User talk:Saxophilist

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Saxophilist, 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 talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

WheresTristan (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical saxophonists?
Thank you for the kind words! I've just been adding a few names now and then when I hear, or hear of, a saxist and wonder whether he's included in the List of saxophonists. Often, he is not. I listen to a lot of jazz and many of the names I've added are obvious ones. The classical radio stations I listen to don't usually play any sax music, so I haven't been inspired to look for somebody.

So when I got your message, I thought I'd see who I could find who isn't listed. I searched for "classical saxophonist" in Wikipedia and found a few. I just added Horch, Lin and Rix. There are more. I'll see if I can find some more players tomorrow. Please feel free to suggest somebody.

DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I'll let you know if I think of anyone. Saxophilist (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at New American Standard Bible. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Your additions across a number of articles are being reverted - please start discussions on talk pages (as you did for the New Living Translation) rather than re-inserting the material. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need to remove denominations from the discussion of Bibles. The reason that New Jerusalem and other translations and versions of Bibles have Catholic is not because it has been imposed on the articles by outsiders, but rather as a mark of distinction placed on them by Catholics. Please revert the term Protestant from the few translations you've added them to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason to revert my edits. It's absolutely ridiculous. If the Catholic translations say "Catholic", then the Protestant translations need to say "Protestant". What don't you understand about this? Saxophilist (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove "Catholic" from those editions if you'd rather as it's not needed there either. It doesn't seem that you read what I wrote. Is there any sense in trying to discuss this with you or are you going to grind your WP:AX over this?
 * As for the King James version, the original version contained the Apocrypha, and all pressings for the first fifty years did so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote. I was just responding to StAnselm. About what you said, I think it would be best to have "Catholic" and "Protestant" where appropriate, so that readers will know whether it is a Protestant or Catholic translation. Oh, and if something is marked "Apocrypha", it is definitely Protestant. Saxophilist (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're feeling insulted. It was not my intention to insult, but rather to provoke you to respond to one of the two editors who was trying to communicate with you. You refused to address my suggestion to remove Roman Catholic from the "Catholic" translations instead you simply restated your point, essentially, what's good for the Catholics is good for the Protestants. You ignored my evidence that it was Catholics who created the articles that way, at least you didn't respond to it. So I got tired of your baiting and yes, trolling. The other editor asked you to offer any references. You didn't address that either. I offered some evidence. granted, you responded to that. The "Catholic" translation articles have evidence to support the use of that term. In short, seemed that you were just looking for a fight, so I gave you one.

Rather than throw opinions and personal experience back at you, I'll offer some facts about Bible readership, not ownership, in Catholic homes and we'll leave my cousin, my son's close friend, and my co-workers out of the discussion (read: yes I know Roman Catholics, several):. I tried to use Roman Catholic sources where possible, but I couldn't find any sources to support Bible ownership, but readership is lagging far behind other denominations.

I am not watching your talk page, so if you expect me to respond here please 1) make a coherent response to my points and 2) leave a talkback template on my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I actually did address your suggestion to remove "Catholic" from the Catholic translations. I said it would be better to leave the Catholic Bibles saying "Catholic" and to make Protestant Bibles say "Protestant", because I felt that knowing what kind of Bible translation a particular Bible is was important.


 * I'm not entirely sure why the NABRE article was created that way. Perhaps to differentiate it from the many Protestant translations that don't state their Protestant affiliation.


 * The reason I didn't offer a reference was because I thought it was ridiculous to have to prove that the NASB is Protestant, when it's Protestantism is obvious. However, I did post some proof that the translation team was all Protestant. That should have sufficed.


 * I have heard that Bible readership of Catholics is lower than some of the Protestant denominations. Maybe because the Catholic Church is not "Sola Scriptura" and Catholics rely on Church teaching as well as Scripture. Also, I should note that most of the Bible is read at Mass during the three-year cycle. Saxophilist (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried to explain why the "Catholic" bibles are listed that way: it's because they're approved for Roman Catholics to read. No "protestant" bible is approved for protestants to read. They may decide for themselves which may be read. The exception is that at one time, Authorized Version (King James Version) was approved to be read in Church of England parishes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

saxophone video
Just curious, why did you remove the saxophone warming up video? If there is no reason, I might add it back. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can add it back if you want. Saxophilist (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a proposal!
Hi there,

I have a proposal which I am thinking you might agree with. As you remember, one of my concerns about your choice of image was that I felt it didn't add much to the page until it was enlarged. As I recall, the point you wanted to make with your image was the differences in instrumentation between the orchestra and the concert band (particularly where wind instruments are concerned). I have found an image on Flickr without copyright issues (and taken from the same concert band!) that I believe would work well on the classical music page.

What do you think?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/markkimpel/5331145785/in/photostream/

Or perhaps this one?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/markkimpel/5331762756/in/photostream/

A suitable caption might be "Wind instruments play a key part in the concert band", or something like that. The advantage here is that the differences between a concert band and an orchestra can be spelled out for the layman (both visually and in written form).

Lan berger (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I do agree that finding another picture of a concert band may work. However, I think the picture should show the whole concert band instead of just a section. For example, in that second flickr image, it could just be mistaken as the low reed section of an orchestra, as you cannot see the whole ensemble, and the first flickr image could be mistaken as the brass section of an orchestra (although there's more brass in that image than a typical orchestra has). Saxophilist (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I found these images on bing.com's "free to share and use" search option. The second one reminds me of your baroque ensemble image. I personally prefer the first one of these.
 * http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2625/3766992042_e49c2ea114_z.jpg?zz=1 Subtitle could be: "A concert band is comprised of wind and percussion instruments."
 * http://syn.org.au/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/mc_gws_1.jpg Subtitle could be: "Members of a concert band."
 * Saxophilist (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I like your first suggestion, but how about this one? (Also free to share and use).
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/stmagnusfestivalblog/5872207913/
 * Lan berger (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That one doesn't look as professional as my two. The setup of the ensemble isn't a standard setup, and I think I see a tenor horn in there, which isn't a standard concert band instrument. Saxophilist (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, go with your first suggestion, you have my blessing. :P
 * Lan berger (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) Saxophilist (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

More possibilities!
Hmm, it appears your first suggestion had copyright issues. How about these?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4hermans/11301518056/

Or perhaps:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4hermans/11301594763/in/photostream/

(Though I do like the first one better, I would be happy with either if you would be)

What do you think?

Lan berger (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Bing said my first image was free to share and use. Anyways, I found some pictures from the same album as the ones you just posted that I like more:


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/4hermans/11301487345/in/photostream/


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/4hermans/11301545004/in/photostream/


 * I prefer the second of these. Do you approve? Saxophilist (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that one is ideal. What caption do you think would work best? If you are happy, I will get that one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/4hermans/11301545004/in/photostream/) uploaded and posted onto the page.


 * Lan berger (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about a caption. Perhaps the "Concert bands are comprised of wind and percussion instruments", but you can't see the percussion section in that picture. Saxophilist (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps something describing the photo itself, such as "A performing concert band", with a link to 'concert band'?
 * Lan berger (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That works. Saxophilist (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brass instrument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical (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) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of concert works for saxophone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Nelson. 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) 10:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of concert works for saxophone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Barnes. 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) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symphonies for concert band, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Mackey and James Barnes. 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) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brass section


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2015 (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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yooka Laylee and Jontron
As we have made clear earlier, we reached a consensus on the talk page regarding the Jontron paragraph. You have changed this section of the article three times without having discussions with the other editors. If you continue to alter this article without discussing it on the talk page and providing reliable sources that his comments aren't racist, I will put in a request for administrator attention regarding your disruptive edits. Thank you. MasontWang (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comment on the talk page, re-stating what must be done if you don't want "racist" to be in this article. MasontWang (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

June 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Justin Trudeau, you may be blocked from editing. Dr.  K.  01:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Justin Trudeau. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dr.  K.  01:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Justin Trudeau. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr.  K.  01:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

John Legend
What happened ? You do understand why this is incorrect?  General Ization Talk  02:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material and disruptive editing - this needs to stop
At Daniel {biblical figure) you added unsourced material that I doubt could even be verified. You post to Wikipedia talk:No bigots was purely disruptive and obviously a response to your problems elsewhere. If this continues you are likely to be blocked. Doug Weller  talk 12:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking I avoid the articles Abortion and Health effects of salt, since my views don't align with the medical consensus. I advise you to do the same. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The personal attack I warned you about was starting a section heading with the name of an editor, calling him "King Tgeorgescu"
That's a personal attack in my book. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I called him "king" of the article because he acts like he has supreme rule over it. Calling someone "king" is hardly a personal attack....Saxophilist (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. Do it again and if I note it I'll block you. But then you wrote that "Theologians have been unanimous for almost 2000 years that gay sex is a sin." But perhaps you meant up to the 20th century.Christianity and homosexuality. I'm not going to argue about this, just pointing out that we have an article on it which you probably won't like.  Doug Weller  talk 08:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)



It is not a personal insult. Threaten me again and I will report you for abuse of power. Gay sex is a sin. The Church founded by Christ Himself has taught this since the 1st century. Even groups that have left the Catholic Church, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church and Protestants, have taught against homosexuality. Only recently have some Protestant groups decided to give into worldly desires and change their teachings Saxophilist (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead and report me any time. Here we go - if you ever edit an article to say that a group or a person that self-identifies as Christian because they disagree with your definition of Christianity, I'll block you. I noticed your edits at User:Ian.thomson - there's a large list of Christian denominations at Baptism that you probably think aren't Christian, for instance. Then there's Nontrinitarianism. And of course Mormons. Start editing those to say they are non-Christian and see what happens. By the way that ping didn't work, it only works if it is part of a signed edit done at one time, you can't fix pings. Doug Weller  talk 15:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours from certain pages (Nebuchadnezzar II) for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. signed,Rosguill talk 22:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:


 * "Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.


 * What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.  "

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy. We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture. We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy. We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy. We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines. We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against young earth creationism. We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial. We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism. We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories. We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, wise and devout follower of the Wikipedia cult. Saxophilist (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "The essence of his argument was that the logical structure of the evolution debate is framed in such a way as to favor evolution from the outset; scientists “have to rely on a definition of science that does not permit an alternative to naturalistic evolution.”"

- Michelangelo D’Agostino


 * So, yeah, it's true that science is biased. Johnson made no credible case why it should be any other way. Science simply is not concerned with the metaphysical existence of God or gods. He posited no reason why scientific progress requires us to recant that. He thought that by muting all purely theological questions science is unfair and wanted to make science fair again. That failed abysmally. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Stephen C. Meyer, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Egsan Bacon (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)