User talk:Margo&Gladys

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Bix Beiderbecke
Thanks again for all the time you have spent editing the Bix Beiderbecke article! The article was good before and even better now.Sandcherry (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandcherry. It was a lot of fun. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest nominating the article for WP:Good Article status.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 06:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I was just looking over the Bix article, which is generally excellent. Two suggestions that would help it meet GA status (and possibly better): Hope these few observations are of assistance. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Style section is too fragmentary - individual sentences with quotes, not integrated into coherent paragraphs that are themed.
 * The Major Recordings section is far too long. I would create a separate article "List of Bix Beiderbecke recordings", then have some paras in the Bix article that outline and discuss a selection of these as his most important ones, and why.
 * Much appreciated. I've revised per your feedback. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Margo&amp;Gladys, I'm doing the GA review for Bix Beiderbecke, and have produced some initial comments. For an editor who started on Aug 2009 (unless you have dark secret), you've achieved a lot. However the downside is that a lot of polishing will be needed, as you have had little time to get easy familarity with WP's guidelines. That will required some time, but I'm such your knowledge and enthusiast will carry you through - I'm not jazzman, but even I know that Beiderbecke is one of the greats. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it passed GA - and I the guy who did it is a very good reviewer, so you've done a great job. And even I knew how important Beiderbecke was, so you've made a real contribution - many thanks! --Philcha (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd just like to thank you for taking the time to write that article; I can speak for many people when I say that I learned a lot from reading it. Regarding this, despite the misspelled GA review, I hope that it was able to improve the article in some way. Contributions from experts on topics are sorely needed here, and I'm sorry that you had a poor experience. However, remember that GAN normally functions as a "peer review" than anything else. At GAN, "someone clearly ill-suited for vetting articles for quality" will normally review articles, but FAC&mdash;at least in my experience&mdash;is usually different. Why don't you try taking Beiderbecke there? Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your trepidation. Thank you again for your contributions, and I hope you stick around here. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions to this article and your tactful and thoughtful responses to suggestions during the GA approval process are appreciated. I second the Barnstar. You deserve it.Sandcherry (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Some feedback
I read your post with utmost interest (Why I added it to the Signpost). The same for the Beiderbecke entry btw. I have some comments that I'd love to share with you in response. I hope they will give you some more understanding.

All in all your experience is a wonderful insight into the professional doing his best to fit into an Internet community, with all the expected problems such an effort creates. I hope you have gained understanding in the commonalities and differences between an Encyclopedia and Wikipedia. I also hope that you have found understanding for the incredible difficult process of vetting an article written by an anonymous person of unknown professionalism by other editors that are anonymous and of unknown professionalism. The process of getting an article from stub or start to a GA or Featured article is an incredibly complicated one that only few editors can succeed at. This is the challenge for the future of Wikipedia. Writing simple articles is easy to do. Writing well written articles on subjects that require extensive library time is a whole different beast and takes much more time to accomplish. Thank you for your online and public reflections. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "for editors "it's almost more like an online game""
 * I guess you could say that. For most people this is a hobby. A hobby is about having fun. Games are about having fun. The diverse nature of Wikipedia gives everyone something to do, whatever their interest might be.
 * A delay before a GA review takes place is normal, as we have a serious lack of editors with the capability set required to do such reviews. Backlogs are common.
 * Pilcha might not be so strict on his own spelling in conversation, but he has actually written and corrected multiple articles with great accuracy. You have to realize that when you try to summarize a comment in a hurry (not uncommon), you are quick to make errors. People lose track of their line of thought for instance. In the article you would reread and correct those issues. In a discussion you don't generally do this in the same way.
 * You dove right in !!! I admire that because what you did is INCREDIBLY difficult. For most people it takes years to get to grips with the peculiarities of encyclopedia writing and especially Wikipedia which adds its own set of rules. However it did make you bypass some of the experience building that is required to fully get a grip of the community and it's rules. Had you started with smaller edits in more articles before diving into a full rewrite of a single article, you might have had a better idea of what to expect at GA.
 * You got angry over what someone said :D I just love that. It's so indicative of the nature of the Internet discussion. Haste, emotion, subtlety all vanish so quickly in Internet conversation. This is a common problem. People feel attacked, often for no good reason. The key is to keep talking, explain and sometimes just ignore.
 * About the photograph. I checked the review. The reviewer suggested the image should go due to copyright concerns and because of the debate. You countered with a citation removing one of the concerns. The concern of the copyright question remained however. If the family had only first published the photo in the 1980s for instance, the photo would still be under copyright for 50 years, which means that it is currently not allowed to be hosted or published in Wikipedia unfortunately. We are rather strict on those kinds of issues, and even more strict for our Good and Featured articles. Had there been no copyright concern, your citation would likely have been enough to keep the image in the article.


 * In response to
 * For clarity, I did notice that the "Game" part was not your statement, but it is something you quoted, and you must have done that for a reason. So it's partly relevant in that you felt it to be relevant enough to quote in the first place.
 * "With Wikipedia, though, you're creating a product, and that's the point. Having fun is great, but you're providing information for people. Maybe it's because I'm in the profession, but I take that very seriously." Well that depends a bit on what you call the product I guess. You look more for the Encyclopedia part in the product perhaps, but many people see the product as "The Free Encyclopedia", with all that the Free implies, both in rights and in cost. It is a fundamental part of the product that is being developed. The product is not only the information, the information is just a (very critical) part of the product in this case. We are all selling content to our audience. That goes from the New York Times, to Wikipedia and to Fox News, each having it's place in the market. I think all the regular editors are highly aware of the responsibility that the community has towards its audience. It's not as if we don't recognize that we are the Amateur encyclopedia.... A big part of the problem is that a large group of the audience has trouble judging the content they consume. Hopefully education will catch up eventually.
 * On incoherence. I see it as a symptom of the chaos that is Wikipedia. I personally have accepted that the chaos exists. You work within it, try to improve where possible. It is somewhat derived from the Free part. It should not be excused, instead it should be recognized for what it is and improved and corrected. To eradicate it is near impossible, with the rate of editors that join and leave the project at any time.
 * "professionalism you meant credentials", yes that might be more appropriate.
 * "Angry" sure it's logical. You felt pissed off, and probably rightly so. That is bad, because it can cost Wikipedia editors. You being angry however does nothing for the article and it's presence in the information web of the Internet. So if you are there for the article, it is better to realize that and go into a discussion with the fellow editor, sharing your ideas, than to focus on your anger. (I know, it sounds terribly idealistic)
 * "ignoramus in jazz". For an initial review that might not really be important though. When people write in Wikipedia (especially the first times), they write about what they are passionate about (why there are so many popular culture articles). So that passion and knowledge usually has already been contributed to the article. In a GA review, it's all about; is the article comprehensive enough, well sourced, complete (incompleteness is easier to spot than most people assume) and wether the basic guidelines of Wikipedia are being followed. It's about technique and rules. To actually get the article as Featured article however requires much more feedback from different editors (likely by people from the Music or Jazz WikiProject). You are right that it might be better for someone with an established notion of Jazz to review the article, but that doesn't mean that an editor who doesn't have this knowledge can't already point out a lot of problems in a Wikipedia article. GA is just one step on the way to being 'completed', even though we never fully complete an article of course. There is a reason we have only 2,743 featured articles, out of a total of 3,162,760 articles.
 * I guess what I've been trying to say is that much of the flaws of Wikipedia are inherent to the nature of it's goals and the way it tries to achieve these goals. Many have pointed out the flaws. The editors are aware of the flaws. The public at times not that much. But for me it often boils down to: Something not having those flaws could not have created Wikipedia. And I think it has it's place like any other type of medium. Better this Wikipedia than no Wikipedia, and lets improve where possible. No person has to read or edit, but it's there for those who want it. Some may disagree with that, but there will always be proponents and opposition for any new development. Anyway, I had fun reading the article and your blog. This will be my last response, unless you specifically ask me something. Cause we could probably discuss this for weeks :D
 * And especially for commenter Amy Charles: this guy is a 28 year old from the Netherlands, a 5 year Wikipedian and a 10 year Internet forum administrator and software developer. You learn to deal with a lot and everything becomes relative. When you ever get here, we can have a drink together, sounds like fun. Just PLEASE don't ask me questions about weed, because all the foreigners do that, and it's annoying. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Mourning do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Hi, I see you are adding dozens of links to the site. Please ensure they definitely relate to the article. I don't think the links you added to Mourning, Little Ice Age and others are relevant. Thanks.'' Bento00 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about your username
Is this account used by two people, Margo & Gladys? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Margo&amp;Gladys, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to be used by two people. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With all respect, before I leave a note explaining why I haven't violated Wiki policy, could you first explain why you think I have? To say that my username "appears to be used by two people" doesn't help. How does it appear so? Thanks for your help. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I misunderstood your original question. My apologies. Am I Margo and also Gladys? No. I am Brendan Wolfe, an editor and writer living in Charlottesville, Virginia. At the risk of exposing myself as a Crazy Cat Person, Margo & Gladys are my cats. Best, Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Margo&amp;Gladys, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortress Monroe map
Hello fellow cat person! Thanks for leaving a note of explanation when you removed the image of Ft.Monore map. My apologies on the oversight regarding permission. Is there any chance of obtaining permission from Encyclopedia Virginia? What about submitting a 'fair use rationale' for the image? Unfortunate this image is not public domain. What an item, and what history! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: None is needed. Refer to this thread where it becomes evident that the user was a little confused about copyright law. Any work predating 1923 is in the public domain. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would strongly encourage both you and all users to give credit to the original sources of these images. These are three-dimensional images that belong to institutions; their decision to digitize certain objects, such as the Jefferson Davis daguerreotype (from the Museum of the Confederacy) or the Sneden map (from the Virginia Historical Society), is to all of our benefit. While the digital versions may now be in the public domain, we still owe the institutions our thanks and our gratitude for making them available. By crediting them, we can perhaps encourage them to continue making these wonderful images available. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They are credited that way...both of the images. It is on their description pages...and fwiw, I certainly do appreciate their work. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 23:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Marg', I accepted your claim at face value, not looking into the matter further, and have yet to do so. But now I have questions. If I take a picture of e.g.the Statue of Liberty, another work of art, at an angle no one else has, can I get the image 'copyrighted' on that premise alone? And does mere ownership of a work of art (author died 70+ years ago) entitle the owner to copyright privileges? The map may have been used in some sort of 3 dimensional display but I am wondering if the work of art is actually copyrighted regardless of their dictates to not redistribute. Be nice if we could get this historically rich item back on the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is. I reverted when I saw Marg's admission of misunderstanding in the other thread. I've restored it back to the article. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Bix Beiderbecke
This is a note to let the main editors of Bix Beiderbecke know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 29, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 29, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Bix Beiderbecke (1903–1931) was an American jazz cornetist, jazz pianist, and composer. He was one of the most influential jazz soloists of the 1920s. He helped to invent the jazz ballad style and hinted at what, in the 1950s, would become cool jazz. Beiderbecke taught himself to play cornet largely by ear, leading him to adopt a non-standard fingering that some critics have connected to his original sound. He first recorded with a Midwestern jazz ensemble The Wolverines in 1924, after which he played briefly for the Jean Goldkette Orchestra before joining Frankie Trumbauer for an extended gig at the Arcadia Ballroom in St. Louis, Missouri. Beiderbecke and Trumbauer both joined Goldkette in 1926. The band toured widely and famously played a set opposite Fletcher Henderson at the Roseland Ballroom in New York City in October 1926. The following year, Trumbauer and Beiderbecke left Detroit to join the best-known and most prestigious dance orchestra in the country: the New York–based Paul Whiteman Orchestra. Beiderbecke's most influential recordings date from his time with Goldkette and Whiteman, although they were generally recorded under his own name or Trumbauer's. Beiderbecke left the Whiteman band in 1930 and the following summer died in his Queens apartment at the age of twenty-eight. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:B Beiderbecke Jazz Me Blues.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:B Beiderbecke Jazz Me Blues.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beiderbecke In a Mist.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:Beiderbecke In a Mist.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bix Beiderbecke - Singin&#39; the Blues.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bix Beiderbecke - Singin&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Conventions
I am interested in advancing Virginia Conventions which includes some of your interest areas, up from a start class article. I've made all the contributions from sources available to me over the course of a year's study. Any further contributions, especially copy editing would be greatly appreciated, along with any comments. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)