User talk:Makemi/Archive5

For old discussions please see

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. I will most likely respond on your talk page.

Re. listing of German singers

Those are good suggestions. On my side I am more than happy to endorse them. - Kleinzach 20:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think your ideas got through to RCS . . . Perhaps they would be worth repeating on the project Talk Page? - Kleinzach 17:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Well done! All your fine writing and meticulous documentation for Concerto delle donne paid off, and deservedly so. Let's get that puppy on the front page, and into WP:0.5 and WP:1.0. Peirigill 23:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian Chant rv. non-notable tid-bit

Why was this reversed? I think it would be cool to see a list of all places that Gregorian Chant is currently practiced. Fair enough that the tidbit may belong in a different location, but I think it is irresponsible to just erase it. If you are going to change it, find a different place for it, but don't erase it. Start a list in an appropriate place or something. I'm not a Gregorian Chant expert, I'm just trying to contribute what I know in hopes that an expert can find a relevant place for it.

Frankly, I don't think a list of places where Gregorian chant is practised is either interesting or important. I don't think that particular tid-bit belongs in the article, so I'm not about to try to find an appropriate place for it or create a list simply in order to hold that particular tid-bit. I understand that you want to contribute, but in my view this particular piece of information is not particularly relevant. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~). Mak (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for helping fend off the vandals while Gregorian chant was on the main page. I wasn't prepared for the level of vandalism. It's heartening to know how efficient and diligent you WP admins and editors are to revert it! (This is something of a form letter I'm sending to everyone who helped revert, but for you, I also have to add: thanks for the pep talk! I really appreciated it.) Peirigill 07:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian chant lede dispute

User:SCCC and I are having a fundamental disagreement over the lede to the Gregorian chant article. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over our discussion at Talk:Gregorian_chant#Alteration_of_lede and give your input? Thanks! Peirigill 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm back!

Let's see; the Fairy-Queen gets GA (Yes!), Trobairitz ditto (bravo), and concerto delle donne is now a featured article!! Let the Hallelujah Chorus commence!! Very well done! Was there anything else particularly important that I missed? Best, Moreschi 19:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, we messaged each other at the exact same time. Well done indeed. The only other event is that List of important operas is at AfD. AfD is so completely broken. Mak (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to believe. Oh well, the list will survive, and all this bureaucracy gets me down anyway. Editing the articles is where the buzz is. Bravo again on the singing ladies (oh, and I liked the dramatic version also...). I thought your first "response" was a bit quick, but great minds think alike. Cheers, Moreschi 19:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Viol Composers

I'm not sure how to go about adding more viol composers. A great big list of 'em in the middle would really break up the cohesiveness of the article. Any suggestions besides an external link? DeineMutter 03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice to have a comprehensive discussion of the repertoire for the viol, and composers would naturally come up in that discussion, so I think that would be the best way to include them. Mak (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put up what I edited into the viol article in my sandbox. Tell me what you think of it. The source is the same one I put on the discussion page of viol. DeineMutter 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Siegler

I have replied to the comment you left on my talk page. TerminX 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please use headings

Re Makemi's QUALIFICATIONS ----A CRITIQUE SORRY BUT THERE IS NO PLACE TO WRITE THIS PERSON DIRECTLY SO I AM FORCED TO SAY THIS HERE. OTHERWISE I WOULD WRITE THIS PERSON PERSONALLY AND PRIVATELY

THE PURPOSE OF WORDS IS TO COMMUNICATE CLEARLY NOT TO CONFUSE.

THE PURPOSE OF A COLLEGE EDUCATION IS TO TEACH ONE TO THINK CRITICALLY. OBVIUOUSLY MAKEMI IS AN EMBARASSMENT TO THOSE WHO AWARDED A BACHELORS DEGREE TO HIM OR HER IN THIS DEPARTMENT. THIS PERSON WISHES TO CONTINUE TO SPREAD IGNORANCE ABOUT MUSIC WHICH AT TIMES SEEMS LIFTED RIGHT OUT OF AN OLD GROVES AND HAS ALLOWED IF THEY REALLY HAVE ONE THEIR BACHELORS DEGREE TO GO TO THIER HEAD MAKING THEM THINK THAT THEY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THEY ARE. THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THIS PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELVES MAKEMI AND CERTAINLY NOT THE MUSICAL WORLD.

ALTHOUGH THIS PERSON CLAIMS ENGLISH IS THEIR NATIVE TOUNGUE THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT WRITE LIKE IT AND LEAVE THIS WRITER TO THINK THAT THEY ARE PERHAPS TRYING TO FOOL EVERYONE INTO THINKING THAT THEY ARE NOT WHAT THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE. THEIR FRENCH IS HORRIBLE LET ALONE OTHER SUCH LANGUAGES. MAKEMI'S LATIN IS EVEN WORSE.

ITEM: MAKEMI INSISTS ON INAPPROPRIATELY USING THE TERM WORD 'RECORDER' FOR THE BLOCKFLUTE OR FIPPLE FLUTE. THIS IS VERY BAD ENGLISH AND ALSO IS VERY VAGUE. A RECORDER IS (1)AN A LEGAL PERSON WHO REPORTS COURT EVENTS AND KEEPS COURT AND LEGAL RECORDS

(2) A SCIENTIFIC DEVICE EITHER MANUAL OR ELECTRONIC.

(3) A DEVICE FOR RECORDING SOUNDS AND USED SOMETIMES IN ORCHESTRAS TO PRESENT SOUNDS THAT COULD NOT BE PRESENT OTHERWISE---THERE IS A CONCERTO FOR RECORDER (NO THAT IS NOT THE BLOCKFLUTE) AND ORCHESTRA AMONG OTHER SUCH WORKS .

It is NOT a Woodwind instrument and in a music score does not go into the Flute section but in the miscellaneous section of a score near the percussion.

THE BLOCKFLUTE REMEMBERS NOTHING, PLAYS NOTHING ON ITS OWN, WRITES DOWN NOTHING TO CREATE A PERMANENT RECORD AND CERTAINLY DOES NOT PRACTICE ANYTHING--IF IT DID ---THE NAME WOULD BE JUSTIFIED.  THE WORD RECORDER COMES FROM THE LATIN VERB  'RECORDARE'  WHICH MEANS TO PRACTICE, TO REMEMBER,TO WRITE DOWN SOMETHING FOR POSTERITY.  THUS THE WORD RECORDER IS AN INAPPROPRIATE   NAME AND WORD FOR THE BLOCKFLUTE OR FIPPLE FLUTE.

YET MAKEMI SEEMS TO THINK THAT HE OR SHE CAN WRITE ENGLISH. NO THIS PERSON DOES NOT NOR WRITE CLEAR ENGLISH BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO GROUNDED IN SLANG. THIS PERSON NEEDS TO GO BACK AND LEARN PROPER ENGLISH AND PROPER WRITING ENGLISH TECHNIQUE. THEY ALSO NEED TO LEARN LATIN AND BE ABLE TO USE IT, FRENCH, GERMAN, AND ITALIAN AT MINIMUM. I DO NOT KNOW WHERE MAKEMI GOT HIS OR HER DEGREE---BUT IT MUST BE FROM A FAKE UNIVERSITY OR SCHOOL.

STOP PRETENDING WHAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW AND STOP LIFTING THE WORKS OF OTHER PEOPLE FROM COPYRIGHTED WORKS SUCH AS GROVES. I COMPARED WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN RE: "RECORDER' (sic)AND IT IS ALMOST THE SAME AS OLDER EDITIONS OF GROVES. TURNIT IN CAN VERIFY THIS ALSO.

W.J. ROWLAND,Phd (English),D.Mus.,M.Ed,B.Sc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigvan beethoven (talk • contribs)

First, a couple procedural things: Please post at the bottom of talk pages, use a heading, and sign your comments using four tildes.

As for my qualifications, I've simply baldly stated, I have a bachelor of music, neither more nor less. The only reason I've included languages I've studied, is for the benefit of interlanguage Wikipedia cooperation. It is standard here to talk about content, rather than a person's personal attributes, this policy is WP:CIVIL. As for the Recorder article as a whole, I did not in fact write almost any of it, I've just reverted some vandalism, and tried to clarify one or two minor points. If you have serious concerns about copyright violation or plagiarism, I encourage you to pursue it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Now, as for "blockflute" versus "recorder" - it is policy to use the most common English names as the title to articles - the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). "Recorder" is what the vast majority of English speakers call this instrument, and Wikipedia is not the place for that to be changed. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your attempts to change the name of a common instrument amount to a violation of the neutral point of view policy. And once again, I'd appreciate it if you address the matter at hand, and not resort to ad hominem attacks. Mak (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lastly PLEASE DON'T SHOUT. IT'S VERY RUDE. Mak (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about lyrics

Just started posting stuff, didn't think of lyrics as being copyrighted but I suppose they are. It's such a shame because there are so many great theme songs out there. Anyway, won't happen again. Out of curiosity, is it possible to ask the creator for permission to use a theme song? I was looking at the copyright rules on wikipedia but did not see anything of this nature. Jonk614 07:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Jon

Prester John

Thank you for the welcome mate. I will aspire to your standards.

FYI on the image uploader who claims ownership on his photos

User:Clakre50 is, in all likelyhood, a new username for blocked user User:Ethan C. I have most(or all) of the pages the user tends to frequent in my VandalProof watchlist. I am very familiar with his particular modus operandi. He tends to be frightened off quite quickly.(in fact he has not be seen too much at all this month) But I can guarantee he will be back soon. His usernames are, for the most part, variations on the name "Ethan Clarke". Just thought you'd like a heads up on him. Cheers and take care! Anger22 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think I actually ran into another sock of his at practically the same time. Mak (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the first one to fess up when I've given out false or misleading info. Fvgvb is as far from Ethan Clarke as you can get. Nice catch on that one. Queen and KISS are frequent haunts. The Beatles(and the Beatle member articles), Elton John and Janis Joplin are also regular hits. If enough people know about him(and many do), perhaps he will get bored. Cheers and take care! Anger22 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Browns

zOMG, that is hilarious... I'm listening to it right now. Maybe we need an article on the Football Madrigal School. (Oh-oh, that redlink will tempt an evildoer somewhere.) (At least I hope it will light up red and not blue.) I love the contrapuntal part on "go to hell."

Grad schools ... ah, yes, big topic. What part of the country do you want to be in, or do you want to go overseas?  ;-) Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the weather's nice here, and you can drive twenty minutes and be up in the mountains to go hiking ... :-) Yeah, there's some good schools, depending on what precisely you'd like to study. I used to have a negative opinion of Susan McClary, but don't any more after reading her book on Italian madrigals (she's at UCLA); of course there's the place I went; USC probably still has a good department; there's a good department right here where I live (UCSB); there's others... Antandrus (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor rant

You know, if this were one of those public beatings for some alleged admin abuse, with torches and pitchforks provided, on AN/I, rather than a cry for help on over 800 vandalisms, we'd have 200 people helping rather than just three or four. Oh well. Thanks for your help though!! Antandrus (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's so much fun! Yay! |:rev. back. del. back. del. back. back. :| Do you like how I used music syntax? Mak (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah!!! lol. I needed a laugh. This is about as much fun as the time my washing machine flooded my house. But I exaggerate.... And the grand irony of doing all this work on that kind of music. It's almost cosmically funny.  :-/ Antandrus (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Purity Control

Hi Mak! Thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia. The name is actually taken from an X-Files episode. Although I would describe my own views as conservative, I understand the NPOV rule. Reviewing my edits, I have not seen any instance where I removed an alternative opinion (even if I disagreed with it), unless it was phrased poorly or redundantly. For the most part, I'm just ensuring that some of the descriptions do not provide a one-sided liberal bias, as some of the articles in question did. If I cross the line on any particular edit, I'd welcome any advice on how to phrase it in a more NPOV fashion. Thanks again for the welcome! Purity Control 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ack

This one came back [1] but fortunately I was watching. He uploads a bad image, reverts it, and then sits back for a moment to re-revert to the bad ones all at once. Bleah.

Anyway, I started reading concerto delle donne; nice work. There's a bunch of stuff in the stack of books I just got from the library, but it looks like your sources are more recent. Antandrus (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My favorite quote from Heseltine so far: [2]. I love that 1920s writing style.

This question might be harder to answer. Do you know what exactly Gesualdo may have written for the concerto delle donne in Ferrara between 1594 and 1597, and what may have been lost? Watkins thinks there was some concertato and/or monodic music that was lost, but one of my recordings of the fourth book of madrigals sure does have that Luzzaschi-esque edge to it, and some are frankly monodic ... that might be what the crazy composer was writing about in his 1594 letter. I've never seen the original facsimile of the publication. Antandrus (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm re-reading Newcomb's article on Gesualdo's Ferrara years - from one bit it seems like most of the compositions in the third book of madrigals were written before he visited Ferrara, and that Gesualdo visited Ferrara in part to get his works published by Baldini, but then later he suggests that some madrigals, a motet, and aria were written with the intention of having them in the third book of madrigals. Newcomb suggests that the aria may have been specifically "All'ombra degl'allori" and "Come vivi cor mio" (although these are both published in Pomponio Nenna's book). I'll forward you the pdf of the article, it's pretty interesting, although it deals a bit more with the people who were trying to deal with Gesualdo rather than about the man himself, but it has some pretty funny quotes. I think we can say very confidently, although I don't have a specific quotable source (i.e. a line of text that says it), that Gesualdo's fourth book of madrigals was very heavily influenced by Luzzaschi, and thus by the concerto delle donne. Mak (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for the mail!! this will keep me busy for a while. It's actually about the 1594 correspondence! (drool, drool) I can't believe how geeky this must seem to non-musicologist types. C'est la vie. Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty nifty, huh? It doesn't seem like any of Gesualdo's letters survive, though. Or at least Newcomb couldn't get his hands on them. This seems pretty geeky to me, and I like to pretend I'm a musicologist type :) It's good geeky, though. Mak (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

source

Ok, listen here dude, first of all like it was told to you and to others, from the very beginning i never ment to "vanalize" anything, but you challenged me and called me vandal, so i had to take up the arms and fight... Then... I do, many times i include sources, but some things are known facts, i simply added word round, what is sixth by itself, 6th min?Sso, you know, do not expect a word for every word and do not attack me mr. vandal. You are also talking to music minor, I know a heck of a lot on classical music. And my no means am i editing under 1000 IP's -all come from one source and I told you not to drink before making comments, i make sure things are always correct, again, do not talk to me. So, stick to your classics.if u can, 4a change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.52 (talk • contribs) .

Spring3100

Mak, would you advise? As you have noticed, User:Giuliani Time appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Spring3100, based on the edit summary of this edit and the timestamp of this one. Interestingly, Spring3100 was quick to jump on Chifumbe for "impersonation" in this AfD; but I note that Giuliani took it to AfD and Spring3100 voted immediately after I did. So... where do I go from here? I would at least like the apparent double-voting called into question, whether or not the sockpuppetry is an issue otherwise. thanks, bikeable (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, you may have enough for a WP:RFCU, or you could post under another heading at WP:AN/I. I'm always hesitant to block possible socks at this sort of stage unilaterally, but unfortunately checkuser requests tend to be slow and often rejected. Mak (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I made a sort of concilatory offer here, and will go to RFCU if that doesn't pan out. Not sure if this is a usual tactic, but it seemed fair. best, bikeable (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Mak, thank you for your message. I hope I can be of use in the future...Thefritz5 06:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK

OK, I won't mention it to them any more. Spring3100 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Les Arts florissants (opera)

Hello! Thanks for moving the article to its proper place, I haven't figured out how that's done yet. :o) -- Rahelisdolentis 13:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

List of major opera composers

I know sweet FA about Charpentier. Would you mind filling up his annotation? I've done about 10 in the last half-hour, and my hands are getting tired from all the typing! If so , that would be great. Cheers, Moreschi 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Interactive advergaming

I saw your prod on this article, and I also noticed that the creator removed said prod. But, I am almost certain that this same content was speedied within the last 2 days or so. Is there a way to search and find that out? I recognize these articles, and I am certain they were deleted. ---Charles 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it took a little longer than I expected, but I did find both articles in the delete log. Both were deleted within the past 48 hours, and both had been speedied at least once before that. This guy just keeps recreating them. What a menace. ---Charles 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Enlighter1"

Thanks for that ... one of Wikipedia's most bizarre vandals (I think his original alias was User:Enlighter1). I honestly can't figure him out. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty strange. Like a WP:POINT addiction gone too far. Mak (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... [3] thanks for bothering to scroll to the bottom (I didn't even look) Antandrus (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming?

Could you please explain to me the difference between posting a valid link and spamming? I posted links of the same nature as the ones already posted. Is it spamming to add a link to an article on a ministry website? I am NOT linking to a commercial website. That I would agree is spamming, at least in many cases. God's Webmaster 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shocked

I'm Taros, you wrote on my page. I not trying to advertise anything, I'm just trying to tell the history of a game company just like Sony or Nintendo. I'm sorry for any offence and I only wanted to talk to someone, not spam them.Taros 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediholic Test

Hi, Makemi. I have big question about Wikipediholic Test. I usually notice that some user's introduction says my wikipediholic test score is .... What kinds of tests are called Wikipediholic Test? Just want to know about this. My purpose here is asking you about Wikipediholic Test. Anyways, Could you please explain to me what Wikipediholictest is? Please, reply in my talk page. Cheers!! Daniel's page ☎ 02:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

War of Words

Hi, it's your "best friend" (cough) Taros. So, I guess it was you who deleted my page with your administrative access. Why? What did I do wrong? What have I ever done to you? Remember this, I work for the company as the game maker and it is not easy. All I wanted was for my hard work to be notified, not advertised.Taros 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Graduate schools

Hello: I saw a brief (one sided...) discussion on Antandrus's page about your wanting to attend graduate school and wondering about suitable programs. Can I help or have you made a decision? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, here goes. First, you have to remember that it has been over 20 years since I was directly involved with the field, but based on that antediluvian perspective...Stanford always seemed like a school very well-balanced between historical studies and performance, ditto Yale -- though there has been a pretty strong divide there between the stage and the classroom; of course that's better than Harvard, where there essentially isn't a stage at all. When I was there, Boston University did well also, although there has been great turnover in the faculty since then. I would generally avoid the conservatory-related schools, which will likely have a good deal more emphasis on the performance side than on the scholarship side. Having said that, Eastman may be an option, though I admit I don't know much about their early-music performance program. (My bias is that it's important to be a good and sensible musician as well as a good and sensible scholar/researcher. One without the other is pretty barren.) The University of Maryland may have something, or another DC-area school, due to the proximity of the Folger Consort. NYC is oddly devoid of a very viable early-music movement, though SUNY (either Stony Brook or Purchase, I forget which) might be worth a look. You said you wanted to stay on one of the coasts, so I won't suggest anything in the middle, though a friend of mine is very active in the early-music field in the Minneapolis area. I infer that you're in the US; have you considered any of the European programs? Or do you have any professors or H.I.P. performing acquaintances who could offer guidance? Tell me some more about your interests and leanings. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Proverb (Reich), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Re: List of major opera composers

Thanks for the note. I didn't enter into any major discussions of POV or selection criteria on that talk page because I had a sixth sense someone was playing with a deck of stacked cards. Weeks of futile discussion would have simply led to deletion of the article because the list wasn't broad enough to cover some contemporary composers (I think you know who I mean). Funny, if he/they hadn't harrassed me and started following me around asking for SOURCES??? on a few opera stubs I created to be filled in the next day then I never would have investigated he/them further. I think work on the NPOV issues with bona fide contributors will now be more productive. The major problem I see is the list is too "minimal" as it stands. Perhaps we did way too much chopping to cut it down to about thirty names. You can see I had some intuition about what might happen in the archived discussion about whether to cut Leoncavallo/Mascagni or not. Never mind, now I think we can make progress to getting something which might satisfy most reasonable people who come across the page. (Sorry I couldn't check your GA status article - August was a busy month). Cheers --Folantin 19:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing funny going on at all

• I've signed up using my own name, which is Jean-Thierry Boisseau. I do work for a music publishing company, but none of the composers involved on List of major opera composers is in our catalogue, nor do we have any significant holding in opera. So, whatever I was doing as Musikfabrik on that particular list has absolutely nothing to do with our business.
• It appears from discussion that problems concerning WP:POV still remain with the article List of major opera composers and that this discussion will continue until such time as the issues are settled. I am simply replying here as a courtesy and for the sake of clarity. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• What do you need? I would imagine that you already have access to the IP numbers, so you can see that this is being made by the same IP. Please read what I have just written on this user page. My books are published. The link to the website is clear. If you read the faq, you'll see my name. I'm not certain what else you would need.
• In any case, the discussion concerning the NPOV issues in List of major opera composers should be allowed to continue until it has been resolved. Please see this article [4] which was sent to me by a notable American composer regarding these kinds of NPOV issues. (This article was also recently posted by me on Jimbo Wales page, for his information...). I've given you a real name, which is easily traced, which is more than you can say for 99% of the pseudos on this site; This enough should tell you something. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read both Wikipedia:Blocking#"Public" accounts and meta:Role account. Under French Law, an office is not a public space, so given that definition, I don't believe that this would have been seen legally as a public space on French soil. The idea of "Role account" does apply and I find it surprising that a PR Firm would be allowed to have such an account. It does seem that such users are generally blocked, but exceptions are made. It also seems as if this policy might also evolve. In any case, it would seem that a specific name attached to a pseudo would solve the problem. I can't guarantee, with cookies and the like, that somebody won't make an edit by mistake on my composer, since it's not that kind of an office. But this would only happen if I were sick or not able to come in, which is quite rare.... Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I still have serious concerns that at least one person posting under the name User:Musikfabrik on Talk:List of major opera composers was in fact Paul Wehage. The similarities were documented by me at User talk:Musikfabrik. Cheers --Folantin 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read both Wikipedia:Blocking#"Public" accounts and meta:Role account. Under French Law, an office is not a public space, so given that definition, I don't believe that this would have been seen legally as a public space on French soil. The idea of "Role account" does apply and I find it surprising that a PR Firm would be allowed to have such an account. It does seem that such users are generally blocked, but exceptions are made. It also seems as if this policy might also evolve. In any case, it would seem that a specific name attached to a pseudo would solve the problem. I can't guarantee, with cookies and the like, that somebody won't make an edit by mistake on my composer, since it's not that kind of an office. But this would only happen if I were sick or not able to come in, which is quite rare.... Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I find your request that I be more "cooperative" surprising given this exchange [5] in which Musikfabrik is refered to as "trollboy" "Ralph Wiggumpedia. Tchao, mon petit paon", etc for a simple request for sources and for neutral language, both of which are official Wikipedia policies. The article is now sourced, which is an improvement. The problem is that the essential decision-making process is flawed and must be reviewed. The fact that I'm taking so much time on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with my business should be a strong message. I am first and foremost a scholar and I believe in what that means.

• Nothing edited under Musikfabrik can be seen as anything but neutral, as we read through all of the articles together to make sure that they were indeed encyclopedic when we understood the principles of this site. No one wrote about themselves. Everything is sourced in published books, recordings and other materials. Our next project was to be a complete revamping of the information about Les Six, using our research involving the original articles in Commedia and other period documents found in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Yes, we do publish the music of Germaine Tailleferre. Someone has to. That doesn't mean that we haven't done our homework.
• If you really feel that it's so important that people have the right to play "Opera International" and decide what's good or not simply because "that's what we think", please let me know as this place will never be a place for me if that is indeed the case. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm very confused by your bringing up French law, which has little to no bearing on Wikipedia policies. An account which is used by multiple people is considered a public account, and is not allowed except under very special circumstances. The policies on role accounts may be evolving, but as the matter stands currently role accounts are not permitted without very special permissions. There is an easy way to feel reasonably confident that your co-workers will not edit as you - first, don't edit at work, as you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia as part of you job, and second, if you do edit on breaks, etc. log out of your account. It's fairly simple. Mak (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course Paul Wehage was posting under Musikfabrik. That is what we said in the first place. However, after being called so many rude names "Trollboy" etc, I doubt that he'll ever be back here, which is definitely your loss...Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I brought up French law because I'm French and that's all that I know. Under my understanding, in France, an office is not a public space. However, this is not important. I do what I want at work because I'm part owner of the company. Actually, I spend most of my time writing writing, because that's what I do. Generally, I edit here when I'm stuck for an idea. So, it's just simply not what you think it is. We really are musicians who do nothing but make, study, documennt and write about music all of the time. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine, just say that you won't allow others to edit on your account and that you will edit in an NPOV manner and not act as an agent for Musik Fabrik and we will be done here. Mak (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was never any question of that, even under the old account. We try extremely hard to remain neutral at all times, as we are serious scholars. I had no idea about this "role account" business, but for now on, this will be only me, barring the rare mistake. I would like some assurance that the current NPOV discussion currently underway at List of major opera composers will be handled in a similar, neutral manner and that the discussion be allowed to continue without further "cloak and daggar" manoeuvres....since it does seem to be an important issue for the site, under official polices. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What "cloak and daggar (sic)" manouvers? I blocked the MusikFabrik account in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and even announced it on the Administrators' noticeboard, where it has been endorsed. I have not in any way interfered with the discussion on "List of important opera composers". My only comment to you about this list has been that I think you could discuss in a less confrontational manner. No matter what you may believe, there are editors who have worked on that list, and are trying to make it NPOV, and to bash them because they have not entirely succeeded yet is not a way to make further progress. Perhaps some of the comments I am thinking of were not made by you personally, but they were made the the MusikFabrik account, which is part of why we discourage multiple user accounts. Mak (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The "cloak and daggar (sic)" manoeuvres (siccer--sorry that's the French spelling) I was referring to was this entire "mise-en-scène" (sorry I can't think of the English expression) was designed to get the attention away from the obvious NPOV issues which have been pointed out by others and to get this list back to the status quo, which was a committee who basically said "I don't like this" or "I like that" without providing any sources. Read the discussion page in question. The wikipedia policies as I understand them require proof of evidence on the part of the editors who make a statement, which should be in the form of neutral, third-party sources. It has not been defined what "important" means nor has it been defined how the selection of "important" composers should be made. I personally gave a number of solutions which could be explored, but which require research. It seems that there is a great deal of resistence towards taking the necessary time to make this research but under WP:POV and WP:VER, this is not optional: it is an obligation.

• I fail to see how asking for compliance to these policies is "unconstructive", especially given that this article is now completely sourced. The sourcing was done in a matter of a few hours. I don't understand why it's so difficult to get a book off of a book shelf, open the index, get the page number and add the sources every time an edit is made. And it would seems that Jimbo Wales is in agreement with me, given any number of statements that he has made.
• Someone who simply asks for compliance for these principles should not in any case be called "trollboy" for having done so. I am surprised that an adminstrator would take this position.Jean-Thierry Boisseau 21:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again. You were blocked because your account violated Wikipedia policy. I never called anyone a trollboy, nor do I endorse such language. There are ways to communicate which are more and less conducive to harmonious editing. It was not the call to NPOV and sourcing which I take issue with, but rather the way in which you expressed this. Mak (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This happens all of the time. I am French and English is not my first language. My English is extremely formal and as a scholar, I have ideas about scholarship which come with specific training. I do not see this changing. And quite frankly, I do not see exactly how the situation could have been handled differently. I am all for polite lanuage, but in French, we have a type of language which is extremely polite, but quite firm. I believe that my English probably reflects this. One would imagine however, that "harmonious editing" would involve compromise from both sides, which was clearly not the case from the beginning. This issue will be resolved and regardless of how you might view my actions, I see them as necessary given the resistence to good scholarly practice as is proposed in the guidelines of this service. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify, my issue is not with the account Musikfabrik being blocked. that is clearly correct under wikipedia policy. My issue is with the implied interference with the current NPOV discussion underway at List of major opera composers in order to allow the status quo to continue. I would like to ask that this situation be closely observed by third parties who have nothing to do with this conflict to insure neutrality. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are the only person in that discussion with possible POV issues. Deal with the mess that you yourself have made. Mak (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify. How do I have POV issues with this article? Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I said possible POV issues. The only POV of the other editors that I can see is that they want to create a solid article, and not have the one they've been working on deleted. You have lost my trust by editing under a role/multiple account, and so must show yourself to be trustworthy and NPOV. I don't know your particular POV. I don't feel like gaurding the List for you though. Just meta:Don't be a dick and you should be fine. I feel done with this conversation, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to your subsequent comments right now. Mak (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had your trust to begin with, since I've never had the pleasure of speaking with you before, as far as I remember. It was never hidden from anyone that multiple users were using this account (basically three people) and this was done to avoid writing about each other and to control neutrality. If someone had bothered to point this out to us before, it would have been changed; So, I fail to see why this idea of "trust" has to be used, which is artificial for someone who you have never had contact with in the first place.

"Being a dick" is a rather interesting phrase, but I would rather be a scholar. Part of being a scholar is being aware of the truth. The truth is very important and is a principal on which I base my work. The point you are missing is that this entire article, as well as List of important operas, is based on a false premise. Indeed, they have worked for some time on this false premise, but that does not make it any more or less false. Now, is it more or less polite to allow people to continue working very deligently to go in the wrong direction, or is it better to save their time by saying "you're going the wrong way" and point them where they need to go? You seem to be taking the position that since the effort is so great that people should be allowed to continue working incorrectly. I definitely take the position that it is always better to put people on the right track, even if it means shaking them up a bit. Scholarship is not "nice". And if this place is about being "nice", then perhaps I should not be here.

That said, this has gone on quite long enough and I wish you a very pleasant evening...which is night for me. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

G-mail?

Sounds interesting but how does it work, exactly? This is a new thing for me. The Wikipedia article says you have to have an invite, but then how do you set up your account - and make it Wiki-only? Cheers, Moreschi 10:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got e-mail working (fake names and all) - I think. It was complicated. Cheers, Moreschi

Gender bias issues

I wanted to inform you that Paul Wehage has contacted the International Alliance of Women in music to bring the gender bias issues in "List of important opera composers" and other such selective lists to their attention. You may see individuals from this organisation editing on this site. This organisation is composed of hundreds of music professionals who work on the subject of Women in Music. Reducing gender bias is specifically one of their main priorities. These men and women are not in any way connected to us, other than as music professionals working towards better documentation and undertanding of women in music, so they should not be treated as "secret agents" of the great "Musikfabrik" cabal. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to have anyone working on the cite in an NPOV way. You may notice that I wrote both the Trobairitz and Concerto delle donne articles. Mak (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that, which made your reaction that discussing "gender bias" was making you uncomfortable to be rather surprising. In any case, you will probably see quite a few people editing in this direction in the upcoming weeks.Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? When did I say that? You are misunderstanding me. I find the way in which your account communicated unsettling and unhelpful. Not the things which were being communicated. An extreme example of this would be, for example "Get off my goddamn fucking foot right now or I'll punch you" vs. "Excuse me, you're stepping on my foot". Both are asking for the same thing, but one is using communication which is more conducive to cooperation. I suggest you read Wikipedia's core policies which relate to working with other editors, such as Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think Assume good faith is the most important one for you to absorb. I am very glad to have people work on NPOV issues. I am not glad to have people who drive good editors away from the project by making working on it unpleasant. I really do want this to be an excellent and neutral encyclopedia. I think the other editors you've come into contact with are also working hard on that, and I think you need to remember that fact. Also, everything does not need to be perfect right now, although that would be nice. The point of a wiki is that articles can evolve and become better, and people shouldn't be berated because an article has not yet reached perfection. I thought the discussion with Moreschi was particularly unfair, because I have experienced this user to be very hard working and easy to cooperate with. Making ultimatims is not conducive to harmonious editing. Nor is calling other volunteer editors lazy. Mak (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You must have forgotten where you said this (on your friend Folatin's talk page...which I saw when I was replying to him), but you did say it. In any case, reactions by people to issues concerning gender bias has been clinically studied and your reaction that challenging it would be "dangerous" is the normal reaction by people in established male-dominated hierarchies because they are afraid of losing their position in the male-dominated structure. You probably aren't even aware of this reaction yourself, but it has been clinically proven. Your citation of "Don't be a dick" as a reaction to these gender bias issues was seen as particularly telling...

• The gender bias issues are going to be addressed by several musicologists and a plan of action is currently being considered. It is not out of the question that one or more articles will be written about this situation, as it does prove quite a few theories concerning reactions towards this subject. This idea that "established gender bias is neutral because that's how it was" was seen as being especially interesting. I believe that Wikipedia is going to be a subject in many women's studies courses this year, so perhaps something good has come of this.
• "Lazy"....well, if you will look at the way this was handled over at List of major opera composers, it was necessary to give these people a stratigically located kick. It would not have changed otherwise (and I have no regrets for having done this). I myself have decided that the best way to change this situation is to use other means. IAWM is only one out of many. When the message that is mirrored onto hundreds of websites from this site is that "there were no notable women opera compoers and this is neutral because that's the historical reality" and this is what Jimmy and Janey are using to do their homework--passing this flawed information to yet anotehr generation simply because people can't do their research, academics tend to get a bit upset. I think that you're going to an influx of more qualified scholars....and opening the "Viking Opera guide" is not going to the prefered source any longer. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

These guys are priceless. Look at the page for Paul Wehage and you'll find he's made "many surprising discoveries" concerning the operas of Germaine Tailleferre. Some editors with strict linguistic ideals might find "surprising" a bit "peacocky" (who was surprised, after all?) but that's OK because on Saturday 16th of September a citation appears to a book by one Jean-Thierry Boisseau. Checking out the French version of Wikipedia, the article on "Germaine Tailleferre" has a thoroughly sourced list of works but as for the biography and critical commentary (again, maybe a bit "poetical"), not one single book is given as a source, let alone citations with page references, although one of the contributors to the article is listed as "Musikfabrik" and there is mention of "le grand spécialiste de Tailleferre, Paul Wehage" as well as Tailleferre's piece Sous le rempart d'Athènes with the comment "La partition originale de cette œuvre a hélas disparu, mais une reconstitution remarquable en a été faite par le compositeur Paul Wehage" (roughly: "The original score of this work has, unfortunately, disappeared, but a remarkable reconstruction has been made of it by the composer Paul Wehage."). Remarkable.

Though I have an account at French Wikipedia, I have no intention of going over there and policing it for NPOV violations and missing sources, citations and page references. Maybe I'm too lazy. In fact, I am simply placing this information here for Makemi's benefit due to the (ahem) interesting light it casts on events of the past week or so. Musik Fabrik has an opera by the female composer Germaine Tailleferre in the pipeline (or already available). Musik Fabrik members develop a sudden concern that there are no women composers on the List of major opera composers page. Reach your own conclusions.

--Folantin 11:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Thierry, I find the accusation that I have internalized sexism rather galling, as you do not know me from Adam. I don't think I should need to defend myself from such accusations, but you might notice that I fought to include La liberazione di Ruggiero in the list of important operas. I realised what you were referring to, and tried to explain to you that you have completely misconstrued my comment. I don't think fighting for sexual equality is a problem. I do think fighting to include something in which you have a financial and professional stake, without admitting that, problematic. You have exhausted my patience. If you and your company continue to use Wikipedia for campaigning and advertising, it is possible that further dispute resolution processes will be followed. (Oh, and for what it's worth, I didn't even realise that this composer you were campaigning for was a woman until after I blocked the Musikfabrik account. Because I wasn't participating in the debate. Because I don't really like opera that much and don't want to spend that much time dealing with POV warriors about it.) Mak (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the "peanut gallery...I do have a talk page too, by the way....

I don't believe that you understand what it is that I am saying here. We were never trying to pretend that Germaine Tailleferre could have a place on a list of major opera composers. What Paul Wehage has done for Germaine Tailleferre (quite a bit, actually...and this by the judgement of the only legal authority on the subject, which is (of course) the Tailleferre Estate itself...but I digress) has no relevance at all to this discussion. This tactic is also a classic manoeuvre in these sorts of discussions. Actually, the entire incident is so "textbook" that it will be the subject of discussion in a number of women's studies classes at several Universities throughout the World...And you, my dear sir, are seen as an especially interesting specimen: Your request that I consult "WP:Don't be a dick" has been seen as especially telling in psychological terms, under the circumstances.

This is completely about the POV exclusion of women on this list. This has always been about that, and this closed men's club that the opera category seems to attract. I do believe that you don't understand that you furthering a sexist agenda, but the fact is that you are. And this is not me speaking, but the collective wisdom of any number of feminist musicologists at major Universities(I suppose you could call this a role account now and ban me, but I assure you that it's only me typing here....You don't mind if I tell you what people are telling me, do you?).

I will repeat, the people compiling this list are lazy. They have been given the sources which would permit the inclusion of one or more women on this list. They have chosen to ignore them. Lazy is actually too nice. I think that at this point, the term "sexist" may be rolled out...

And furthermore, I don't believe that you understand the ramifications of this incident. I also think that you have been instrumentalised, but whether you continue to do so or not is entirely your choice. Please be aware that this situation is being closely monitored in a number of circles which may have surprising results. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The adjective "surprising" has been removed from the Paul Wehage article. I'll remove "remarquable" as well, since our only source for this statement is a letter from the Claudel Estate, which must be seen as original research until it has been published. I suppose that the Claudel family cannot talk about somebody's orchestration of the work of their father...I'm sorry to do this myself, but it seemed to be the easiest way to solve the problem. I'm sure that Claudels' won't mind, really...Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Thierry: if I may interject... in my previous dealings with Mak, I have seen nothing but good faith efforts to work collegially and positively with other editors. Mak has given you a number of good references above, including readings from Wikipedia's core policies which relate to working with other editors, and the article creation process, such as Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as well as others. I'd strongly recommend that you take some time to look at those, and then come back to this issue with a new spirit of trying to work together to find a solution that preserves the neutral point of view and meets the needs of our readership. If I may be of assistance please call on me. Hope that helps and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Thierry, I'm afraid you're going to get yet another "peanut gallery" comment here. I too have been watching this exchange, with a certain amount of ... horror. Accusing Makemi of sexism, being a tool of the male-dominated establishment, and so forth, or whatever, is ... uh ... choosing my words carefully, misguided. Please consider the possibility you are reacting angrily because you were blocked under a different account for a policy violation: are you really arguing at this length, and spending this much time on this talk page, out of the best interests in improving our encyclopedia? Please ask yourself that.

I strongly suggest heading back over to your articles of interest, and working on making them NPOV, with kind consideration for the good motives of your fellow editors, editors you may be underestimating in important ways. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not a huge fan of either subtleness or gentleness. Since you had the flaming gall to come here to Makemi's talk page and deliver a psych lesson (and accuse me of sexism and laziness en route), accusing Mak of having internalized sexism - guess what? You're going to get one in return. You may not have violated any Wikipedia policies, but you clearly have no concept of basic tact. I don't know what Freud's explanation for that would be, but explanation there clearly is to be found.

Nor, for that matter, am I sexist or lazy. Who wrote half the annotations on that list? I did. Who provided darn near all the references? I did. Why are no women on the list? Because they have an inadequate number of references in the lists compiled. Not their fault - it's the fault of past societies, which (lamentably) we can't change. Your pathetic argument that somehow we can is frankly Orwellian and barely worth bothering with. It is not POV to resist sexist, patronizing, tokenism. Deal with it. Moreschi 09:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheese

That's the first time I've ever seen anyone vandalising their own user page! LOL. Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 10:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But it's the Truth(tm)! Mak (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Checkuser? What do you mean? Sugarpinet/c 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't use sockpuppets on my RFA. ForestH2 never voted and his account is retired..Filing a checkuser report on me would be weird...I mean where's the proof of the sock's? Sugarpinet/c 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K, I don't get it. How do you have proof of sockpuppets? Sugarpinet/c 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Icelandic Hurricane is not me. Ethier is Streamwater or RainbowSwirl. I repeat, I have no socks on Wikipedia. BTW, what is your e-mail adress? I have something to tell you, I think. If I did have a sock, it didn't vote in that RFA. Treebark, btw, is not me and lives in a completly different location. I'm going to retire ForestH2 and maybe this one. Sugarpinet/c 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It says, I must be logged in and have an e-mail adress in my prefrences to e-mail you. Go ahead with WP:RFCU. Sugarpinet/c 03:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Makemi - keep watch over ForestH2's IP address (maybe block it for a while) - Special:Contributions/72.134.40.171. -- Netoholic @ 02:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusation

I am not simply adding external links to pages for my own advertising. I work for WOUB, a PBS affiliate, at Ohio University, we have many author interviews conducted by Don Swaim in our archives, and the links I was adding to authors pages were links to audio interviews with those particular authors. I think audiences would appreciate to hear the interviews, we have links on other authors pages and those have not been removed as you have done with mine. I do not appreciate being accused of using Wikipedia for my own advertising, that was not my intention.

Weirdali

Re: Preview

I do use it. Why do you ask? Velten 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that; after I make one edit, I usually find something else that needs adjusting. Also, there's no reason that all my edits require "check up". But I am done editing it today, as you can see. Velten 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm done editing it (13 times? You should have seen it when I was constantly editing... sometimes I amassed 75 edits per two days). Velten 22:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem! Velten 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm just curious to know what intriguied you to add the article to your watchlist? Velten 22:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you're the perfect person to ask: what do you think of its current state? Is it clear? Are there any mistakes/redundancies? Velten 23:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's true, but most of this information was included because, being an encyclopedia, perhaps someone was researching this information. After all, non-musicians might not know how many octaves are covered. Thanks for your input, nonetheless! Velten 23:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted the drum set material. Velten 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wired for Books

Wired for Books, wiredforbooks.org, is a noncommercial, educational project of the WOUB Center for Public Media at Ohio University in Athens. We have been selected as one of the best online sites for education in the humanities by the National Endowment for the Humanitites. The external links we have added to Wikipedia are primarily links to famous author interviews, which are not available anywhere else. Thousands of Wikipedia users have listened to these interviews, so we know the links are appreciated. Recently, Makemi deleted a large number of our links, apparently thinking the linked web sites were commercial in nature or or a personal web site. We'll assume this was an honest mistake and go ahead and replace the links. If you are interested in modern literature, take a look at Wired for Books. Take care, David Kurz kurz@ohio.edu

Dkurz

Question

What is the deal with ForestH2? Why was I accused of being a sockpuppet? Judging by Netholic's talk page, it seems that a lot of innocent users were blocked. Similiarly, did I add the interwiki link correctly on my talk page? Thank you very much. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarificiation. I just found it funny that there were a pair of messages at my talk page with little context in what they were referring to. Thanks a lot for the explanation! :) If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Thierry Boisseau

I am opening an arbitration request about him, as he has returned to his past behaviour of trying to bully everyone in a project. Link to follow. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for all of this to be put in arbitration here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Jean-Thierry_Boisseau_.28formerly_User:Musikfabrik.29.2C_et_al.

It seemed for the best. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise foor my earlier rudeness towards him on the talk page, and have issued a public apology. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, I think that was the right choice. Mak (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

E-mail.

You've got mail. Cheers, Moreschi 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth

What? It really is crap. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. It's crap that no-one needs to read. I don't see nasty-minded crap as a way to cheer anyone up. If you need cheering, I suggest you write an article. I always find being productive to be cheering, rather than fighting with other editors. Mak (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that it's kind of difficult to be productive when everyone is biting you from all directions. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fredil, I hate to say it, but it seems like as soon as you came back you started whinging at Cyde. Cyde is actually fairly reasonable. I suggest you just leave it and do something productive. Mak (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that into consideration. However, I still have my brain and my memories to deal with. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 20:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox

Thanks for blocking 67.86.121.206. Lycaon 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lucceius

Please tell me if I am wrong but isn't it obvious vandalism? User:Lucceius SpyDie 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=77424215&oldid=77423769

that's a personal attack, aint't it. you just called someone an idiot or so it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucceius (talk • contribs)

On my talk page

Thanks. Is that policy? I havent been able to find a specific reference for that. I've often wished or two buttons on that thing, one which makes you ask for an edit summary, and one that doesnt.Hornplease 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your promptness. I have read it with great care, and it's a policy I tend to follow. I used the rollback feature after leaving a message for the last editor on his talk page that wasnt responded to. I usually leave messages on talk pages instead of reverting immediately. If there's no response, I revert, sometimes using rollback, on the assumption that anything that encourages people to check the talk page is a good thing. You probably do good work ensuring that people dont get out of hand, but I've been around for a couple of years now, and I think I heard someone mention WP:3RR at some point. Always good to be reminded, though, in case one forgets. Hornplease 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This is getting really old. He seems to have developed a fixation on me. -- Jim Douglas 00:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if I just go have dinner and let the idiot amuse himself for a while, he'll get bored and go away. (BTW, we can assume he's just going to create *2011, *2012, etc). -- Jim Douglas 00:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Did a vandal hit your userpage?

Check the pic under your "Bachelor of Music" userbox... 68.39.174.238 00:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the toilet? No, actually that's a joke that no one seems to get... I think you're probably the first person who's noticed it. Mak (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But thanks for your vigilance. Mak (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was quite funny. Hornplease 00:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, actually others have noticed it and, while also thinking it hilarious, not commented ... for reasons of, um, experience. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: userpage

Why does everyone think it stupid to fight for something you believe in? I doubt you have any knowledge of the situation more then what Cyde and ED has told you, and if I may say so that is very naive.

And what did I do to you? so what I want somebody unblocked, why does that invoke enough anger to get you to make very one-sided comments on my talk? ILovePlankton 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me why Nathan was blocked, and why you're upset. I think you have to admit to the possibility that you are being naive. I'm not angry at you, I'm angry at Nathan for exploiting the sensitivities of young users. Mak (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not angry at all. I just think you should actually find out what is going on before you call somebody naive. And if you know so well why nathan was blocked then why was he? 69.179.103.159 02:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (ILovePlankton, I'm to lazy to log in)

By "exploiting the sensitivities of young users", do you mean me as well? Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Mak (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal fighting template question

I've noticed that in the edit summaries for vandalism reversions that you and some others perfom, there's a statement that reads "(Reverted edits by 86.140.222.127 (talk) to last version by Werdna)". Do you have a template that does this, or do you type out the whole edit summary? Akradecki 02:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

it's called a rollback, it's a feature admins have. ILovePlankton 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I was hoping to be able to save a bit of typing. Akradecki 02:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL question

In response ... they're not bad, but they also can be argued against under "to be avoided" number 6, since they require RealPlayer. I'd shoot them all if they were a money-making enterprise, but they do seem to provide something useful. Usually I let these kind stay. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I get good and annoyed too sometimes ... another e-mail for you.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

September 29, 2006

This is your last warning. The next time you write an edit summary that makes me laugh, I'm going to report you to the humor police. (Can't wait to see what you come up with for "Q".) Antandrus (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no Q's, strangely enough. I'm working on R now. Mak (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't take the pressure. Who knew anyone else was watching that page? Mak (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes! what have I done!!1! Actually I've been enjoying watching that list grow: you're finding lots. Think of all the articles still to be written.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting sort of huge. I think I'm going to spend a bit more time on the dry matters of finishing up checking in Grove, and then make sure I didn't miss any that are in the major anthologies (I doubt they'd be in a major anthology and not in Grove, but I'm starting to learn that you should never assume such things. You never know when a composer might have snubbed our dearest "L. Macy" and been excluded. Then to make sure they're all on the period lists, and have the appropriate categories, are linked when mentioned etc. I think part of what I want to do is raise the profile of the articles we already have, so they may grow a little faster, wiki-fashion. Mak (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That inline citation fetish

Funny you should mention it! You know, that actually is starting to annoy me. I'm tempted to put (in my user space) one of the articles I wrote from a single source (that'd be Grove, duh), with the same footnote after every single sentence. 1) Grove. 2) Grove. 3) Grove. 4) Grove. 5) ....

I've been noticing a change in Wikipedia culture, over the last few months, regarding having more rigorous referencing (good in my opinion) and more inline cites (sometimes good, depending on context) and tagging articles as unsourced/unreferenced for lacking inline cites (not good, unless the tagger is willing to be quite specific). There's even a current thread on AN/I about this. Antandrus (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(just dropping by while eating lunch) -- that's really quite funny, having the same thought at exactly the same time. Great minds and all that. LOL!

Yeah, I suppose I should start reading the mailing list again; the endless bickering annoyed me to the point where I quit. This is a serious topic and I think a fairly large number of editors are missing the point on what "referenced" means. Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added some incredibly stupid fact tags. Only an operatic ignoramus would ask for a cite for some of the stuff I've done, but they are fairly common, especially on wiki. You also might like to check the page histories: I made one or two grammar and spelling edits that I'm not entirely sure were correct, so I detailed them in the edit summaries. Anyway, that's me done for the day. See you round! Cheers, Moreschi 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly (responding specifically to Mak's last comment on my talk page) -- we risk misrepresenting the author by overemphasising the importance of one source. This is why I think some editor judgement should be allowed in when to cite, and when not. For my own part, I like to cite when I'm putting in what I feel is a minority or idiosyncratic point of view. That Gesualdo was a composer of madrigals, who murdered his wife, is well known by people educated in the topic area, and needs no cite; but one of my sources (Heseltine) thinks his own second wife killed him: that needs a cite. Yet some people, uneducated in the area, are demanding cites for everything, which is unnecessary, irritating, and sometimes disruptive. I've even seen two role accounts, in the last couple weeks, which made no edits other than deletions for lack of inline cites.

I'm starting to feel the need to push back on some of this. A few of my "good articles" have just been shot with that "add inline cites or we'll delist you" tag on the talk page, and I'm not quite sure how to handle it. Sometimes it's a valid criticism, but not when I only used one source to write the article. Antandrus (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Christina Ritter

Somebody unsalted and deleted the page and removed the Talk page with the hoax history. Since you-know-who's back, can we get those restored, pronto? Fan-1967 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the deleted page now, I'll keep an eye on it. I don't think we need to re-protect it, for now at least. I'm keeping an eye on her and her socks. Frankly, I'm more worried about her coming up with a new hoax page. Mak (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, she's going to retry under her own name (sort of). She's managed to get herself added in at TV.com (which allows user submissions) as "Christina Kathleen Ritter" (used to be Christina Marie, remember?) with a fake credit on "That's So Raven" (one of her favorite targets before). She now claims to be from California instead of Baltimore, because that part of the story kind of stunk. Fan-1967 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added that to my watchlist as well. I don't think she'll try at Christina Ritter again, though. I could always be wrong, but in that case I'd notice it on my watchlist :) Mak (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried to think of every possible variation to Watch, and I'll keep an eye on the contribs of the socks. (The fact that she came in to clean up both user pages within minutes of each other every time tells me she's not real bright.) Fan-1967 21:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on me, it was nice of you to do that. I don't need any help at the moment but thanks and if I do need any help I'll be sure to contct you here. (LovePatsyCline 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Grimes

No objection whatsoever to music geekery on my talk-page! Love music, I do.

Would you believe my completely non-musical mother gets to see Billy Budd over in America? *sigh* so much jealousy for her. I'd love to see it. Ach, weel. Maybe I'll put a quiet word in a friend's ear about Britten and see what happens. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are they doing Budd? I've only ever seen a DVD of it (basically the only live opera I've seen was what they did in my college, Hansel and Gretel and Amal and the Night Visitors when I was little at the local "Choir College", and two old chestnuts at the Met and one at New York Opera). Mak (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re; my userpage

I only reverted it since I'm unblocked; I didn't give you a vandalism warning. Please explain why you said that on my user talk...Aquafish talk 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry...would rv be better, or just a different edit summary not talking about revert? Aquafish talk 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for telling me. :) Aquafish talk 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Qool

...and had there been an entry in Grove for Quinciani, I could have decorated this fine site with a new article (or macrostub), but I don't have a good source in easy reach, and I'm far too lazy to go out again to the library tonight. Thanks and cheers!  :-) Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

hm,

"de-essification?" -- I usually use something like "minor gram" (and almost never use rollback). Yours was good.

Busy writing about burned 15th-century heretics, but I keep getting sidetracked. It continues to amaze me just how much is not covered yet by Wikipedia.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey cool, I didn't realize the new-message notification thing worked for raw IPs too. And I never thought anyone would read the log message. Très sweet! 84.210.16.121 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Makemi

Don't know how to work a lot of stuff on these pages yet, but learning by doing with your help... Am glad to have you as my mentor here! Will be putting some stuff up on my user page soon.

What thoughts are around / might you have on whether to keep onself anonymous or not?

losangelino 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The big house

I saw you edit summaries. User:Moe Epsilon was acting properly. Bill Gates' house had been deleted, so the redirects needed to be fixed. I only noticed the deletion as a result of Moe's fixing, and discovered that the copyvios weren't bad enough to warrant deletion. It's now undeleted, the copyvios are removed, and, thanks to you, the redirects are back in place. We're making progress, but sometimes it isn't always in a straight line. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. My edit-summary comment wasn't meant as snarky as it may have come off. Sorry. Mak (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)