User talk:Magazine1212

Signing edits
I've noticed you're signing your edits by using four tildes. There's no need to do this in the edit summary, as the article's edit history will show who has edited a page. Signing is only required when discussing things on (for example) a user's or article's talk page. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. When you recently edited Rami Bar-Niv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Suspicions of sockpuppetry
Please see my remarks at User talk:Barniv regarding this account. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Further my comments on the talk page of Rami Bar-Niv, I strongly urge you to desist from further editing of that article until you have established yourself as a legitimate editor. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rav Papa. I did read your correspondence with Rami Bar-Niv and I am asking you to please explain to me how am I supposed to establish myself as a legitimate editor? What is a legitimate, as opposed to an illegitimate editor, please?

At this opportunity, may I ask you a rather "philosophical" question about the underlying idea of Wikipedia---at least the one I understand from Jimbo Wales' essays. If Wikipedians stick to displaying information about dead people only, isn't it going to be about 70 years behind in terms of relevancy today?

What kind of editors would you encourage to write wikipedia pages? Experts in their respective fields who dedicated their lives to a certain subject about which they also wrote journal papers, books, etc., or people who know very little about whatever they write? If you want to encourage Experts, it will be impossible for them NOT to quote their own work; remember, we want references to published material, and the most recent and relevant portion of that published material was, by definition, published by these experts themselves. Would you call it self-promotion? If you do, you effectively discourage Experts from writing anything. The end result will then be.....outdated and irrelevant.

Do you see the built-in contradiction here?

And, there is another point here. What is it that motivates a normal Joeshmo to create a wikipedia page in the first place? My answer is that people get inspired by reading a book, or hearing a concert, or watching a show; they get involved, they get to meet/correspond with the source, and they become inspired to invest the enormous work that it takes to establish a page for their "hero". That's my answer; I would love to hear yours.

Thank you for taking the time. I'll be waiting for your thoughtful reply.Magazine 07:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some suggestions of articles which you might consider writing or expanding:


 * Carl Schachter, whose article is a stub. As you probably know, he is still alive, and is likely someone whom you know personally, or at least know someone who knows him personally.
 * Alexander Boskovitz. There is no article on this excellent and important Israeli composer, who was also personally connected to Rami Bar-Niv. Boskovitz, I know, is no longer with us, although not too long ago departed.
 * Fingering: Here is a topic on which you have an excellent source in Rami Bar-Niv. As one who has written an (unpublished) book on fingering, he is surely familiar with its history. The article mentions the controversy over Bach's innovation of using the thumb, and I'm sure Bar-Niv can expand on this. The article mentions nothing about the innovations of Czerny, Chopin and Liszt, as they appear in, for example, the Chopin etudes. Here is fertile ground for you to contribute your expertise.
 * As you may know from perusing the Wikipedia, there are articles about individual pieces. Look at Schubert's last sonatas or Death and the Maiden Quartet for examples. You might ask Bar-Niv about the Shostakovich piano concerto no 1, which he performs admirably, and write an article about that.


 * These are only a few suggestions. I'm sure that if you take an earnest interest in improving and expanding the Wikipedia, you can think of more.


 * As for your question about what motivates a normal Joeshmo to create a Wikpedia page, I can speak only for myself. I get tremendous satisfaction from being part of this incredible project, from seeing human knowledge being gathered and presented, and from having my own contributions read by so many. And, while I believe you have set off on the wrong foot with your efforts to write panegyrics about your hero, I also believe that you, too, can be bitten by the Wikipedia bug, and make a meaningful contribution to this project. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've undone your recent additions to abiogenic petroleum origin. Your addition of the Pre-salt discoveries by Petrobas was not supported by the commercial website you used for a reference -- and it didn't belong in the lead section. Later you mention the book Black Gold Stranglehold without providing a real edit - just mentioning a book doesn't cut it. Also your "reference" for the book included an Amazon sales blurb, we're not here to sell books. Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In an article on a controversial subject any new claims must be supported by reliable sources. If you find a good reference to support the Brazilian Pre-salt discovery as being abiogenic in origin, then add that as either a new section or in an existing section within the article body. We don't add stuff only to the lead section as the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Vsmith (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Help sought
I would appreciate help in understanding why the picture in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Branover is blurred compared to what I uploaded to Wikimedia. Thanks, Mike

first paragraph
I commented at Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin. At first I reverted your edit, then I decided to redo it with modifications. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Jerome Corsi is a reliable source for scientific facts. He seems to be a conspiracy theorist, and I have just spotted one of his articles: "How the U.S. Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American People"..... This is not material for a serious encyclopedia....


 * And a Phd in political science is not the same as a PhD in geology..... And even then it would be a single geologist among the vast majority...... Is Corsi claiming that the abiotic theory is supported by most geologists? Is Corsi's idea being cited in scholar books or journals? Is it being cited as a solid idea backed with evidence, or as a conspiracy theory? Is Corsi's idea actually cited or even refuted by any "serious" geologist source?? This stuff belongs to Corsi's article. The reasons for this are explained at WP:FRINGE. You want to make a close read of WP:FRINGE, and the "Notability" section that follows it. And the section "Peer reviewed sources". --Enric Naval (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2012 (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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)