same reference twice, write &lt;ref name=ABC&gt;This is an article reference.&lt;/ref&gt; and then later when you put it in, you only need to put &lt;ref name=ABC&gt; at the end of what you want referenced. &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't know—thanks! That'll really come in handy.  BTW (in case you didn't read this on your talk page), like very much what you did with the TOC to get rid of empty space.  Thanks again!  Jonyungk 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi do you know the name of the author of Image:Tschaikowski.jpg? Thank you. --71.89.147.212 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's personal life
Hi Jonyungk. You are off to such a great start on the article Tchaikovsky's personal life that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's death
Hi Jonyungk. You are off to such a great start on the article Tchaikovsky's death that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five
Hi Jonyungk. You are off to such a great start on the article Tchaikovsky and the Five that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

T-man's death
Did you even read WP:MOS, which I linked to in my edit summary? Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences 400px might look fine on a 1280x1056 screen resolution, but it looks horrid to those who still use 800x600, for instance? hbdragon88 16:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read WP:MOS, then re-read it after your self-righteous post. As much as I may not be a fan of your obsessive anal-retention, I have to admit that the rules are on your side.  So, while not appreciating the condescending tone of the messenger, I got the message.  Thanks.  Now if I promise to go and sin no more, will you please stay away from my articles?  Again, thanks.  Jonyungk 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably came off as very condescending becuase I explicitly linked to the page in question and still got yelled at for it. Unfortunately, I'm taking a music class, and I'm supposed to attend a concert and compose a report on a composer.  Thanks to V for Vendeta, Tchaikovsky is the man now, and I'm attending a Tchaikovsky concert soon and will very likely be writing the composer report on him, so I'll be sticking around in this area for a bit. hbdragon88 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please help: Read through your post and am still trying to make sense of your first sentence: You explicitly linked in to the page and got yelled at? What do you mean?  My ranting (and I admit that I can readily get carried away, so my sincerest apologies if I'm the cause here)?  Someone else yelled at you?  It's unclear the way you plrase it, and I'd really like know what you mean.


 * When seeing the Tchaikovsky page on a different-sized monitor than my own, I could se your point. Remember that you're dealing with a print-media-layout dinosaur, where, basically, one size fits all, more or less.  Had no idea readers would or could adjust the size of photos for themselves, so thanks for the info on that.


 * And yes, I also saw V for Vendetta. Loved the movie in general think it makes the best use of the 1812 Overture of any film in a long time.  My impression was that it didn't do so well financially in the US.  It deserved much better—definitely a tighter and more fleshed out piece of work than tht two latter Matrix films.


 * Very curious how the concert you're attending turns out. Please post here; I'd love to read it.  Jonyungk 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
You've done such good work on Tchaikovsky, do you think you and I could nominate it for featured article? &mdash; $PЯIПG  rαgђ  15:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I think we could nominate it. Jonyungk 07:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is, if the link were blue. ;) OK, just tell me when and I'll put it up. &mdash; $PЯIПG  rαgђ  20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Jonyungk 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I asked Antandrus about it, and he says it needs a small bit of work before peer review, but hopefully it won't be too hard. &mdash; $PЯIПG  rαgђ  04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Did he make any specific suggestions?  That would help in getting the article ready.  Jonyungk 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't copy the whole conversation, but here is his most recent comment: "Yes, peer review has to be first. I'm just starting to look at the article. The biography section reads well, but I skimmed it. The section on the music needs a lot more detail on the actual musical style, and it also has POV issues (e.g. "undeservedly neglected"). Best to tweak it before it gets battered by peer review/FAC, which has a risk of being quite an unpleasant affair, especially if one has put a lot of work into something (it might feel like you're just getting a lot of carping criticism with very few thank-yous for your dozens of hours of volunteer time)." &mdash; $PЯIПG  rαgђ  04:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what he says about the music section—I've felt it to be a substantial flaw in the article for some time. The tough part is writing something substantial yet fairly brief without getting into an technical musicological muddle, but it can probabloy be pulled off.  Agree also about the POV issued, though that's much easier to clean up.  I'll see about redoing that section with these guidelines in mind.  Thanks for sharing Antandrus's comments.  They really help.  Jonyungk 04:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you think it is now? I've done a few tweaks today but it was all trivial stuff (I was however surprised by how many .s were missing). &mdash; $PЯIПG  rαgђ  19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, much improved. Thank you for correcting what my errant fingers left!  I'm going back through Warrack and Brown to pull something together for the "Compositional Style" section.  I'll start work on that soon.  Jonyungk 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good! :) Since you have done more work on it than probably anyone else here, you will probably know better when to submit it to WP:PR than I. &mdash; $PЯIПG  rαgђ  00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, once the "Compositional Style" section is done, the article will probably be ready. Since it looked like not having it would be a sticking point with peer review, just want to make sure we're covered on that front.  I'll keep you posted.  Two heads are definitely better than one on this one. :-)  Jonyungk 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I criticise one of your edits?
I think that the edit you made about five minutes ago (04:30 GMT July 26) is fine, but it sounded all right and not too boringly musicological before. Is it fine if I revert it? &mdash;  04:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)' P Я I N G'' ε r α g ђ  04:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell you what: Look at what I've done since then and let me know what you think before you revert anything. The only thing gone now is the Harmony section; all the rest has been re-added or reshuffled.  I'll wait to hear from you before doing anything else—and thanks for geting back to me so fast on this! :-)  Jonyungk 04:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh OK, never mind. I thought you were just removing it (and I was like "what?") but since you're just moving it that's all right. &mdash;  04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)' P Я I N G'' ε r α g ђ  04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem—I'm glad you spoke up. I realized after the first edit that I'd taken out too much and needed to replace some of it.  And thanks for the reassurance about this not sounding too boring or musicological—that makes me feel more confident on writing this section.  I was also concerned with pacing but think the section reads much better now.  Now all I have to do is finish it.  Jonyungk 04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky redux
Hey, sorry I haven't responded. Did you say you were ready for Tchaikovsky to be reviewed? &mdash;  03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)' P Я I N G'' ε r α g ђ  03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem on your not responding—I totally understand. Very sorry to hear about your loss.


 * Yes, barring another hunt for those pesky tyops os mine, Tchaikovsky is ready for review. Bring on the peers.  Jonyungk 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyops? ;) The peer review is here. &mdash;  04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)' P Я I N G'' ε r α g ђ  04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * YES. Jonyungk 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Protect?
I asked for the article to be semi-protected (Requests for page protection) as there has been a lot of useless editing since I put it up for peer review. &mdash;  20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)' P Я I N G'' ε r α g ђ  20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely—thank you. I've reversed the most ruinous of those edits, and what can be substantiated should go into linked articles anyway, not the main one.  I'd already wrote LudwigvanBeethoven about thie earlier today.  Thanks again for stepping in.  Jonyungk 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The request was declined. However, the little spree we have is not unbearable and we should be able to fight it off until the peer review is done. &mdash;  23:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)' P Я I N G'' ε r α g ђ  23:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barbarians
Pff. I have a few words about people like that that I can't say on the wiki. Keep it up though, just don't cut too much. ;) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

more on Tchaikovsky
Aha--magnificent. Even I never would have thought to consolidate the gay section, the Miliukova section and the Dostoyevsky section into one big section. It'll need bits of smoothing out here and there, but suddenly everything looks much more relevant and in-context--good work. :) K. Lásztocska 15:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[reply from my talk page that I couldn't think of a good heading for] I don't know. To be safe I would wait until there haven't been any reviews for a week before archiving it. Then it's across the creaking rope bridge to FAC… &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Peeri Reviewi Tchaikovskayu
Hmm. Let me look at other archived peer reviews and see about how long they were. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Some are long, some are short, some are middling. Go ahead and archive it, but don't submit it until I'm sure that we can submit an article right after a peer review. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Two questions: (1) How to archive a page and (2) How did you get your signatire line so cool? Jonyungk 05:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are good questions. But I will answer #2 in a separate heading. For #1, do you mean like this page or a peer review page? The archived peer reviews I've seen had a link to Peer review/[Peer reviewed article]/Archive but that may not be required. I'll ask someone (probably an administrator, and Antandrus might know) who knows these things. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How do I archive the Tchaik page?  Jonyungk 14:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One month old and two weeks without a response &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Hmm. How I show you depends on whether you want to make it yourself or have me do it. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd like to have the fun of making it myself. (-: Jonyungk 22:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. What you do then is find a signature you want to base yours on and copy+paste the code into User:Jonyungk/sig. Tweak username, colours, etc. to what you want and then copy+paste that into the signature bar at your preferences, and check Raw signature and save. If it doesn't work call me and I'll try to help. :) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Finishing touches on Tchaikovsky
I'd be more than happy to read through it--a bit later tonight though, as I have to go practice violin at the moment. :) I'll take a look at it in a few hours. K. Lásztocska 00:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I read it, and made a few minor changes. Knock them back if you don't like them. :) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaack--and I'm afraid I must bug out of the commitment I made earlier today--real life has caught up with me again and I'm going to be quite busy for the next few days (before I get to conservatory and everything settles down into more-or-less structured mayhem.) So I'm afraid I probably won't be much use for Tchaik in the short term...terribly sorry. :( K. Lásztocska 04:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you did, but that's my—you guessed it—point of view. I would ask a few other people such as Schissel, Antandrus, and maybe Moreschi and Acalamari (The later two I don't know if they are musically inclined but you could ask them anyway as they are well-known and well-respected editors.) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing I would do is what I'm doing now—check for spelling. As yuo mihgt alreedy now, speeling errorsc an riun teh sens of fornality. ;) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am visiting family at the moment so have less time to check but will be happy to as I can - thanks! Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, I thought it might be best to inform you that an article you created, Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov,  has been nominated for deletion here. Best. --Folantin 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Boris Godunov (opera)
In reply to your comments in the AFD re the other versions, it's certainly wise of you not to want to antagonise a user who has been working slowly and steadily to improve the articles on Boris and other Russian music. It happens that User:Ivan Velikii is also just now showing some interest in operas by Smetena who's one of WP:WPO's composers of the month. I'm trying to encourage him to join us at which point it may be easier to discuss opera candidates for good article nomination. You're obviously also welcome to join, but, judging by the articles you've highlighted on your user page, your focus seems to be more relavent to WP:CM.--Peter cohen 17:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

reply on Tchaikovsky article
Hi Jonyungk, Andy replying. I decided to reply on your talk page about the Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky article. The article does have its extreme detail on Tchaikovsky's life, music, and death. First, do not think low of yourself and don't panic either. The article is fine right now, but of course, it would need editing. I applaud you for your writing; it is quite an achievement. When you get this reply, please read carefully.

The first thing I noticed was that it is full of references, very useful references that would make an excellent article. By now, I can really tell that Tchaikovsky is one of your favorite composers, there is no doubt about that. I don't see many people with your level of devotion to an article. The article is currently in a position that is difficult to reduce, but should be reduced.

I guess it is the peer review here that made you flinch. What I am about to describe to you is not easy in words. I am agreeing with some of the comments by other users on Tchaikovsky.

Note that not many Wikipedia articles go as deep as the Tchaikovsky article in interpreting text from a notable biographer. I find that many of the articles that you touch upon cite these books and go into a deep elaboration. One of the first paragraphs at the top mention an Anthony Holden. For a biographic article, it is okay, but generally, I don't think articles should mention any people outside of his time period. Just discuss the people that he lived among. For some reason, when a person living today is introduced into the article, it seems like the person just does not fit in the article. Such analysis on Tchaikovsky is okay, but it somehow only takes away from the article ad Tchaikovsky is not too centered. Another biographer is discussing the person in question. However, it should feel like Wikipedia is providing the info, not a biographer.

I find that in the article, quotes from biographers are prevalent. Wikipedia articles generally do not feature such a large number of quotes. And also, I found that some of the quotes you chose from are opinions. Example in the article: "Russianness". The section is well referenced, but an article is not just about references, especially opinionated references. I am sorry to be saying this, but such info is present in a large amount in the article.

I also find very colorful phrases in the article. An encyclopedia article should not use colorful and literary phrases. Although the article is quite neutral, in the way that it is presented, it fails NPOV. The article does look much like an essay, a very well-written essay.

Also, the article  needs to be reduced in text amount. The article is about 90000 bytes; I recommend getting the article down to about 50000 bytes; 50000 is a good size for a GA or FA article.

Perhaps you have seen this, but I will put it here for you to look at. Template:Grading scheme, this is a guideline of what you should aim for. What is a good article? to reach GA status, Featured article criteria for FA status.

Let me give you a diff of the article as of the beginning of the year. You have edited the article profusely, completely giving it a new tone and a new detail. I congratulate your work; it must have been demanding of you to update the article to its status now. Please do not think low of yourself. I applaud you, and so do many people. There is plenty of detailed information here.

Shall I make suggestions? I don't know, this might help. This may sound strange, but I suggest taking a look a FA articles (or past FA articles) of other composers. Examples: Charles Ives, Dmitri Shostakovich, Igor Stravinsky. However, please don't edit these articles that much; the pupose is for you to analyze them. I also suggest taking a small break from any Tchaikovsky article. After a while, come back, don't edit, and just examine it; compare it to Ives or Shostakovich or Stravinsky. You might see similarities and differences. I don't know, this might help.

No matter what, you are a great editor. Just don't be shocked or panic. Cheers, don't let comments let you down, and happy writing. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, Jonyungk. Oh my goodness! I did not expect you to change the article so drastically. I appreciate your trying to edit the article as it was, but I only provided a diff just as a reference, not for you to try to revert it to that state. Also, I only thought I mentioned FA, not to bring the article to FA or such. Oh, please do not feel so upset; you have definitely been an asset to classical articles, whether you feel it anymore or not. I saw your post on a different user's talk. Please don't leave. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get it. I am starting to realize your approach to the article. As you stated: "as a template upon which to update with information" from your writing, you are doing fine; of course, you can definitely incorporate info that you have been adding before September; not all of it is bad; and I also hope you did not get that kind of message. Anyway, I just wanted to say to try to bring out the best in both "versions" of the article now; I will try to edit also to assist.
 * Another point: when you reverted, you may have orphaned articles. I mean that articles no longer link to Tchaikovsky, or Tchaikovsky no longer links to them. For example, Tchaikovsky's personal life, perhaps Tchaikovsky's death, etc. The articles you created are okay because they are specific; just create a link from the Tchaikovsky article. I think you know that I mean. Cheers from your friend, — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Late Sept 4
Sure, you are doing fine. I added Tchaikovsky to my watchlist. Just a note to you: I notice that you have copied text, including the reference symbols. In the article, stuff like "[40]" or stuff like "[41]" appear. I currently removed them, but if you want to keep them, just revert me. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC
Are you sure? It got hardly less than lambasted at peer review. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: It might have, but if you want me to I will. :) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They remind me of this lambaster. And I can stand them about as well. OK, I will read it, only not tonight as I don't have time. I do need to ask you one thing though: since I archive a little more often than you do, can you link Tchaikovsky in the message someplace whenever you message me about it? Thank you. :) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)