User talk:Iadmc/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Iadmc/Archive 4, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Refactored invitation). Ikip 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ikip, I'll review all that and see what I come up with. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! I am glad I invited you. I hope you have watchlisted the page :) Ikip 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll dip in as and when I can. Thanks again for the invite and thanks for the wikithanks! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Classical guitar repertoire

Hello. I'm looking for some people to actually comment on my proposal to merge/split classical guitar repertoire into List of composers for the classical guitar and List of compositions for guitar. Brambleclawx 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I corrected the links in the tags to point to your merge discussion, so we should get some people wandering in soon! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves of 'Visa-free travel blocks' at Passport articles

Following consensus it was agreed to move large graphic blocks from all national passport articles see Talk:Passport. As this was in train a number of editors who concentrate on edditing these sections specifically became upset at the prospect of their being deleted A compromise was agreed at Talk:Passport#New Proposal: Separate "passport" content from "visa-free travel" to separate articles. It was pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolian passport as this process was underway that for articles where these blocks were the 'substance' of these articles that we may have made a major boo-boo. Can you please advise. The debate to get things this far has been quite frought so I want to open as few worm cans as possible in resolving this. How bad a mess have we made and can you help us fix it while still implementing what has come to be known as Edward's compromise agreement. Hope you get the gist of the issue. Not the best piece of prose I've written. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the AfD and asked for it to be speedy closed due to a rather obvious WP:BEFORE violation and disruptive behaviour and the fact that the articles are still being discussed. It may help but knowing the fickleness of Admins, I don't know. The AfD seems to be lost anyway, given the number of !Keep votes. I'll have to review all of the (rather complex) issues before I can help but I will certainly see what I can do. Regards. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your intervention. Thank you very much for your interest and help. RashersTierney (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Was just about to tip you off on your faux pas. There have been plenty of examples of 'fiery language', but in fairness to Seb, not from him. RashersTierney (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... oops. This editor is indeed involved though and seems to object to the removal of the info, at least in so far as it has generated an edit-war. I am still reviewing everything he wrote at present and will restate my reasons for agreeing with the WP:POINT claim when I have finished (if they exist). --Jubilee♫clipman 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for introducing you to this hornets nest and then shufflin' off to bed , but its 4.30 am here and I'm bushed. Will speak tomorrow. RashersTierney (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... and see your talk page! The rest won't be as easy though. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Real life commitments catching up, Am reading up on Help:Moving a page, which is where I first noticed your knowledge of this area. Little activity on my part is not due to flagging interest. Is there anything we can do as an interim measure to limit the difficulty of retaining the histories eg not editing the split ;shell' articles? My technical ability in this area is limited, but am prepared to do any donkey-work required to take some of that burden from others. RashersTierney (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's where you dug me up from! Full page moves are relatively easy if done correctly and if no issues exist. (The existance of a relatively complex history is the usual issue: send the page to WP:RM#uncontroversial page moves and an admin will help out.) Cut and paste moves, OTOH, are a nightmare with respect to loss of history—unless the edit summary makes it clear where the c/p is from/to and the original page is still active. Again, an admin is needed to help review the history of deleted pages. However, if you have no idea where the c/p originated, you have a problem. Fortunately, in this case, you (ie your project) know exactly where the information came from for each of the "shell" articles so I am not quite sure what the issue there is? If it is potential loss of useful pages (because they might lose AfD or get PRODed while your back is turned) there probably are some sensible and positive steps to take. As a first thought, WP:USERFY might help with some articles and WP:INCUBATOR with others. I'll check out other posiblitities and get back to you. I hope I followed the gist of your concern? Anyway, now that the AfD has been withdrawn (quite rightly too, for several fundamental reasons) the heat is off a little: just see if you can edit those articles to make them more encyclopedic. To be fair to Seb, most are still near-dictionary entries (though only in surface appearance) rather that encyclopedia entries. That is probably the priority, really: tidy up and wikify. I am fully aware that other issues remain but these stubs are at risk of AfD again if any one else, at random, spots them. Perhaps these in particular could be incubated (or userfied if appropriate)? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Great information. I was not aware of 'incubation' which seems the ideal location for any articles with no content other than 'The X passport is issued to citizens of X for the purpose of international travel.' I'm still informing myself as to when this should be done wrt the histories issue. I'm hoping to initiate a workpage where a possible MOS for passport related articled can be worked on collectively before bringing it to the wider community. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! A manual of style is essential for any closely related set of articles, IMO, and collaboration with informed people is the key. The actual topic (passports, visas, tourism, etc) is somewhat alien to me, really, hence my confusion at times! However, I have made it my business to get to know the WP processes because of my interest in obscure but certainly notable composers (especially those still-living, ie those with a BLP. I am glad, now, given the recent hulabaloo surrounding unsourced BLPs (of which the contemporary music project must have thousands...) Any more ways I can help? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Concentrate on procedures and do what you can to keep us all on track in that respect. Things are not going too well at Talk:Passport. RashersTierney (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. No problem. I'll review it all tommorow and see what I come up with. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at User:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Projectification the big test will be whether the community supports such an idea. I have asked the main creators of project article incubation to chime in, to see if this is a viable alternative. I look forward to their responses, thanks for your comments! Ikip 03:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there Jubileeclipman, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Jubileeclipman/(shadow) Quartal and quintal harmony. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Classical guitar repertoire finished

I've done the little merging required in the article, and I don't know what to do with the page now?

I'll have a look at it all shortly and have a think. I have just had to default all my setting because I couldn't see the edit tools and the edit text was all weird... once I've sort that out I'll come and help out. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Looking at Classical guitar repertoire, first, we have a page that claims to be about "repertoire" in the title but mainly lists "names of composers" ie it is actually a weird version of List of composers for the classical guitar with a few bits of info at the top and the odd composition thrown in for good measure. List of compositions for guitar is fine, now, even if it has a huge lead (better than the single sentence most lists have, I would say). List of composers for the classical guitar is great. Assuming the lists in List of composers for the classical guitar contian all the names listed in Classical guitar repertoire and the lists in List of compositions for guitar contian all the composition listed in Classical guitar repertoire, then I vote you leave both of those lists alone, now. Regarding Classical guitar repertoire itself... not sure yet but I'll have a good think about it and get back to you. I have removed the merge tags for now so we can both have a think about it more. Don't forget there are also Classical guitar and Guitar and probably others... Step back for now and admire your work! Tommorow is another day. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I did not merge the concertos in, since the List of compositions for guitar does not seem to cover that. Brambleclawx 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute that: it doesn't say "for solo guitar"... Note also that List of compositions for organ includes Handel's 18 Organ Concertos at least. Anyway, I have had a think about Classical guitar repertoire and feel that it is viable (I almost suggested sending it to WP:AfD) but that it really should be in prose form rather than in list form. Also, I am not sure if redlinks like "Jose Broca 1805-1882" exactly count as notable people given that they don't actually have an article! I'd start by removing all those. If you are an expert in the history of the classical guitar repertoire, you could make a start on turning all those lists into flowing prose. If not (I certainly am not) just leave it to other editors to sort out, now. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert at guitars, so I'll just leave it as is, and if someone decides to send it to AfD, then I won't oppose. The thing is, I didn't find a single concerto in that list, so I wasn;t sure whether or not to merge it in. Brambleclawx 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough: time to move on! We are processing a huge list of BLPs over at WP:composers and WP:CTM if you're bored...! More seriously, though, any help with those would be appreciated. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Anymore comments on Projectification?

Anymore comments on: Projectification? I want to know the pros and cons (especially the cons) before I propose it to the wider community, your opinion is vital, thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back over there for sure, think about all the implications and comment. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw my Lady weepe

The article above, I saw my Lady weepe, has a weirdly capitalised title. I think this may be because it was originally capitalised that way, but what do you think? Brambleclawx 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Without even looking at the article, my guess would be that the "Lady" in question is Mary the Mother of Jesus (or is using Mary as a model to compare the actual lady addressed to and flatter her). Hence the capitalisation. Looking at the article: Dowland was indeed a Catholic later in life, so that analysis is even more likely to be correct. (In the Roman Catholic tradition, Mary's personal suffering is highly significant, of course.) On the other hand, the article does not even consider that as a possiblity, and the lyrics could just be a pure earthly love song with no religious overtones at all. I note the first line, as cited, actually uses lower case. I am not a scholar of 16th century English, I'm afraid, but I do think that the words "Lady" and "Lord" as well as other similar terms were indeed often capitalised, just as the more significant words in a text (like "Sorrow" and "Mirth", here) were capitalised. I have no idea if either Dowland (or the original poet if not Dowland) used the capitalisation we are presented with here, and this confuses the matter further by using the original spelling while only capitalising the first word of each line and this single other word. A quick Google doesn't help much either: Amazon has it several ways, some use the modern "I Saw My Lady Weepe", some use all-caps, some have it as here... I note that only Kleinzach and you have made any comments on the talk page. I'll make a silly suggestion shortly, just to throw everyone off...

The article really is a mess, I agree: it is more like someone's first year end of term submission for the History element in a BMus! I would personally dump the whole lot in the bin and write the entire article again from whatever sources you have found, avoiding horrible personal reflections like:

These are but a few of the ideas surrounding I saw my Lady weepe. It seems as though more work could be done in order to better understand the song musically and textually, yet at the same time, one wonders if such a thing is necessary

Dump that sh*te for a start! (And move the article to I saw my lady weepe: I doubt very much if anyone will notice/care. Anway the text cited does actually use that lowercase format, as I just pointed out.) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PS are you sure the entire text in this isn't lifted from somewhere? It really does feel like it is the more I read it...

Well, moving it requires an admin since the other name is already a redirect. But are you suggesting I take it to AfD? Brambleclawx 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is more or less orphaned and pretty horrible. Dowland himself is not much known outside of early music circles and universities so articles on his music are not really much use to many people. AfD a lttle extreme for now though... However, I notice Flow my Tears is wrongly capitalised, too: Flow my tears or Flow My Tears would be more correct. In fact, Come again in the John Dowland article takes us to Come Again (Dowland) while In darkness let me dwell is a self-redirect from the John Dowland page back to that page. I would rename the article I Saw My Lady Weepe as also being correct capitalisation (see here (Titles - Other) and here (Rule 8) etc etc. I would also rename Flow my Tears to Flow My Tears. Neither of these have any history, so the move is easy. Others will have to request admin to move the page back I suspect and will be refused if we tidy all the inline usages of "I saw my Lady weepe" and "Flow my Tears" to use the all-cap version (except the quotes)! I can sort it out out if you feel uncomfortable about it. I note Kleinzach (your question on his talkpage) is confused about the title of this, too, so I suspect we have his backing. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's great! thanks for your help! Brambleclawx 22:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you happy to sort it all out? If so that would be preferable! I have a ton of other stuff to sort out... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get it. Brambleclawx 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! Let me know if any one reverts or requests a move in the other direction. I'll comment on the discussion the latter case and take the article(s) to WP:RM in the former case. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be done now. Brambleclawx 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Don't forget to change the inline usage to the new format especially the lead opening. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Do. Brambleclawx 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

György Kurtág

Thanks for Toshio Hosokawa - just in time for his appearance (twice) at the Rheingau Musik Festival! I found Kurtág tagged and am confused by "notes" (1), "references" (3) looking rather like external links (one actually repeated there), "external links", one dead that I fixed, one (UE) that I added. I would not know now how to sort that out. My personal memories of 2004 (two concerts) are surprisingly vivid, Bach Sonatina repeated as an encore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

TH turned up in a scan of composers bannered by the Composers project but not categorised as composers, IIRC. I added him to WP:CTM, too. I'll have a look at Kurtág, but I vaguely remember the name from recent work to source BLPs with the unsourced tag on them or somewhere. (Both WP:Composers and WP:CTM have recently sorted out over 200 of them.) I'll see what I can do, anyway. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Kurtág is nicely sourced but only one of the references is specifically used inline to cite particular claims. (It was placed under Notes for some reason that escapes me. Corrected now.) Not a major problem but probably easily resolved. I'll see what I can do to place inline citations for those refs. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the sources sorted! (Still at least one double ...) - As for van Dillen: I only edited the article in a routine to wiki-link to (then new, not by me) Paul Van Nevel, don't know anything concerning the discussion. - Yesterday I got the list of RMF composers completed, among them Mauricio Kagel - "citation needed" several times. I copied his works and writings from de-WP to my sandbox, willing to translate some. Are you familiar with the topic and could perhaps mark important ones, - seems too many otherwise? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that all the books, periodicals and dictionary entries are sources, too. I assumed they must be works by Kurtág when it said "Further Reading". That's sorted too now. The top two refs seem to double each other, true, but one is the English bio and the other is the Magyar bio. I allowed for both in case they say different things or give a different perspective. It still only cites one source inline but hopefully other editors will correct this now. I don't really know much about the RMC but if you give me the link to the list I'll have a look and see if I spot anyone especially obvious. I think Kagel's pretty notable though. He certainly has lots of sources to choose from for those inline cite requests! The article should be massively expanded from them, too but I don't have any of the books with me. Grove is online actually but you have to pay a fee. Maybe I'll do just that, in fact, soon. I don't read German so I certainly can't help with translation beyond doing a Google or Babelfish translation ("It is one the of important most of compositors with many large opera in the head..." etc) I know you never asked that but I thought I had point it out anyway. Van Dillen. The AfD seems to be going to and fro at the moment. I only asked you to comment because your edits were the among the most recent. No idea if it will be saved or ditched! Anyway get me that link all I'll give the list the once over. --Jubilee♫clipman 12:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I had removed the double ref (French, IRCAM) - probably before you looked, also copied info regarding the piano pieces to there. For the Kagel works: just click on sandbox (above). For the festival: top of the paragraph. Btw: I found Jaques Loussier in a sad state. Good luck with all this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Loussier "in a sad state" is massively understating it! It is criminally underdeveloped and undersourced. That's on my To-Do list... I should have just clicked those links but I got distracted in real life. I'll check it all out anyway. --Jubilee♫clipman 13:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And it has a self-reference to Answers.com... Unbelievable!!! --Jubilee♫clipman 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - the article was stubbed during the removal-of-unsourced-sections-in-BLPs job in January that followed on from the removal-of-unsourced-BLP-articles drive that itself resulted in the RfC and several proposal discussions (see above and below from Ikip/Okip). Most projects have been feverishly working to source all unreferenced BLPs ever since, including WP:CTM and WP:Composers. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

RE: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#.22Projectification.22

Thank you for your comments on your project page. Can you please refactor out the "by invitation only", anyone is welcome to comment on this page. I changed all of the invitations. Editors were threatening to delete the user page because of this. Thanks.

Editors have been requesting a list of articles here, if you are interested in getting a list to work on for your project ASAP:

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing.

Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 07:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. I never noticed the refactor of the invite: shows how much I pay attention! I think both CTM ("my" project) and WP:Composers have dealt with their 200 or so uBLPs now, though we still have people with the composers cat not bannered by either project... Most of these people are probably songwriters maskerading as "composers" (the distinction is subtle but significant) so we probably will just leave those to the pop/rock/folk enthusiasts to sort out. There may well be the odd classical composer not bannered by us though and we will only find those by manually checking every article. After all, a bot cannot read the actual article for us; indeed, even if it could it would not be able to decide if the person is classical or popular or, indeed, a miscatted baseball player. We even have several misdabbed entries in our various "Lists of" that should lead to a composer but lead instead to a sumo wrestler or a micropalaeontologist... They usually just require (composer) adding to the end. I was actually half way through one of those lists when all this hullaballo started so I broke off and helped out. 5 or 6 editors have pulled together and made a huge dent in the classical composer BLPS. We still have performers and conductors etc, of course, but they may be a little more difficult to track down given how the cats and banners work. Anyway, hope the project idea takes off: I think it is simple and effective and community based rather than personal-whim based. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Portillo

Thanks for your intervention here. Every so often the same sort of thing blows up on this page (complete with hissy fits) - hopefully it will quieten down now.--Smerus (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dutton

Im not sure about this person. His Stone Man was performed by Kentucky Opera as confirmed on their website and as reviewed here] in what appears to be the author's own reproduction of his review for Bay Area Reporter not a paper local to the Kentucky production.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a blog. If we can track down the original, though, that would be great. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the website for Bay Area Reporter. Unforunately the archives only go back to 2005. The column appeared in 1990. He obviously hasn't followed up on this success if we haven't heard of him 20 years later... --Jubilee♫clipman 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

While the column is reproduced on the blog, it's first appearance was in print in a notable (in the sense it has an article here) publication where Heymont waas active for 15 years. Heymont in his profile gives a history of being a long-term professional writer and this google supports the idea that Heymont is in the b- or c-list of American opera writers.

I think that the coverage by Heyman and the staging by Kentucky Opera I think can be used as grounds for saying that Dutton just about meets WP:N. He's also had a three-month long exhibition at the marginally notable 21c_Museum_Hotel#21c_Museum with a book of the show published by the museum [1]. The thing that mosts put me off is th history of anon accounts linking duttons website from other articles. I'm inclined to think that afd is the way to go.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll deprod and reconsider. You may be right but considering the article was almost certainly self-authored I don't fancy its chances much... --Jubilee♫clipman 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dutton --Jubilee♫clipman 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've commented there.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Loussier

looks much better now. I just tried to eliminate what was said (and linked) two or three times (originating from the different sources. (Sorry I didn't look at the history sooner.) Please check again, + the believers in inline-citation will not yet be pleased. Kurtag: I "inlined" a second source, for those formal reasons. Please check the tag. (DYK for RMF - where both link - in prep) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"RMF"? Rich Music Format? I don't get involved in DYK but, going by the pageview stats for articles while they are there, it is a useful addition to WP. Both Kurtag and Loussier are indeed looking far better. Don't worry too much about inlines: someone else can place those. They are useful for placing sources in context but it is enough that the sources are actually there in some fashion (both articles are only Start class, after all). I must apologise for my statement above about the self-reference to Answers.com! I never noticed that you had placed it. I have to admit, though, that it is very difficult sometimes to decide whether a website is ripping us off or if we are violating their copyright. (I recently reported copyvio on another article but someone commented at the WP:CP entry that the whole site that I thought we were copying actually appears to be ripped off WP without any attribution to us.) However, not well that Answers.com invariably pinch stuff from elsewhere, especially WP; it is, anyway, a user contributed site so not at all reliable. Just for future reference, most often (but not always) these site acknowlegde quoting from WP by stating the copyrights. Eg (for Loussier on Answers): "Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Jacques Loussier". Read more." --Jubilee♫clipman 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Smile #1: RMF = Rheingau Musik Festival (s.a.). I was introduced to DYK by the one who helped me with my fist article after it was deleted, and use it since to get classical music to the main page. Also: the attention while in the nomination process is almost better than the very 6 hours, more than 900 for Klaus Mertens. Smile #2: RMF - perhaps I should create a disambiguation. Smile #3: I had no idea (not looking at the history of JL), that there ever had been anything to self-reference, reading 6 Feb: "He is well-known for his jazz interpretations of many of Johann Sebastian Bach's works, such as the Goldberg Variations. His most famous recording is "Air on the G String," which was used for the Hamlet cigar advertisements in the UK for over 35 years. He also composed the theme tune for the popular 1960s French TV series Thierry La Fronde and the score for the motion picture Dark of the Sun." Great - JL composed for advertisement. - the answers.com was the first site in English that I found in some haste to change that, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added Rheingau Musik Festival to to the RMF dab page. I don't think a dab is needed on any of those pages because typing "RMF" into the search will lead directly to the disambiguation page I just linked to. I'm not too sure if JL explicitly composed for adverts, I think the advertising companies just got his permission to use certain of his arrangements, in particular his Bach Air arangement used for Hamlet Cigars. I may be wrong though... And yeah: avoid Answers.com like the plague! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the dab! - I just was a bit shocked that the advertisement line was the one and only info on JL I saw. Now it's one of many at least. I could live without it if it's not clear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since his arrangement was used for 35 years to advertise that brand and is still strongly associated with the cigars here in the UK, I think it is crucial that the info stays. I'll have a look to see if it can be better phrased/sourced. Good work, BTW. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't remove it again, promised, smiling more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Smile back) I found more refs and added them. The TimesOnline one is particulary useful. Not so sure about the two I added to External Links, though, but they are perhaps useful for further research. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Excuse me, but I believe your latest edit might be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilove2sing234 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, this isn't my talkpage, so yes, I'm talk page stalking: You might want to make clear which edit you mean, otherwise Iadmc might have a hard time figuring out which edit you mean. Brambleclawx 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the removal of the {{construction}} template on Mark Engebretson: I placed that template myself so can remove it myself. All my other recent edits have been in my own user space, project subpages that I myself have also created or on project talk pages. Specifics, indeed, please! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)