User talk:Makemi/Archive4

'''This is an archive. Please do not edit it.'''

L'Upupa und der Triumph der Sohnesliebe
Hi, thanks for your note. In this case I actually couldn't work out why the link didn't work. I think it was the apostrophe! I do agree with you about redirects though. . . - Kleinzach 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing
Yikes! No articles on formes fixes, rondeau (music) ... guess we're not done yet... ;-) Antandrus  (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor trouble
This sounds stupid, but I'm having trouble getting pictures on Wikipedia to come up on my computer. I just get a blank space, with a red cross in the corner. The problem only seems to apply to Wikipedia, though sporadically beforehand other websites have misfunctioned in this fashion. Do you have any idea as to what the problem might be and, even better, how to fix it? If it's any help, I've got Windows XP and use Microsoft Internet Explorer. Cheers, Moreschi 14:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many composers, too little time
LOL, actually there are probably numerous duplications there, I made that page by querying out the links from a whole bunch of different lists, do these comma splices remind you of anyone we both know and love? Hope you had a great 4th! Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had already read Leonora Sanvitale (nice job!). I also trimmed back my to-do list a bit:  there are now some better editors than me in some areas ;-)  .  Now I'm fixing a few redirects prior to tackling a really big one, for which I've been reading up for a while (musique mesurée).  And I really long for though are those three volumes of Einstein .... maybe I can find them at a garage sale somewhere ... :-)  Have fun with Ferrara!  Antandrus  (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps as a corollary to the famous "everything tastes more or less like chicken", everything in France "more or less relates to Cheese." --Although as I write this I'm listening to Nicolas Gombert, who is more like very fine wine... Antandrus  (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Muddle of the Médées
Thanks for having a go at these. I was blissfully unaware of the muddle. I have changed Médée (Charpentier opera) to Médée (Charpentier), which I hope is correct (assuming he didn't also write an oratorio on the same subject or anything). The Cherubini, I think, ought to be Médée (opera) - as it is listed on the opera corpus - but I can't move it unless I do cut and paste (which is bad style I understand). Assuming you agree is it possible to do an admin on it? Best. - Kleinzach 10:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. "Médée (Cherubini)" might be a solution although we normally have the main contender as X (opera) and the second as X (composer). On the other hand having two disambiguation pages might be a bit, er, ambiguous. Or are you thinking along different lines? - Kleinzach 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Is the Cherubini one that much more likely to be the intended target?" - Perhaps, but I am not really familiar with either of them. I'm not sure anybody has sung the Cherubini much since Callas.


 * ". . . unless you think Cherubini is far more likely to be someone's intended search I think the titles should be Médée (Cherubini) and Médée (Charpentier)". OK I'll try to implement this. - Kleinzach 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Hi Makemi! I know we haven't interacted much (though, looking at your userpage, we would have a lot to talk about, especially classical music and Latin), but I saw your quick and decisive removal and block of the troll at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and I decided that this (combined with all of the other actions I've seen on your logs) more than warranted a barnstar. Feel free to move/copy it to your userpage. Keep up the good work- we always need admins who are willing to protect Wikipedia, and not coddle those who threaten to disrupt it. Feel free to send me a message anytime should you need help or advice. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up tag
Just so you know, the tag only uses month and year for the first parameter, not the full date, as you can see in Category:Cleanup by month. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah...
It looks to me like you may have thought he was talking about the article, while in reality he was talking about the talk page. It seems he edited other people's comments (something I never do, no matter how full of misspellings and grammatical burrs). Misunderstandings happen. :-) Coincidentally, I just sent you an e-mail about something else.  Antandrus  (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah
Ah, I see. Hope it works. Herostratus 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
And there's so much more to write ... and to learn, and hopefully not cross over the WP:NOR boundary. Some of the people involved in the "secret music" movement in France had recently spent time in Venice and... and.... just maybe.... 'cause it's so close.... the other place. We need to find out. :-) I was just trying to explain this all to "lay" people at dinner tonight, how in the Renaissance they actually believed that if you sang in a certain meter and in a certain mode it could make you a better person, even a non-violent one; and they certainly had a reason for longing for those changes in Paris in the 1570s, thinking of poor Claude Goudimel or Antoine de Bertrand (or, for that matter, Anna Guarini...)  Fun stuff, and so much more exciting than reverting "poo" from hundreds of articles.  Have a great evening too!  Antandrus  (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Médée (Charpentier)
Hey Mak, you might just still be writing this article, but I was wondering whether it was custumary to leave blank sections as you did with "Synopsis" if there's a section that clearly needs to exist for the article, but that you don't have the resources or desire to write at the time. Still learning some stylistic things. And nice work with the new articles. MarkBuckles 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

repost
Ah okay, I thought any recreation of any deleted content was forbidden unless it went through a request process?--Crossmr 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Makemi for the post, look forward to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Istheway2 (talk • contribs)

Thanks
Well thanks, hi back! No, I haven't done any editing before--I just cut and paste the links so I know they'll work. Cheers!

Dybryd (talk)

Vandalism
The same anon has just put the same spammy AOL link into both "Baroque music" (which you reverted) and "Opera" (which I reverted). I think that he needs to be dealt with - either blocked or given his very last warning. Cheers, Moreschi 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; I suppose that this is living proof of that saying. Cheers, Moreschi 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Xrblsnggt/monobook.js
Thanks! You're awesome. --Xrblsnggt 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Fairy-Queen
The article's reached the top of its category on the GA nominations page. I rather panicked and carried out some drastic revisions. I think that the new bibliography section looks good, but is the deletion of the list of actors O.K with you? As you can see, I've provided a link to the play, explaining about the removal of Hippolyta. Moreschi 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't use those books as sources so a separate bibliographic section should be O.K. I agree that the GA review process is terminally slow; my Pro Milone nomination spent absolute donkey's years (probably over a month) on the list before being passed. Any slower and we'd be travelling backwards in time. In fact, once I remember copy-editing an article that was also on the GA list so that it would be passed quicker so that my Milone would get reviewed quicker! However, do you want me to review the articles in question? There's no reason why I shouldn't; I certainly haven't contributed to them in any way and have no personal POV on either of the two subjects. Fingers crossed for The Fairy-Queen. Cheers, Moreschi 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave my comments on the articles's talk pages. Moreschi 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We surely don't need to expand on the development of the libretto, do we? My reasoning for this is on the talk page, but it seems superfluous.

It was only a very minor quibble for Concerto, and definitely no problem. Amazing article, by the way (and my review of Trobairtz is on the way). Cheers, Moreschi 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A Thank You
Thanks for responding so thouroughly and promptly to my query! Always appreciated! PS: Kudos for valiantly striving to use my system! --Josh, user:POLLUX 21:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: My RfA
ummm. . . I think I'll take your advice. . . . Thanks for it!! --Josh, user:POLLUX 16:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this an okay removal / deletion of my RfA? Thanks for all of your help, Mak! --Josh, user:POLLUX 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I got your post. . . all I can say is 'oops'. . . --Josh, user:POLLUX 16:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Margherita Gonzaga d'Este
Hey there, could you look into providing the missing volume, issue and page numbers for the nutter reference in this article? Thanks a lot. Circeus 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed presentation now. Thanks a lot! Circeus 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Bagpipers
i am not creating a new list. it already exists under the page "bagpipes". in fact i may have started that page some time back. i am just jpdating the list and combining some names that appeared under the page "uilleann Pipes"

i hope i am not doing something wrong.

please advisejoe 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Makemi: i am not sure what i am doing; i am an amateur.  i am really not trying to create new articles, but only lists.  i thoght that was what was suggested.joe 03:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For your translations. I have corrected some mistakes you made, but it's a great job nevertheless. Best regards, RCS 08:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess who's trying to come back?
Check out this edit. Seems she's managed to get herself put into an episode of "That's So Raven" at tv.com. (They allow unverified information there, and sometimes IMDB will pick it up.) So keep an eye out for her to reappear under a slightly changed name. Fan-1967 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Let me know if she creates any pages. Mak (talk)  21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting anonymous editing block
I'm requesting to block anonymous editing from the IP I'm currently posting from because I have a small child using Internet who can cause unintentional vandalism. 86.57.13.43 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Music Cabal RfA Thanks!

 * Thanks for your congratulations and the chats we've had on irc! ~Kylu ( u | t )  00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome message
I appreciate your kind welcome message. I am doing everything to meet all Wikipedia standards in my contributions, and I welcome any input. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 05:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack that had been left on my talk page
The comment you pointed out wasn't the PA...I had removed it earlier. I had been trying to help the new user as he had been breaking a few Wiki-rules...Fair use images, removing article cleanup tags...without actually cleaning them up...Plus he had a bad habit of cutting/pasting text directly from external websites. He was very cordial about the bits of editing advice I had giving him. But when I went through and tried to cleanup some of his errors, he responded with a bit a name calling.(which I removed). The user edits under his anon IP more often than he does under his login name. He only logs in to upload images and place them. Most of his edits have been OK lately and, thankfully, he has stopped pasting copyvio text into articles. He will learn as time goes by. And I will do my best to try and help him(or direct him to where he can get help) if I see he is getting into trouble. Cheers! Fair Deal 10:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Third person?
I'm confused about your "third person" comment in Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Babcock. Whose use of third person are you referring to? If Jeffrey Babcock had written the article in first person, that would be bad Wikipedia form...and maybe it would have gotten the article more summarily deleted, but it's hardly the kind of thing to be encouraged. I also think it's bad form to use second person on an open discussion like that; on a talk page, though, there's an obvious audience, so I have no issues addressing you as "you." So, what's the issue? —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! The indent threw me, since it looked like a comment to me. I follow you now. (Plus, he pulled a "Bob Dole" and referred to himself by name in the third person.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for notifying me of the need to source references directly on the article page. I have added several of these, although there are others. This is my first entry on Wikipedia and I thank you for your kind advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekdorephd (talk • contribs)
 * No problem. Mak (talk)  03:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed a deletion
Just to let you know, I closed an AfD you deleted. I hope I did it right, as its my first :p SynergeticMaggot 05:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, I dont think I put "AfD closed" in the edit summary :/ SynergeticMaggot 05:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The letters
That was funny! Yeah, I got booted from IRC too. -- I fear that astroturfing in general is going to be more and more of a problem for us here. Thanks for your help on this one. Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_adminship/Jake_Remington. LOL.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

AMS
Cheaper, IIRC. It's on one of the pages you get to as you are signing up. Since I already have a subscription I just left it alone. I was just looking at the schedule and program for their convention in November in LA ... looks awfully interesting, and I'm pretty sure I'll be there. :-) See ya!  Antandrus  (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bwa ha ha, I almost choked on that. Though perhaps John Cage would have approved (then again, he preferred the longer variety, especially when disrupted with ambient spontaneities) Antandrus  (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
D'oh! (smacks fist against forehead) I hadn't even realized I wasn't logged in. Thanks, Mak! Peirigill 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Grove
Say, if you're looking to get free access to Grove, it's actually quite simple. I get free online access to Grove through my library card from Brand Art & Music Library in Glendale. If you don't have access to a library that will get you access, I can always "lend" you my card number. Peirigill 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trobairitz and other things
Sorry for the delay. I've given it a copy-edit (I don't think I'll be able to pass it - I've done too much), but I'll leave a note on the GA nominations page to say that it probably should go through. One thing is still ambiguous and confusing: the paragraph beginning "They generally wrote of.." is very strange. Who are "They"? "Women were generally the subject of the writing of troubadours, however" - but not of the female version, the trobairitz? Yet this contradicts what is written later on. Apart from these 2 odd sentences, it's a great article.

If you're not too busy, perhaps a couple of articles for you to create:


 * Josias Priest - he appears to have been fairly prolific as a choreogapher for Purcell's semi-operas, and worked on Dioclesian (which is my second suggestion for an article to get started), King Arthur, and The Fairy-Queen. As far as I can remember, he was also the headmaster at the girl's school where Dido and Aeneas was first produced, was he not? Cheers, Moreschi 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Trobairitz: Thanks for taking a look at it. For some reason I don't really like the word "female" when applied adult human females, however, I bow to the rest of the English-speaking world in this case. Does this edit clarify what is meant? I'm not sure where that's contradicted - it's a little weird, but not surprising to me - the trobairitz wrote about fin' amours which was a pretty sexist construct, but was the standard construct of the time. The "however" is about the irony of praising women while at the same time limiting their power. I'll think about how I can make it clearer.


 * You're right, Priest (don't know why he's not mentioned in Dido and Aeneas, it's probably my fault) and Dioclesian would both be good articles to write, next time I go to the library I'll see what I can do, thanks for the suggestions. Mak (talk)  23:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Happy editing! BTW, a whole new load of stuff has gone into The Fairy-Queen - take a look! Cheers, Moreschi 21:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and yes, the IP was me).

phoenix w/e it is

 * but he deleted something i put in for no reason even tho it was funny and he does have no life cmon i think some1 like him needs to be told the truth i mean he describes himself as a 16 year old who fights vandals on wikipedai with some program? come on thats kind of pathetic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.11.221 (talk • contribs)


 * The thing you added may have been funny, but it wasn't useful. Just because you have the impression that someone is a loser doesn't mean you have to say it to them (if you don't have something nice to say....). Mak (talk)  06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay
Very well, then. Thank you for warning me. Crisspy 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Crisspy

Technical
I'd like to create a workspace for a couple of articles I'm planning to write. How do you do this (is it similar to archiving a talk page, or do you have to be an admin, etc)? Best, Moreschi 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've called it my workspace, and there's a link to it now on my user page. Great work with Priest and Dioclesian, BTW. Moreschi 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fairy-Queen refs
Sorry if I seem to be haunting this page, but I'm going on holiday fairly soon (the 6th) and I'm trying to get a whole load of stuff done before I go, as Snowdonia means complete wikibreak. Do you know of any inline citations or other references that it would be good to put in? Pretty much all of the other complaints the previous reviewer had have been at least partially addressed, but not this one. Once that's done I really think that it's ready for the GA process again. Cheers, Moreschi 16:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Grove
Argh, it's not just you. Server appears to be down. Oh well, there goes my plans for the next few hours ... maybe I should get off my butt and go do something outside ... Antandrus (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, I learn more and more about myself . Heh.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

DELETe yourself
Deleting Three 6 Mafia Album Covers on 07/25/06: Dude, Why don't you stick to your cl-ASS-ical muzak stuff or what ever and leave the RAP PAGES ALONE! You MUST have NEVER seen a RAP OR ROCK PAGE on the WIKIPEDIA because they all have ALBUM COVERS on their pages. They are okay to use because they are for PROMOTIONal things. Thanx for wasting my time. I will now join the DARK SIDE of WIKI VANDALISM due to your COUNTER PRODUCTIVE MEASURES --UNLESS it is fixed and/or apologized for in reasonable amount of TIME. You will NEVER KNOW what IP I will be on.--70.158.122.66 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, ok, have fun with that. When I run across fair use images used in an un-fair way I remove them. Note that the articles I work on in classical music don't include five million fair-use recordings or album covers, when they could. Mak (talk)  05:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about this too. Most band articles, especially featured articles like The Beatles and Pink Floyd have images of all of the bands albums. As I understood it, this was one of the main examples of fair use. What am I misunderstanding? MarkBuckles 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so perhaps it is standard practice. According to my understanding of fair use, however, it is only fair use if the image in question is specifically discussed. I could be wrong, IANAL, etc. When copyrighted images are put in tables which seem to be equivalent to galleries, that gives me serious pause, however. The albums are "discussed" to the extent that they are named and perhaps a couple facts, and the actual image of the cover is never discussed. To me, that means that it isn't fair use. And being threatened doesn't really make me want to discuss it logically. Mak (talk)  05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, If I insulted you (just a little ticked though). I agree the CAREER SECTION of said page should note all albums (I WAS going to write a new BIOGRAPHY for this today; as I have been working on it [@ work] for a few days) but why delete the images of JUST this page and NOT other artist's pages in similar categories as this was being done to conform with those pages. -This quote WAS your opinion on album covers fair use earlier: "These are copyrighted, and using them to illustrate the band's page is almost certainly NOT fair use" (NOTE: There's no mention of "discussed" IMAGES.) but...whatever...--Silent2thebizzob 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, if you disagree with me, you could Revert me. I've never claimed to be infallible, and if people revert me I don't threaten to dog them with anonymous IP edits. I don't think anyone discusses every single edit they make, if that were the case nothing would ever get done. We probably need a larger discussion on the use of copyrighted images in Wikipedia, and I probably shouldn't try to change an entire segment of Wikipedia without that discussion. Which is too bad, since I think the current practice makes Wikipedia very vulnerable. Mak (talk)  18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My Bot
thanks for catching it there is no need to ever block my bot because as soon as there is a message on its talk page it automaticly stops untill i review it. if there is anything i can do for you let me know, or if you have sugestions dont hesatate to let me know. Thanks Betacommand 07:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left a replied message on my talk page, too. -- ADNghiem501 07:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops
I think that you just signed with 5 tildes, rather than four, on the Op Project talk page. There's time stamp, but no signature...

On a separate note, can you think of any inline citations for The Fairy-Queen? Cheers, Moreschi 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for that, I've fixed it. Hmmmm, sorry, another article I was in the middle of working on is taking longer than expected (because tables are evil), then Grove was broken, blah blah, excuse excuse. I'll look at The Fairy-Queen now. Mak (talk)  19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, we've both just welcomed OperaDevel at the same time. He gets two welcome messages and two specific greetings from the Project, lucky man. Moreschi 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (I'm surprised there wasn't an edit conflict, though...I didn't mean to copy you! When I started editing there was nothing there!)

Re:Username
Thanks for your message. Can you help me? How can I revert the moving and restoring the original name? I prefer to restore the username "Al pereira" (lower letter) in order to keep all my preferences, watchlist and contributions. --Al pereira 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Done! --Al Pereira(talk) 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bruckner
Funny, I was just thinking about that (I usually check my watchlists a few times each day while I'm at work, and spotted the activity at Anton's underfed article). Dunno, every time I think about running the FA gauntlet, the thought of all those unpaid bruises and niggling nit-tweezerings just keeps me away. But maybe another day ... ;-) Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Count me in for a Bruckner push. I don't know a huge amount, but I'd be glad to help. Cheers, Moreschi 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit War! (no, not really)
I've posted on the fairy-queen talk page. Cheers, Moreschi 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG
You nominated Anne Frank for deletion!!!1! You rouge admin, you. ZOMGLOL and other miscellaneous acronymic typos. --Good grief. Looking at it, borderline keepability (I count 935 ghits, though many are in blogs and suchlike), and probably enough inclusionists will show up to guarantee it. Sure is irritating dealing with the abrasive and the shrill though. Antandrus (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Loeillet family
Thank you for your helpful feedback re name clarifications. Dogru144

Why 1772 birth date?
Please go to 1772 in music. Someone put Loeillet's birthdate as this year. How is this possible he was already dead. Dogru144


 * 'tis fix'd. I do believe he belongs in 1680.  :-) Antandrus  (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's been fixed :) Ant, it depends which Loeillet you're talking about, one's 1680, the other 1688 (I checked). Mak (talk)  04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it had November 18 I presumed the London one was meant ... but I'm no expert on these guys ... ;-) Antandrus (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! I don't know! I just don't! No more! Help! Jean-Baptiste! Jean Baptiste! Giovambattista! (cue meltdown) Mak (talk)  04:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tragédie en musique
Hi,I know you've got a major interest in the French Baroque. I've been trying to soup up the page on French lyric tragedy. There's now a long, long list of every tragédie en musique I could find. Why not take a look? If you come across any omissions, please add them. It might be a useful tool in future--Folantin 07:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks, that looks great. Really shows how lacking that whole area is. It's too bad, because French Baroque opera can be so gorgeous. I think it's too bad Kleinzach doesn't want to acknowledge the importance of things (in terms of lists) until the articles are up to snuff, I think it means that neglected articles are even more neglected than they should be, but I understand his reasoning. Thanks very much for your edits to the articles I've started, they're really helpful. Mak (talk)  07:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Britten
Just a note of support for your reversion of the Britten article. The one thing I dislike about Wikipedia is the tendency towards blandness (usually in the name of NPOV). Britten was certainly never bland, so it's great to see you keeping some life and vigour in the article! Bluewave 08:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I completely agree. That guy also seems to have a thing about removing mentions of homosexuality, for some reason. I've blocked him for not responding to other editors' complaints and perpetually blanking his talk page. Mak (talk)  08:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done. You beat me to it by a couple of seconds if not less. (My attempt to block him failed precisely because you'd beat me to it.) However, although he's intensely irritating and his deletions detract from the articles, he doesn't seem to be a vandal in the conventional sense. He's capable of uncontroversial, helpful edits. I rather get the impression that he wants to protect the dignity of people he admires (in itself, an admirable motive), and that he sees description of homosexuality as an indignity. (I don't entirely disagree with this -- and am neutral about any homo/hetero distinction -- because the descriptions can easily trivialize and tabloidize articles about people who are notable for something else.) I infer this from his repeated deletion of a sentence from Carrousel: this deletion is entirely unrelated to sex, and I think the key is that Brian Boyd (one of the most distinguished Nabokov scholars) calls part of this early work "banal"; the huge majority of Nabokov's oeuvre is the absolute reverse of banal, so if you're one of the huge majority of Nabokovians who hasn't read this elusive work, the criticism would strike you as an egregious insult. (I have read it; the criticism is not undeserved.) Seven days seems a long block, enough for the grapes to sour and for new accounts to be made. I recommend shortening it to one day, of course with full readiness to reimpose it. But I'm not going to fight you over it. -- Hoary 09:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I'm concerned that I see one User talk edit (consisting, basically, of "shut up and leave me alone") and no article talk edits. If people are going to do controversial deletions, they need to be willing to discuss them. I'll shorten the block to 48 hours. Mak (talk)  09:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. I hadn't seen the talk page edit you refer to; yes, it's pretty bad. &para; It's most unusual for a user talk page to be protected against even edits by that user (unless permabanned) and I'm therefore about to remove the protection. If he deletes comments again, I'll protect it again. -- Hoary 10:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

William Wells (general)
Makemi, I reverted your copyvio tag on William Wells (general). I had somewhat revised this article some time ago, and was too initially concerned about the copyvio issue. However, I found out that the author had used a written source that is out of print (with an expired copyright), in fact the exact same source copied word for word by the website you mentioned in the tag. I had added a fair amount of Civil War original text that I scratch-wrote. Hence, I removed the tag as the article essentially copied material from a public source. Regards! Scott Mingus 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The author of the website Vermont in the Civil War IS the Wiki editor who created the article, as well as the one for Lewis A. Grant. Hence, he is releasing the material by his own volition, so I am also reverting that copyvio as well. Scott Mingus 13:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? There's nothing on his talk or userpage or the article's talk page or the article history to indicate either that the articles are taken part-and-parcel from an out-of-copyright work (as opposed to sourced from them) or that this editor has the right to post information from the website. The website claims copyright over the work on it, and cites the probably-out-of-copyright work as a source. It is not clear to me if that means that the article was taken as a whole from it or used as a resource to write the article, and in my opinion we are better safe than sorry as regards copyright. I understand that you worked on this article, and don't want to see that work deleted. I would suggest that you re-write the article, using the seemingly copyrighted text as a source, on the subpage linked to from the copyvio notice, and that article can then be moved to where the possible-copyvio was. (You can go back in the history and use the material you wrote from scratch as well). Also, if the original article was essentially copied from another source, even if that is out of copyright, that needs to be made clearer, otherwise it is plagiarism. Mak (talk)  17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have received e-mails from Tom (the website owner) in the past. I will ask him to clarify this for you. Scott Mingus 21:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The website specifically says its sources are books which, being published in 1914 and earlier, have their copyrights expired into the public domain. It is perfectly acceptable for public domain text to be copied onto Wikipedia; plagiarism is an academic concern for evaluating whether the assigment a student completes represents his own work and understanding of the subject, though stating the source is a good idea, for example to alleviate copyright concerns like this. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Chorus?
Do you think that a mention of the chorus should go into the Singers list for fairy-queen, i.e


 * SATB Chorus?

Meladina has been doing this for his Russian opera articles and I think it might be useful, seeing as they back up most of the airs. If so, we should probably explain what SATB means and how often the Chorus is used, in what role, etc.

BTW, I've started a stub for The Indian Queen, but seeing as you have Grove (which I should be getting around November), you might be able to do better than me... Cheers, Moreschi 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (thanks for the thumbs-up, incidentally).


 * Chorus added. I'm gonna change the link (SATB) from a redirect to a very short explanatory article, since it seems like the sort of thing uninitiated people would see on a score and want a quick definition of. I've got a bit on my plate, so it might be a little while before I can do much with The Indian Queen, but I'll try to get to it. Cheers, Mak (talk)  17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are okay...
Whatever it is... I hope you are okay. If there's anything I can do, please contact me. Feel better... --SB | T 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too, is there a problem? (O.K, so, that's a stupid question, but is it anything I can help with, or is real life in trouble?) Best, Moreschi 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, logged in this morning and saw that. Hope you're doing ok:  I don't see anything obvious in the history.  Please take care.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys. I just got really pissed off because of a variety of stupid wiki things that I should have let just roll of my back. Specifically, being accused of sockpuppetry by some ridiculous person (oh, and I don't think saying " it took all the goodwill I could muster to trust Makemi and assume Jbirken is not a sockpuppet." is particularly AGF), that people think the sources on that article are just fine, when they are geocities and scans on the guy's own website of ridiculously local papers, while at the same time Philip Glass is apparently unreferenced (and people try to underline this by changing the completely obviously references section into a further reading section), and apparently Trobairitz isn't well enough referenced to pass freaking GA (not put on hold, failed after almost 3 weeks, for lack of ISBNs, while other articles were put on hold by the same reviewer for much more serious problems). Then we have the fabulous List of clichés in music which passed AfD recently. You just have to look at it for about two seconds to know why I was pissed off about that one. Add to that that George Reeves Guy/Squidward can't be dealt with because he's insane and hasn't had an ArbCom case against him, and you see the levels of ridiculousness that are sometimes present here. I apologize for the dramatics, I just sort of had all my buttons pushed at once. I'm just going to go in my hole and write an article on a nice French Baroque Opera. Those are always soothing. Thanks for the concern guys, and again I'm sorry for the dramatics. Mak (talk)  16:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * O.K then, panic over. The Trobairitz thing was ludicrous, I agree. There's nothing wrong with that article and if the only qualm was wikilinking and giving ISBNs, then why on earth didn't the fellow who reviewed it put it on hold? If you want my advice, then I'd put the links into the article and then ask for a review, as even without ISBNs the article should have been passed anyway, as the objection was more for FAs than GAs. That might be quicker than it spending another month on the GA list. (Fairy-Queen's up to 12th, BTW, so it's going quicker than usual - but if we're going to get a moronic review that might be a bad thing!). Enjoy the French Baroque, and it's great to have you back. Cheers, Moreschi 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I've got rid of that tag on Philip Glass. There's a whole references section and the article is unreferenced? No, I don't think so. (BTW, although the yellow bar on Minun's user page may say he is online (even with poor grammar; ha, it's a good thing Tony1 isn't involved in this, god knows what he'd have to say) that isn't born out by his contributions, so we may have to wait. Cheers, Moreschi 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude
Hey, I'm sorry about all the crap too. And hey, I didn't mean to be stalking your talk page :). I have you and Antandrus and several other editors' pages on my watchlist so I often go check out what people were talking about. For that one artist's article, it seemed like everybody was getting way too upset over nothing; I thought the best solution would be to copyedit it to get rid of all the crap and then just go ahead and assume it's notable enough to keep, even with the shitty references. I know I'm more of an inclusionist than you are though. And yes, it's pretty funny that someone you didn't know voted delete, while I, who actually did learn about the afd from you indirectly, vote keep. Anyway, keep the good faith man. MarkBuckles 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for that. -- MarkBuckles 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fondamentale error
Thanks, Makemi. Yes, basses fondamentales. My careless slip. Noetica 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing of protection page
Hello, could you please unprotect my user page? You said not too long and the vandals tapered off. --'''VelairWight 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Division viol, and Sir Walter Ralegh
Nice work on division viol! There's yet another area that needs fattening up on Wikipedia.

The word "division" is interesting in 17th century music.

Do you know this poem (by Sir Walter Ralegh, shortly before his execution):


 * What is our life? a play of passion,
 * Our mirth the musicke of division,
 * Our mothers wombes the tyring houses be,
 * When we are drest for this short Comedy,
 * Heaven the Judicious sharpe spector is,
 * That sits and markes still who doth act amisse,
 * Our graves that hide us from the searching Sun,
 * Are like drawne curtaynes when the play is done,
 * Thus march we playing to our latest rest,
 * Onely we dye in earnest, that's no Jest.

I always thought the second line was a pun on "division" both in the usual sense, and in that of the broken consort (see under "broken music" in the Grove "consort" article). Literary critics rarely know anything about music, and miss it. Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Trobairitz
I just left an egregiously long list of possible suggestions for your article on its talk page. Keep on rocking the viols. :) MarkBuckles 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Further amusements
Just had to share one chuckle: in addition to my other accomplishments, I am now an "obnoxious zionist rat." I need to start keeping a list. LOL... Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

BM & A Chantar
Hey Mak, regarding the template, I didn't know you created one, although I saw the box on your page. It looked like you had just added code, but maybe you subst'ed a template? I couldn't find it, so I just created one based exactly on the BA and BS templates. We're the only two in the category right now ;p. Although I'm not sure why you're listed under "U" instead of "M". I'm also not sure if it was appropriate to create the template. First time doing that.

Regarding A Chantar, I have the Norton Recorded Anthology of Western Music where Pilar Figueras sings it a step higher than your notation. That CD only has an excerpt, but I also have the companion CD for Jeremy Yudkin's Understanding Music, which has the same recording, but the full 5:30 minute version. What choir did you sing it with? That's really cool. MarkBuckles 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Occitan
Wow, so there is an Occitan babel. Check this out: Category:User oc. I asked a couple of users for help, what the heck. I also found this: User talk:Cedric31. Seems kind of ridiculous, I think you should unblock him. MarkBuckles 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I unblocked him. There's a vandal who does page moves (a big reason why you have to have an account for a couple days before you can move pages), and there's an etiquette that admins don't undo others' blocks, but User:Curps isn't around anymore, and the pagemoves seem to be out of confusion, not bad faith. Mak (talk)  06:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

foo. Mak (talk)  02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's that kid in North Carolina. He gets irritated when he's around for a while and no one notices.  (I'm busy reading about French and Italian secular music of the 16th century ... probably not something he learns much about on King of the Hill.)  Antandrus  (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. Did you slay the Tawkerbot? Well done! - Kleinzach 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Couperins, they're like bad pennies
My latest insomniac creation - thought it might be up your alley considering your specialties- Armand-Louis Couperin. MarkBuckles 08:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry, I didn't relaised you needed a reply. I think its better now, so I have put it back on the nominatons list, cheers &mdash; M in un  Spiderman &bull; Review Me 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That time I was a dork and failed to assume good faith
Thanks for the charitable word "obnoxious" and your generous interpretation of my edits as "ruining the integrity of Wikipedia." I made the changes in good faith. When I took music theory in college, we were taught that Mozart was a Romantic composer, "Classical" being a vague catch-all term that is applied to all kinds of music from baroque to modern neo-classical. It's like "Modern Art". That is a category, within which are minimalists, photo-realists, abstract-expressionists, etc. I was trying to make the article more precise by listing his species, not his genus.

Thank you for your apology, which I certainly accept. Please accept mine as well. If I was misinformed about Mozart's being a romantic composer, then I am happy to be corrected. I am a scholar (I hold a Ph.D. in philosophy), and the last thing I would do is try to ruin Wikipedia.

One thing, though. Since I've been responding to users (you and another) just now, I've got virtually real time responses. Is editing Wikipedia a full-time activity, or is my timing just unusually good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvaphdman (talk • contribs)

Wikietiquette
Thanks for the suggestions about edits. You are, of course, entirely correct. I'm new to the editing process, and certainly meant no offense. Usually I make only grammatical/stylistic/usage changes except in my field, which is philosophy of religion. Maybe I should stick to that. As someone once said, there are some mistakes so big it takes a Ph.D. to make them. But why did you stick your tongue out at me? ;-)

Again, thanks for the tip. uvaphdman 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)uvaphdman

Beethoven
BTW, you might want to call Ludwig a "transition" composer. "Borderline" makes him sound like he was only marginally good, and I think it is widely known that he had considerable talent, though I have no sources for this. :-) And again, why did you stick your tongue out at me with your emoticon? Also thanks for the wikiwelcome. You might like to know that when I last taught World Religions, I recommended the relevant Wikipedia articles as background reading (after vetting them, of course). So I'm definitely a great admirer of the entire wikiproject and any wikiedits I make are only ever attempts to make it wikibetter. uvaphdman 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)uvaphdman

Peer review
I've left some comments in a rather insouciant response at the article's entry on the PR list. I'll see if I can make some time to do a thorough copy-edit. Enjoy the read! Cheers, Moreschi 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

the divine Claude
He's pretty darn good, isn't he? Which recording do you have?

I get those stuck in my head for whole days at a time. :-) Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've gotten them stuck in my head for quite a while. I have the ensemble Gilles Binchois one. It's not quite as brisk as the one on the NAWM CD I used to have, but it's really lovely. Mak (talk)  01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerto
No problem. It's a fascinating subject and article, and a real pleasure to edit. The only real problem left is the paragraph lengths, I think. Several are a couple sentemces short of passing the full Tony Test (and the standards of quite a few others, as well).

Countertenor? No, not really. I'm working on it. Mostly I love the repertoire (Handel, Purcell, et al), but one day I found myself singing along and it's become my secret ambition in life. Give me a few more years. Certainly it's one of my favourite voices (contralto and basso profundo are the others). Are you a countertenor, just out of interest? Best, Moreschi 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of countertenor friends? Hmph, you're not the only one. Good to see peer review being so productive, BTW. Cheers, Moreschi 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
I'm now back and will have a look at your article - although I don't think I am really qualified to comment on the content. Japan was gloomy but cool with the rainy season going on for about a month longer than usual. Scotland is radiant however. - Kleinzach 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I'm just heading off to the wild, wet Welsh mountains for a good old hiking holiday. I'll be back on the 27th of August, so happy editing in the meantime. Good luck with Trobairitz and Concerto delle donne. One request; if The Fairy-Queen gets through GA, would you mind adding it to the list of "Good articles" list on the Opera Project main page? Thanks. Cheers, Moreschi 10:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Scripts
The checklist should pop up if you go to User:AndyZ/Suggestions.

Sorry about the lack of usage information; I'll add a more detailed explanation of usage on each script page. Thanks, AZ t 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Christina
You've been watching her page, too, huh? Wonder what she's planning. Fan-1967 14:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Slowcheetah
Thanks for blocking Slowcheetah, his messages on my talkpage were getting kind of... well, you know. Fredil Yupigo is on Vacation.
 * About the censor: that guy read my mind, so I'm reverting it back. In fact, I doubt I could have found a better way to say it myself. Fredil   Yupigo  What has Wikipedia become ? 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Myth vs. rumor in Gregorian chant
Thanks for the heads-up, Makemi. The article is on my watchlist; I've just been really busy this last week. Since Satanael seems determined to revert to his/her preferred version, I've left a message on his/her talk page directing him to Talk:Gregorian chant, where I've made the case that "myth" is right and "rumor" wrong, and asked him/her not to re-revert until we reach consensus on the talk page. If you have a better argument than mine, please consider adding it. Should this turn into an edit war, I'll just edit the page to quote the source directly. The source uses "myth." Peirigill 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Luzzaschi
I have a CD of Luzzaschi's music for the concerto delle donne. Would you like for me to send some samples for your article? Peirigill 06:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The dramatic version
...is very good. You could also include a bit about the "real" reason that Pope Clement VIII felt the need to stomp on the place in 1597/8 and add it to the papal states (after all, Rome had become quite dull in the days since the Banquet of Chestnuts). Nice job! Antandrus (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, and what do you think the real reason is? According to what I've read, the pope came in with his henchmen, took anything beautiful and portable, stopped all the public works, and the city still hasn't recovered. But that's just one version. Mak (talk)  21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly joking, and it's original research anyway. I just think the pope didn't like being upstaged by a more "happening" place, and was also pissed off that he could do little about Venice.  Ferrara is so close to Venice that taking it over was a thumb in the eye of the Venetians.  Antandrus  (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right to me. Mak (talk)  22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Concern
I think you should check this out... Brat32 and his speedy vandalism --Eiyuu Kou 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like the user is appropriately tagging articles for speedy deletion, and then keeping track of them and of users who they think creates nonsense pages. It looks fine to me. Could you be more specific about what is worrying you? Also, on Mozilla at least your userpage is very weird (mostly just looks like code). Mak (talk)  02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for looking at that. I thought he was marking the pages he deleted, but I guess just pages that have had no use. Sorry about the false alarm and lack of detail. Have a good day. --Eiyuu Kou 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. Mak (talk)  03:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)