User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous/archive 2

Arkiv numero two-o of my old talk stuff

Hurdy gurdy edits[edit]

Thanks for the constant attention to the Hurdy gurdy article. It is much appreciated. +Fenevad 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California English[edit]

From the Capital page:

Not to be confused with Capitol.
This article is about a city that serves as a center of government and politics.

You might want to do a little fact-checking before insulting other editors' spelling abilities. JuJube 05:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rita Hayworth page[edit]

You made changes to an article with no discussion and based, apparently, on your feelings about an entry at this web page. Common Wikipedia practice is to discuss any changes you may dissaprove of. You seem to have decided because you do not approve of something that yours is the only opinion matters. That to me is self serving censorship based on no more than your personal preferences and not on any factual grounds for removal. If this is entry is reverted again I will turn the matter over to an administrator as it will fall into the three revert violation policy of Wikipedia. Philbertgray 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I reinstated information. It is appropriate information that is used in biographies. I fail to see how your feelings that it is creepy is justification for removal. Should the information regarding Jim Morrison's death and the controversy surrounding his burial be removed because it is creepy as well? You only arguement seems to be that you don't like it. I fail to understand how you can justify a change on your perceptions. Any further reverts on this will be forwarded to administration per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. There was no consensus done prior to your change, also per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Philbertgray 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Overpopulation[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, ILike2BeAnonymous! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California English[edit]

Please consult my entry on the talk page before making a further reversion, and if you still feel that you must, please respond with a justification. My entry is at Talk:California_English#Hella Triggtay 06:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Haircut[edit]

Thanks for the funny message. That was unexpected. —Viriditas | Talk 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award[edit]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell are you screwing around with my "talk" page?[edit]

It's not appreciated. I undid your edits there. What was even the point of that? Your edit message said something about "typo fixes", but I couldn't see what they were. Besides, it's my damn talk page, and I'll take care of my own typo fixing, thank you very much. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ILike2BeAnonymous, I appreciate your concern. Let me explain: using an automated typo fixer, I am searching Wikipedia for instances of the misspelling "saxaphone" and changing them to "saxophone". One of the misspellings I corrected was on your talk page. Sorry if my edit alarmed you - but please don't forget to assume good faith.

I should point out that while one's user page is generally considered off limits for editing by others, the user talk page is by contrast an area where a user welcomes contributions from other editors. Per Wikipedia:User page, Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others. —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Bot[edit]

Please remain civil there is no need to use such strong language. Second what I did was fix a substitution error with the template smiley that was deleted. Prior to its deletion I orphaned it. In that process I left a lot of complex template code that was not needed. So I came back and re-parsed some of the pages to eliminate the esoteric template code. but when working with that I had to fix some whitespace issues within the substed template in order to remove the code if you note {{smiley}} became {{#Swich:# *********<More complex code>}} and to remove the #swich code I needed to take care of some white space variances where <Space><Space> was used in several places instead of a single <Space>. Oh and I'd like to point out WP:OWN you don't own your user pages the community does and if the community decides that a template needs deleted and you have it on "your" userpage we don't care what you think it will be removed. I was just removing the template per a TfD that said it needed to go. Leaving broken templates is a bad practice so I subst'ed it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message on my talk page[edit]

Just to let you know that I have responded to the message you left, and as I explain in the message there, I shall be removing the Halo on your userpage again. Once more, it's nothing personal against you, it's just that the Halo is a community-awarded recognition, and that one was added by one person illegitimately. Thanks for the understanding. :) --Dreaded Walrus 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded again on my talk page. Just thought I'd let you know incase you hadn't added my page to your watchlist. :) --Dreaded Walrus 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overpopulation[edit]

Thanks for your courtesy in removing the tag from the section i just edited, which material that was placed by the anon user. I can tell that you share my views in genuinely wanting to make this a better, more encyclopaedic article. I hope you will comment on my posting on the article talk page regarding specific proposals we might pursue. By the way, I would vote to assume good faith from the new anon user, and try to work constructively with any new ideas of hers/his, while encouraging (or demanding) encyclopaedic standards. Best regards. Anlace 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on an article[edit]

Hi, if you get a chance, could you please weigh in on this?

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour#Possible_editing_dispute_brewing

It refers to:

Coal_Strike_of_1902

thanks, Richard Myers 03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute on Drug Abuse[edit]

(from history) Stub sections may well be "OK", but they certainly ain't desirable. There's really no reason to have them, except as a possible counterweight against the larger controversy sections. 21:20, 3 February 2007 ILike2BeAnonymous

What's wrong with having a counterweight against the larger controversy section? There is a 3 sentence introduction about NIDA followed by 3 pages about various NIDA controversies. It looks foolish, agenda-driven, and unencyclopedic. I don't mind that activists are adding the information, it is important, interesting and noteworthy. But at least if you add the stub sections it will encourage future contributors to add the missing information, and present a more encyclopedic face to the article. Right now it looks like an activist's blog. In fact it doesn't just look like one, it might as well be one. -- 24.57.157.81 23:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation[edit]

Explain to me how you decide what goes and what stays on the external links section of neighborhood sections. We operate a neighborhood website that shows all the active real estate listings in the said neighborhood. You continue to remove us -- YET -- you allow local blogs, which provide external links to local businesses and real estate companies. In some cases, you link to a blog that sells ad space - far from the intent of this site. If you are going to act as judge and jury, please be fair about it. Show them all - or remove them all.

Civility[edit]

You have made a number of recent edits and edit summaries that appear to be uncivil. See example edits [1] [2] and edit summaries [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Please remember to edit stay cool and edit politely. Thank you. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your edit summaries have improved a great deal since my note. There is still some room for improvement (for example, this could be taken the wrong way) but it is much better. Thank you for working on this! --Ginkgo100^talk 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible there was improvement between February 6 and February 9, 2007, but as of June 1, 2007 the only difference I've noticed is an absence of explicit profanity (that is to say, non-abbreviated profanity). ILike's current tone seems to me much the same as in the early examples cited above. Here are some recent examples:

05:03, 31 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Mondegreen (Remove idiotic edit.)

03:26, 31 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Veena (Remove name that was placed in list out of alphabetical order. DIDN'T YOU NOTICE THIS???)

06:54, 31 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Richmond, California (Remove another horrible-looking picture. You can't be serious, and expect nobody to object to the quality of photos in this article.)

TheScotch 10:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've hesitated before adding this (well, a minute or two) but I have to say that most days I appreciate ILike2BeAnonymous' vigilance, diligence, and passion. Style comes and goes... In all fairness, calling that last picture "horrible-looking" is pretty restrained- I'd just call it roundfile material and not give it server space. Dark, poorly composed, difficult to tell what's being shown or pointed out. It shows a traffic light intersection that could be anywhere. There may be interesting details hidden in the far background, but most viewers wouldn't even wonder if they were worth digging for. __Just plain Bill 14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole in edit summaries[edit]

I am a newcomer here and was not aware of the policy WP:NOT#GUIDE. Thank you for your edit on polychlorinated biphenyls and for explaining this policy. However, I am uncomfortable with the tone of the second part of your edit summary, "one would be crazy to rely on this for such advice in any case". Firstly, it is not up to me, you, or anybody else to tell other readers which material they would be "crazy" to rely upon; it is for readers themselves to decide how they use what they read. Secondly, the advice in the deleted section is in fact the recommended safe handling procedure by the joint authority of the Australian and New Zealand governments, and it was verifiable as correct advice via the citation provided. I thought the first part of your edit summary was a good explanation of why the deleted section needed to be deleted. The second part, by contrast, appears to be hyperbole, which I found a bit disconcerting and unnecessary.

I notice another example of your hyperbole (on 04:02, 4 August 2007) "Remove photos because, well, they're UGLY, UGLY, UGLY, UGLY, UGLY (and therefore unencyclopedic: the idea is not just to stick any old junk in articles)".

I also notice other editors have already asked you to be more civil in your edit summaries.

Bearing in mind the Wikipedia behavioral guidelines, Etiquette and Do not bite the newcomers, I hope it is not out of place for a newcomer to add my voice to the chorus and ask you respectfully, please would you tone down your edit summaries to avoid using hyperbole. Thank you. Neparis 10:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona[edit]

Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive edits to this subsection of the overpopulation section. I appreciate your thoroughness and your assumption of good faith in working with me on this. I think this section is shaping up with your help. You don't have to "trust me", but if it helps, i have created about ten new articles on Wikipedia in the last two months on rivers of the world, including Monkey River in Belize and Palala River in South Africa, but sometimes (embarrassed) I do get my rivers wrong :). Best regards. Anlace 07:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in other languages[edit]

Hello, ILike2BeAnonymous. I saw your concern about a Bulgarian-language source at Varna. Please note that WP:CITE does allow for sources in other languages, although one should always prefer sources in English given the option. Heimstern Läufer 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you would do better to leave the source and request that the one who added it provide a translation rather than removing it outright. You also strike me as being very quick to judge a source as inappropriate, especially one you apparently can't read. Have you considered discussing the source with others on the talk page instead of reverting it? Anyway, I don't intend to get too involved in this, but these are just some things to consider. Heimstern Läufer 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

Did you check out how long the nonsense about solid state technology (that you have recently corrected) in guitar amplifier was there before you stated that no one (excepting you, I suppose) checks material? Do you constantly monitor all articles you contribute to? Just curious. 210.246.62.185 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled why nobody fixed major error in Varna article[edit]

Ah... I've reverted exactly this type of edit before, but I've just missed it this time somehow. We really have to pay more attention to such changes. Don't get too pissed off, after all, it's just vandalism that we can always deal with. Todor →Bozhinov 10:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty vandalism... Todor →Bozhinov 08:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rollback and re-rollback[edit]

You seem to have strong opinions about what belongs where. And furthermore not much willingness to discuss it, instead just reverting and such.

I left a message in talk inviting discussion about this. Please respond to that comment rather than issuing edicts inedit summaries. ww 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism[edit]

Those were em dashes, and I purposely roll up citations to keep things tidy. Robert K S 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish synagogue is like Catholic Pope[edit]

Not really... ever heard of the Coptic Pope or the Cao Dai Pope? :) But still, you're right in that "Jewish" is redundant here. Regards, Todor →Bozhinov 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hype about Hydrogen[edit]

You wrote in your edit summary: "This description is not appropriate in a reference. No chance of confusing it with the book itself."

Why is it not appropriate? It explains what the link is. Currently, the reference (that is, the title of the article), merely repeats the name of the book and gives misleading information about what the article is about. Why make the reader click on it just to figure out what it is? I really think that some kind of explanation is necessary, so that readers can see that this is an article by the author summarizing the main policy points of the book. -- Ssilvers 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

</ref>[edit]

Ooops. thanks for catching that so quickly. - TheMightyQuill 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Get rid of ridiculous and unnecessary construct ("and/or"), which is covered quite nicely by simply "or". Other changes were good.

Doesn't seem ridiculous to me, some should be integrated and some should be removed, and then there's trivia that should just be removed with non being integrated. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "biased" does not excuse you from deleting sources. Come up with something encyclopedic. --Shamir1 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Roma population figures[edit]

Please take a look at the cited work given for the disputed 2 million number. It does not say 2 million but 1-2 million. Hence the word "or" does not correctly present the situation. Nor is it NPOV. There is clearly a range from 500.000 to 1 mil to 2 mil. Dapiks 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James McParland[edit]

Fairly new, recently updated page that might interest you: James McParland is related to the Molly Maguires history. best wishes, Richard Myers 08:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F9/11 propaganda debate[edit]

Greeting, my worthy nemesis--

I think we should really try to settle this dispute on the F9/11 talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fahrenheit_9/11#Propaganda where I have already posted my reasons for putting it in that cat. and I would like to you to put in your inevitable counter point before I again try to categorize f9/11.--Dudeman5685 17:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated explanations on Bushism[edit]

I've re-added the explanations of the Other famous Bushisms that you deleted two months ago. My reasoning can be found on Bushism's talk page. --FunnyMan 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed them again. I put them back. Please read and discuss my original reasoning for reinstating them at Bushism's talk page before deleting them a third time. Thank you. --FunnyMan 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW[edit]

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Chicago Theatre has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

Thanks for the Kudos[edit]

I thought so too. Hey, how many times do you have to vandalize Wikipedia before they block you. I've gotten, like, five warnings. And I'd also like to ask a moderator who's pleasant (and thanks for being pleasant -- so few of you are): What would be the problem with setting up a Wikipedia for the people -- sort of like Myspace, but people can post anything and link real easy form one thing to the next. Wikipedia is more user friendly in that way -- you could just link quickly form one idea to the next much more easily than Myspace. And a hyperlink could take you to Wikipedia, but you wouldn't necessarily link from Wikipedia to the personal Wiki pages. So you could search within the Wiki-Space, and you could find stuff both on Wikipedia and on the personal pages, but it wouldn't crowd up Wikipedia because a Wikipedia search wouldn't lead you to the Wiki-Space. How would that work? Just curious (I don't know jack about computers).

E.P.Y. Foundation 15:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: this: is a collectively written poem -- and I think the whole Wiki-thing would be a great way to work collaboratively like that (I did it on Myspace, but Myspace was too awkward). That's one reason I'm curious about how many warnings it takes to REALLY get banned (I counted and, yes, I've gotten five so far -- I'll see if one more round will do it) because I think vandalism certainly would be a problem with a system where people could write and edit collective poetry. I thought the nature of Wikipedia was kind of a miraculously efficient thing -- but five warnings is not very efficient. Anyway, I'm a poet, not a computer person, so I don't know how this stuff works. Just wanted to get that idea out there. Later!

E.P.Y. Foundation 18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleting resourceful links[edit]

i cannot seem to email you (you don't have that function set up) and though i don't really know where i am leaving this comment, it seems to be my only chance to voice my concerns to you. you have removed 4 of my neighborhood links. i understand and respect your concern for the fact that the sites look like commercial real estate sites. you are incorrect with that assessment however. in fact, for the 4 neighborhoods that we have compiled (and are about to release 2 more), noe valley, glen park, bernal heights and potrero hill, we get referrals and emails from folks every day (our links have been up on the wiki pages for over a year i believe) thanking us for putting such a comprehensive neighborhood resource together. there is nothing like it out there for these neighborhoods. every single business, every single service provider and every piece of active real estate in that neighborhood is listed for free and in one place. most of the small businesses in these neighborhoods do not even have websites, we are giving them a free page and allowing them to upload pictures, copy, hyperlinks, emails, contact information etc. the potrero hill wikipedia page has a link to a blog--the blog has not been updated in months, is completely biased and a near useless source; yet you let that be on the potrero hill page.

i apologize if i have offended you in any way. i ask however that you justify your removal of the links i posted for an amazingly comprehensive and current neighborhood resource.

feel free to email me (as i said, i don't know where i'm leaving this comment and i apologize if i'm in an inappropriate forum) at garrett@bernal-heights.com

thank you.

garrett

Belkwriter I second that. You seem a little over zealous. I posted a link about baby boomers. It is a leading site as is the blog of another "precious site" owner. I am not affliated with either. How do you decide whose site is "precious" and whose is not. I have a special interest with baby boomers and see a lack of meaningful information about aging on wikipedia. So please answer. Thanks

Overtone diagram of the Moodswinger[edit]

Hello,

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moodswinger you wrote:

I wanted to contact the editor who put in the diagram directly, but apparently can't do so since their username doesn't link properly.

You're allowed to make it smaller, no problem. I put it in this big, so it's readable. If you or anyone else thinks it's better as a thumb, you are free to adapt.

And you wote:

One other nitpick: your title said "overtones and undertones", but I don't think there's really any such thing as an "undertone" in this context. That would be a note that's a sub-multiple of a note; as far as I know, one can only generate overtones (that is, pitches higher than the fundamental) from a string. Correct me if I'm wrong. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The undertone is a difficult one to explain for me. I think you are right that it is not a proper word. What happens on the moodswinger is: You attack on the body side, that's the attacktone (not in the diagram, because this tone is mainly the same note as the overtone in most positions and it's a soft short tone. Then the string is resonating on both sides of the 3rd bridge in a corresponding overtone. Also a third note is produced because the overtone as well as the attack (not the attacktone, but the actual picking) causes vibrations in the counterpart on the side of the head in it's fundamental tone. This is a low tone, that's why I called it an undertone. In fact I think it is an undertone of the overtone, but that is a point of discussion and not very important, I think. Excuse me for my English, I'm from Holland.

Best, Yuri

Focal-plane shutter[edit]

Hi. Did you see my note at talk:Focal-plane shutter? I don't really care whether it's "equipment" or not. The issue is that a focal-plane shutter is a physical thing, not a "term". Wikipedia articles are about the things terms describe, not the terms themselves (in general), so categories like category:photography terms are generally inappropriate. We probably need a new subcategory for components and features of photographic equipment. As a temporary measure, I have been putting all of those articles in "equipment". Feel free to make a new subcategory or two, if you think classing these things as "equipment" is inappropriate.--Srleffler 21:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Sorry, for my very very late answer. Unfortunately, the source code of my sound is lost. But I added the equation on witch it is based on the file description page. Regards. --Gloumouth1 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flat signs[edit]

I found a better flat sign,go to borrowed chords and you'll find it.

--Vinylmesh 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moodswinger & 3rd bridge articles[edit]

You Wrote: "in the table in Moodswinger, in the last two columns you have a lot of numbers given in the form "xxma". What does "-ma" refer to here? I think this may be a Euro convention that isn't appropriate here."

Okay, that's possible. I found this 15ma on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave-5-Notation. I think it is Italian. On the 3rd Bridge topic I used a different notation. Maybe that one is more common in English (2P8 + P5 etc.). I can change the Moodswinger topic, if you like. It's an accurate thinking job. Is this 2P+ P5 more common?

"Also, what is the term "undecimal"? That's another non-idiomatic expression in English. I'm sure the appropriate terms can be found for both of these."

I copied this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_intervals This list is according to the External link made by a Dutch Institute, so you could be right, this isn't proper English as well. I think it means that for instance 1/3 is an never ending serie of 3s (0,33333333etc.), but maybe they mean something else.

"By the way, one minor point: I realize you're a non-native English speaker. One of the things you might watch is your tendency to squish words together in the Germanic tradition, like, say, "bridgeposition". In English, these get written out as two separate words. Of course, there are terms which become a single word, like "fingerpicking". How do you know which ones these are? "

Yes, I've seen that. I paying more attention to it. I now understand most combinations aren't good. Dutch language is quiet similar to this in stead of the German language.

Best, Yuri 9.15, 12 March 2007

Smiley Award[edit]

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, check this out, if you haven't already...[edit]

Not exactly relevant to our recent discussion, but interesting (to me, at least) all the same: Why is the violin so hard to play? __Just plain Bill 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway[edit]

Please see my comments here so we can attempt to move on and unprotect this article. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Mandel[edit]

Hey there, we're actually on the same page on this. I really did laugh out loud when I read your edit summary! (seeing as I actually know Bill Mandel somewhat) And you're right -- there's no question that he's proud to call himself a radical.

That edit was merely my mistaken guess that there in fact was such a category. Unfortunately there isn't, which I suspect may be because it would quickly turn into a catchall for all manner of people and what-not. (I'm guessing that the category probably existed at some time in the past, but got deleted for that reason.) I just took a pretty thorough look through the available related categories, and the cupboard was pretty bare. So I'm giving some thought to creating a category "Radical left politics", or something to that effect. Cgingold 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flat signs[edit]

Yeah i changed them back.The smaller ones just appear as boxes on some computers so the bigger ones are better

Vinylmesh 09:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comma splices[edit]

i wrote those captions, so what? whats wrong with them? whats up with your tone? youre really antagonizing. youre not a professor at ccsf are you? ^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cymbalom (and others)[edit]

I've reverted your latest revert to Cymbalom. By your own edit summary (Undo interesting but badly-written edit.), what you removed is worth having there. If you spot something that's poorly written, fix it, rather than removing it. If every last thing that's not perfect from the start is forbidden and/or removed, it will very severely restrict article creation/expansion, because the whole peer review and improvement step will be eliminated. The different article ratings exist for a reason, and they do not start at GA-class (well-written), so there is nothing wrong with an article having poorly written sections awaiting cleanup when they're below GA. -Bbik 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestration[edit]

In response to your recent message (and unecessary reverts) on the orchestration sections of pages, I would like to turn your attention to a discussion that happened some time ago on my talk page and Opus33's. I really hope you don't cause more unecessary work. It is an improvement. Justin Tokke 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Chicago[edit]

Apparently the city founders disagree with you. The act of incorporation that created the city in 1837 states: "[the area being incorporated]... shall hereafter be known by the name of the City of Chicago." —Jeremy (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My correspondence with EldKatt about Justin Tokke[edit]

Hello IL2BA,

I just received, and replied to, a communication from EldKatt about the problem with Justin Tokke and the ostentatious orchestration lists. I'll paste a copy of our correspondence here in hopes of encouraging you in your current worthy efforts. Yours truly, Opus33 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm currently on a long break from practically all Wikipedia editing, I've been keeping tabs on User:Justin_Tokke's massive editing of the instrumentation sections of articles on works of classical music to implement his own format. I have attempted to communicate my concerns about his formatting on numerous occasions, receiving first a referral to his message on your talk page (which merely expresses his own opinions once more), then plain dismissals of my concerns, and finally a complete lack of response. Several others have approached him, most recently User:ILike2BeAnonymous, who received the same dismissive reply. I have not seen anyone else than Justin Tokke come out in favour of his format, and he seems, if anything, to be working against the development of an explicit consensus.

I left the issue alone when it appeared that Justin Tokke was inactive, but recently he seems to have launched another crusade to defend his format. Given his previous communications with me, and his very recent response to User:ILike2BeAnonymous's very frank message, I see no reason at all to try to contact him again, so I'm turning to you, since you've also communicated with him, and since you're an experienced and respectable editor. I'm thinking about whether it might be possible to consensually establish some sort of guideline regarding the formatting of instrumentation sections, to put an end to this once and for all. Thoughts? EldKatt (Talk) 13:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello EldKatt,

Well yes indeed, I'm rather frustrated with those persistent inappropriately-elaborate instrument lists, and I feel that in his communications with me about this issue Justin Tokke has been rude (or, to put it more mildly, dismayingly over-self-confident and oblivious to input).

I would suggest that the remedy might be for you, me, and ILikeToBeAnonymous to put the relevant articles on our watchlists and slowly, patiently, revert. My experience so far suggest that sooner or later he will get discouraged and stop doing this.

I'll also soon try to put together a recommended format for orchestration on the Wikiproject Classical Music page.

Cheers, Opus33 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

richmond, ca[edit]

regarding the "bad" pt. richmond photo, i agree there are better photos to be taken, but unless you have one on youre digicam thats better such critisism is rather disconcerting, but hwo bout i put up a photoreq for a good picture of downtown point richmond? and as far as widely known, maybe you can help with the wording friend, what im trying to say is that of all of richmond's neighborhoods, point richmond is the one that is most known outside of richmond, maybe hilltop is too, but its more of region of the city than a neighborhood, and people mostly just think of hilltop mall when you say hilltop but they think of just the point richmond neighborhood when you say point richmond.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics and discussion pages[edit]

I suppose it's just possible that you don't know to what I refer when I try to direct your attention to the Orchestra discussion page. In case this is so I'm putting a copy of the discussion in question here:

Quotation marks and italics[edit]

This is for ILike2BeAnonymous who is confused about the uses of these punctuation marks:

If you go to http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_overvw.html, you will find that quotation marks are used only "to enclose direct quotations"--I'm quoting the source here--or "to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way". The example given to illustrate the first use is, "He asked, 'Will you be there?' 'Yes,' I answered, 'I'll look for you in the foyer.'" The example given to illustrate the second use is, "History is stained with blood spilled in the name of 'civilization.'"

Italics are used "to indicate titles of complete or major works such as magazines, books, newspapers, academic journals, films, television programs, long poems, plays of three or more acts", for "foreign words that are not commonly used in English", for "words used as words themselves", and for "words or phrases that you wish to emphasize". The given example for the penultimate (third) use is, "The English word nuance comes from a Middle French word meaning shades of color."

In this case, in our article, we have "words used as words themselves". TheScotch 07:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or go to http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/italics.html, where you'll find this advice: "Italicize words used as words. Many people misuse the words bring and take by interchanging them."

Or go to http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/italics.htm, where you'll find this:

"Using Italics and Underlining....

Words as Words

Examples:

The word basically is often unnecessary and should be removed.
There were four and 's and one therefore in that last sentence. (Notice that the apostrophe-s, used to create the plural of the word-as-word and, is not italicized. See the section on Plurals for additional help.)
She defines ambiguity in a positive way, as the ability of a word to mean more than one thing at the same time." TheScotch 09:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two non-online sources:

1) The Elements of Grammar by Margaret Shertzer, p.119:

7. Use italics when a word is spoken of as a word.

The word gay now carries a different connotation from its meaning in Cornelia Otis Skinner's Our Hearts Were Young and Gay.

2) The Harbrace College Handbook, 8th edition, by John C. Hodges and Mary E. Whitten, pp. 94-95:

Words, letters, or figures spoken of as such or used as illustrations are usually underlinded (italicized).

In no other language could a foreigner be tricked into pronouncing manslaughter as man's laughter. --MARIO PEI

The letters qu replaced cw in such words as queen, quoth, and quick.

--CHARLES C. FRIES

TheScotch 09:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBOTB GA[edit]

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Chicago Tribune is the current Chicago COTW You were a contributing editor to Chicago Board of Trade Building during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we built this page from scratch. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Contributing editors:AKeen, ChicagoPimp, Drinibot, Elkman, ILike2BeAnonymous, Shsilver, SmackBot, TheQuandry, TonyTheTiger.
	Good Article

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

suggest archiving[edit]

Consider archiving this talk page, which is getting very long. YechielMan 02:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation issue[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Instrumentation about the problematic issue. If you would like, please voice your opinion there before reverting any more scoring. Thank you. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 11:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway[edit]

Hi, please discuss your take on the current disagreement at this page WP:ANI#George Galloway so we can move forwad with this article. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the above page link expired, but please take part in discussions here. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 21:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why do you prefer the HTML em dash instead of the Wikipedia-provided single-character em dash (—) that you can click on from the insert menu just below any article? Robert K S 10:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only take on it (and you may need to "edit" this comment to see what I'm talking about) is that (a) I've never seen the — style em dashes display incorrectly on any recent browser and (b) the — style (HTML style) em dashes can have the effect of cluttering up and making confusing the text of an article in edit mode—especially—if—there—are—a—lot—of—them,—it—makes—text—difficult—to—read (vs.—these—which—don't—do—too—bad). Robert K S 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the difference between an en dash and an em dash is obvious in an article, where it's important. If you see what looks like an en dash where an em dash should be when you're editing, you can reassure yourself that it'll render as an em dash, and when in fact it does, life is happy. Robert K S 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson[edit]

Creating a section called 'Tucson in popular culture' is a violation of WP:MOS in that the name of the article should not be in subsections within that same article. Please do not revert this.

'In popular culture' also CLEARLY belongs under the culture section. I have NO IDEA WHY IN THE HELL you think otherwise!!!! 'Parks and outdoor recreation' also clearly falls there as well. These are generally cultural attractions within the city, and don't fall under any other area easily. Dr. Cash 03:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmina Burana (Orff)[edit]

Please don't delete the music sample!! Don't good this place for it?--Beyond silence 20:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The audio sample don't refelect the Instrumentation? It can not be as long as the arsenal of Carmina Burana, but showing something about it. Don't delete, find yourself a place for it if you can! --Beyond silence 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 2[edit]

Thanks very much for the heads-up on the style conflict in the last section added to this article. Wikipedia had already flagged the section and I was rewriting it when your message arrived -- and I say this not so much to imply I was already fixing the problem but, more importantly, that it's good to have other users such as yourself keeping an eye on things as well.

I've added documentation and changed the style of the section to make it (hopefully) less essay-like. If you have other suggestions on this or other articles I write, please feel free. Thanks again.

Jonyungk 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anglais Horn, Cor english, hautbois d'love, blah blah blah[edit]

mostly I don't much care...just trying to play peacemaker. I actually just cut-and-pasted the paragraph from Symphonie Fantastique -- cor anglais was already there, and I figured on caps it should probably be all one or the other...

I'm not sure what's proper on caps...English and French are normally capitalized when alone I think...oy, I just don't know. On the name of that alto shawm thingy: gun to my head I'd guess most anglophones (Anglophones?) probably call it an [E/e]nglish horn -- cor anglais is a couple of steps away from writing "fagotti" or "Pauken". But I do think I read something somewhere about avoiding wikilinks to redirects where possible...

My current style bugaboo is actually the use of hyphens in designating "black-key" notes & key signatures ("A-flat major" rather than "A flat major", which to me sounds like a squashed squadron commander...) Thanks for the note...—Turangalila talk 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are using American or British English but Cor anglais is NOT snobbish but simply the more common term for English horn. The English horn is not common in British English. And Cor anglais it's not a short step away from fagotti like you claim. Fagotti is not commonly used because Bassoon is the common term that does not lead to confusion. Bassoons are bassoons. The reason I've never heard English horn being used is because if you've played in a orchestra, you'll know it's tiresome to refer to the French horn section by its full name, you just call them the horns. If the term English horn is used, you start getting confusion to whether you want the French or the English. Cor anglais is far less ambiguous and is far more common. Please accept this fact - Wikipedia redirects English horn to Cor anglais. Centy 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S (archive)...[edit]

You might want to take a sec and archive your talk page...currently it's choking my creaky old browser a bit...thx —Turangalila talk 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malapropisms[edit]

Hi - I'm a little surprised that you unduid my addition to Malapropisms. Ringo's comments were very clearly malapropisms - in the case of "Tomorrow never knows", for example, he had meant to say "Tomorrow never comes". If they are not malapropisms, could you tell me exactly what they are? I've added details on the his malapropisms as detailed in the book "The Beatles Anthology" to the talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "sez me" - it's "sez Ringo and sez the most authoritative single book on the Beatles". Please read the note I added to the talk page of the article. If you wish me to find other references, I can, but I would have thought that a book co-authored by the surviving members of the band would have been good enough. Perhaps the words of John Lennon will help: "I took one of Ringo's malapropisms as the title, to sort of take the edge off the heavy philosophical lyrics." (interviewed in 1980, as quoted here). Grutness...wha? 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that it's impossible to convince you that - despite what others (not only the beatles) have written on the subject, as made clear in the references I have cited - what Ringo said were malapropisms. I'd ask you then to find some clear references that point out that they are not malapropisms. You seem to be arguing from your own viewpoint alone at present; I am the only one who has provided proof. The comments you point me to in the talk page are of the nature of "it seems to me that...", except for the comments provided by me which point out published sources claiming that these are malapropisms. Please, do not revert unless you have evidence that those references are incorrect. I do not want to have to take this to a RfC. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the sections you pointed me to - as would be patently obvious if you had read them recently. I commented on them as well, and - as I wrote above - provided evidence where previous comments had only been couched in terms such as "it seems to me". I have also left comments on the talk pages of the only three people who made such comments, asking them to review the situation now that some form of concrete references have been added to back up the claims. You are currently the only person arguing against these references at Malapropism, and you are doing so without any scrap of evidence to back your comments up. I repeat, please DO NOT revert unless you have evidence to support your claims. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People's Park[edit]

Hello. Just reread both referenced articles, and I think you are mistaken. They do indeed make a point of the fact that Berkeley residents find the People's Park's amenities uninviting, and, although a few of them use the basketball courts, that's about it. The two articles go into great detail illustrating the fact that many park "regulars" are quite deluded, and, while it is true that not all are homeless, they come pretty close. The sentence in question summarized it pretty well, I think--hardly original research or unsourced.

So, I think it should go back in. Unless, of course, you can come up with something that better conveys the reality for those who choose only to read the article's lead.Apostle12 08:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tucson/Phoenix/Flagstaff[edit]

No problem. Hope I wasn't too annoying. Oddly enough, another discussion over at WP:CITIES helped to change my opinion on the matter. I proposed a new template for city articles, and the discussion seemed to drive towards trying to cut down on many of the 2nd and 3rd level headings in sections. There's also some interesting discussion about exactly where to locate 'parks and outdoor recreation', as it's been argued to possibly put it under 'geography', or maybe 'sports'. Check out the Proposed Template and feel free to leave comments on it. Dr. Cash 01:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Picture Quality Question[edit]

Please respond to my recent question on the Talk:Richmond, California page. Thanks . . . --Fizbin 12:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi ILike2BeAnonymous, I just wanted to thank you real quick for cleaning up my brainfart edit on Malapropism. I don't know what happened there. I do check my edits but that I just really dropped the ball on this one and I wanted to apologize for it. Thanks again & cheers, -- Seed 2.0 11:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Bartók article ("Reception" Section)[edit]

I think it'd be a lot better to remove that section. Usually it is a better idea to include as much material in an article as possible, but I think that the section in the Bartók article to strongly distorts what reception his music actually got. If I weren't familiar with Bartók and read that section, I would coming away from the article feeling that Bartók was somewhat of an insignificant and weak composer. The problem is that this is the complete opposite of what the general consensus on his music is (many consider him to be one of the finest composers of the 20th century and many of his works are a staple of their respective repertoire). Therefore, the reception section is quite inaccurate, and there's no reason to keep information if its inaccurate. It is not a reception section nor is it even a crticism section. It's just a section that describes Babbit's opinion of Bartók.Pianoman314 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audiophile[edit]

I do see the possibility of keeping the list, but without the external links. However, I don't exactly share your view that the list should remain in its current form. I would point out that the list appears very much to fall foul of criterion 3 in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. In any event, the list was moved in its entirity to the talk page, pending a consensus on its treatment. Ohconfucius 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal set[edit]

Your simplification is welcome; your implied criticism in your edit comment not so welcome. Dicklyon 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martelé (silver)[edit]

Thank you for taking interest in bettering the article.

Good job!

Bloger 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent change on overpopulation page[edit]

Yes, I know my new information contradicted what was already there. I don't like to erase what other people write, so I left the other person's entry intact. I figure that it's good to have different sources, even when they contradict each other. I see that you have erased both entries. Wouldn't it be better to let both entries be intact, so readers can have access to both points of view? Grundle2600 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

stop removing images from Richmond, California without discussing it. I have tried to talk about it with you exhaustively but the cat seems to have hold of your tongue. You have also removed content. The film "Coach Carter" (please click on the article) is all about Richmond, be more careful. And i will put those images back, its not your unilateral desicion to make.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

richmond[edit]

i never have claimed to own this article, but you don't either, what i detracted you can put back, but you should stop removing images, and discuss it. weve tried to discuss it many times.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have u seen the talk page, itrs rude and against wp policy not to talk to people[edit]

crappy is not rationale enough, discuss each image here. some of the images you removed were excellant, i would say that the richmond pkwy image's removal was dissapointing, its a great image it illustrates the topic in that section which is transportation and it also happens to have a freeway exit sign that says RICHMOND PKWY which reinforces that its local, just a freeway pic is just another freeway pic but, one that relates locally is great for this article. the construcction site is another example, it is very relevant to the construction boom section. i think that its not out of the question to remove some pictures, but i think a image gallery is at hand or at the very least a creation of a wikipedia commons images of richmond, california gallery on commons first. and DISCUSS it here first, and wait to get a response and green lightT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

there is also no requirement to remove images and what youre doing is uncalled for, you shouldnt be bold when others object, and i dont unilaterally object to any content changes with regards to pictures but its disheartening that you dont listen to the fact that i would like to talk about it, and that your justifications for removeal of some images is nearly baseless and you have removed good pictures and left large swaths blank of very helpful illustrations, i would like to be consulted and its the most disheartening that youre rationale for reguttting the article was based on half a dozen apostrophes which were harmless, when editing wikipedia it is custom to revert very superfictial good edits to revert removed content. i have put the pics AND the edits back this time. you seem to have plenty of time and opportunity to edit this article so tell me what is wrong about the the picture of the expansion of the kasier hospital on the construction boom section? lets talk about just that one since you dont seem capable of picking one to talk about. also the word crappy is extremely vague, and is lacking in a subject, what's crappy about it? if by crappy you mean the lighting is bad, the angle is squeed, the panorama is exclusionary, the subject of the picture could best be illustrated by somthing else, see i have no idea what you mean. i happen to live in Richmond and i own a picture-phone in addition to a digital camera, have any requests? and i agree about the picture of point richmond, but its all there is, its GFDL/copyleft and it's free, have a camera go get a free one thats nicer or else give this a rest. like i said a photogallery isnt a bad idea at all would that be a good solution? i think its fine the way it is but if you think a gallery would work just tell me and well see what should be kept in the body and what can be bundled up in a nice photogalleryT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

also what about the richmond pkwy image, do you not like it because it has a whitebackround on the exit sign, as far as i know all left(carpool) exits are in white so they stand out, do you think it doesnt show enough of the left hand side of the freeway which is in richmond and too much of the right hand side part of which is in richmond but beyond the houses once in the shopping center is almost entirely in Pinole? what man? id like to know, because its not even a "crappy" cameraphone picture its from a real digital camera, its in richmond and it shows off the transportation of the city. a major part of which is highways and streets whereas public tranbsport and commertial railways have more pictures while they have less of an impact in peoples daily commutes in the united states. is it too cluttered for your taste? is the placing wrong in your opinion? have you tried to move its placing but dont know how so you just took it off? id love to help you out if that is the caseT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Capital Convention[edit]

Hey Like to Be,

Do you have any sites for the convention about not capatilizing words in headings? I am use to (and prefer) the non-wiki convention of capitalizing the first letter of all words in a heading except for 2 and 3 letter words in the middle like "and," "not," etcetera. Thx Swlenz 00:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln Brigade Talk Page[edit]

Please stop re-adding this material on the talk page of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade article. It is clearly a violation of WP:NPA and as such has been correctly removed from the talk page. If you choose to continue to re-add this material I will be forced to block you for a violation of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Point Richmond, Richmond, California.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Point Richmond, Richmond, California.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP[edit]

please just stop altering my comments it is vandalism, STOP IT. Please do go complain about me, you'll find you are in the wrong. I do not have to write my comments in the fashion of your preferance it is not your talk page and even on your talk page I wouldnt have to make my comments the way you like. Furthermore don't threaten me on my talk page. You'd be well advise to cease your childish bheaviour.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC) That's bull and you know it. If you hadn't vandalised or (or "screwed up" as you like to say) my edits you wouldnt have that alleged problem. You always have to win, what's your problem? why are you so agressive? Only i wrote it in smallscript which seriously implies i didnt write it, plus i did sign it.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur I'm going to have to side with Qrc2006 here. Settle down and discuss things before making changes that you know are going to upset people. A picture that is kind of ugly, but still conveys information about the subject is better than no picture at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a coffee table book. For the record, I've never met either of you. - Richfife 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop your unhelpful article edits too[edit]

Please stop making unhelpful edits (like this oneRemoving pictures & captions w/spelling errors. "Refinary"? "Origen"? This is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a chat) such as removing content because something is spelled wrong, thats just not very logical or thoughtout, fix the spelling or move on, don't vandalise.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can call me 'girl' anytime[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. Maybe we can work together and rewrite that crazy section.--G-Dett 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

richmond, ca[edit]

thanks for resizing the refinary photo, i couldnt seem to get it right with the preview. and thanks for catching my mistakes, i really thought HMOs and Kaiser (medical) originated in richmond, i think richmond was actually the stage for them to become serious big things in the nation however its too complicated for an image caption, perhaps you could look into it since you seem to be good at fact finding, also see more on richmond's talk page, thanks^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

Thanks for helping WP:WPChi here at this week's WP:CHICOTW. We could use your opinion in a few places where consensus is helpful:

Voting for new Category:Top-importance Chicago articles
Nominating new Top-importance candidates for promotion and demotion
Nominating and voting on future CHICOTWs TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland tag[edit]

Hi, ILike2BeAnonymous. I respectfully disagree with your replacement of the tag of the Oakland article, but I'll not revert right now; I'd rather discuss it. As a starting point for our discussion, might I ask you to read tags? It's just one editor's opinion, but it's been catching on with many of us, and has even led to the development of the new less visible sp tag. I do realize that the article on Oakland is not likely to be perfect, but even many articles in Wikipedia with many citations are also imperfect.

Consider the weakness of our system of documentation:

Many articles include citations on some, but not all material. In fact, if we're honest, we'll recognize that even most articles with citations fit into this category. Citations are often expected only on material that is challenged or controversial.
The reliability of information within an article is not assured by the existence of citations. People often add cites that only marginally address the topic they ostensibly support, or sometimes, not at all.
Some articles with zero citations are more accurate than some articles with a dozen or more citations.

And we still are faced with the universal issue of aesthetics. When we add a tag to the very top of the article, we are sending a message to the casual visitor: Wikipedia is an amateurish and unreliable source of information. Can you imagine Britannica having a header at the top of an article saying: We intend to improve this article as soon as possible; for the time being please understand that the article is imperfect. Of course not. Now you're correct, this article could certainly use some more sources. But we cover ourselves just fine by placing the tag at the bottom; it places it in the necessary category, and yet it doesn't sully the reader's first impression. It simply looks better. And now, another editor, User:Notmyhandle has developed a small icon that follows the lead of the small sp icon. I'm sure you've noticed that on most sp articles today (see Barack Obama) that the sp tag has been replaced by the small sp icon. The smaller icon has become so dominant because editors are recognizing that the big tags make us look like a joke. Now a small icon dealing with the need for references like that found on sp articles will not meet your concerns about misleading readers, but placing the tag at the bottom will. Look, in almost any document written today, the writer includes caveats. But those caveats are not placed at the top of the document, they are usually in small print at the bottom of the document. I'm not asking for small print here, but I am asking that we give some consideration to the aesthetic appearance of the project. I look forward to your thoughts. Unschool 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I of course cannot take issue with your overall evaluation of Wikipedia as being amateurish; the very nature of its creation makes that statement true, ipso facto. And of course I am sure, given the time you have spent on the project, you still aspire to improve it to whatever degree that is possible. In that, then, we share common ground, even if we do not see eye-to-eye on this matter. Your belief that such tags need to be up high is one logical conclusion that can be reached, so I shall not quarrel with you. Cheers. Unschool 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arizona[edit]

Just dropping you a line. I note you often edit in Tucson and am appreciative of your work. I was wondering if you knew about our little wikiproject linked above. You seem to be a good fit with us. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather table on Richmond, California[edit]

The Richmond, California weather table which you do not like the looks of could look great if it looked like the Phoenix, Arizona weather table.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles one is even nicer^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then stop whining ya little bitch^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow im sorry for saying that, i actually meant to write, "then quit your whining" but i guess my fingertips grew minds of their own and wrote what i was thinking, sorry about that. its up to you, remove my comments if you wish or don't. i regret if any feelings where hurt or feathers ruffled, although i seriously doubt your that easyly fazed, but wow i cant believe i really wrote that unconsciencously; mad world. =/ ^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 05:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 9/11[edit]

I have restored the BrE because we are quoting and referencing directly from The Sunday Herald. This is not a nationalist issue; it is a style issue and we don't interpret titles or written quotes for the sake of the article's nationality. This has already been discussed on the talk page. Celtic Emperor 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO I am not stalking you. I am watching the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. Celtic Emperor 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Bushism Revert[edit]

Hello, I see you have reverted my edits... which I half expected to be done. But I was hoping for a discussion ( on the bushism talk page). I provided an argument for why I dont think those are good examples, and I would really appreciate to hear why you think they should stay. (individually if it wasnt TOO much trouble :) ) I am worried that the definition of Bushism itself may be a little unclear, which may be causing some of this confusion on the examples for me. Thanks. P337 08:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked in IP sweep[edit]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): you should be able to edit now Request handled by: Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser on suspected sockpuppeteer[edit]

{helpme} Forgive me if this is the wrong way to go about this, but I want to request that someone with those powers run a checkuser on what I suspect are some undeclared sockpuppets of a user. This arises from many contentious edits (repeated insistence on retaining invalid material, including low-quality pictures) to the Richmond, California article. The users I suspect there are Qrc2006 (the "original" user), Cholga, the current (suspected) sockpuppet being used, 71.142.91.34 and 71.142.87.194, which I suspect are his IPs when not logged in, and possibly others. Thanks much! +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ILike2BeAnonymous, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is the place to request checks. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the I80 image[edit]

I open a survey on the talk page, so please respond. Stop editing the page for a little bit, since we are trying to look for a new consensus at this moment. Thanks. Chris 01:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV quote editing in Chris Daly[edit]

Your repeated paraphrasing of a Matier & Ross quotation from the San Francisco Chronicle in the Chris Daly article amounts, essentially, to spinning the article toward a pro-Daly POV . Yes, the quote may be "inflammatory", but its importance is the perception of Daly's "controversial demeanor" (the title of the article section) among mainstream, respected major media sources. Your personal summary of Daly's action and personal conclusions about what Matier & Ross wrote is much less encyclopedic than simply leaving the quote alone and not trying to soften or spin it. While it is certainly desirable to "improve the tone" of the discursive prose in articles, written by Wikipedians, we do not "improve the tone" of quotations from sources, but instead let them speak for themselves. --MCB 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, it's not my "personal summary"; I didn't even write the paraphrase. But the salient point is that certain editors feel there's something sacrosanct about the M&R quote, which is ludicrous. This is not a public official being quoted, nor a well-known source, but a couple of newspaper columnists who are paid, after all, to dig dirt and dish. Hardly encyclopedic stuff, I'd say. Also sounds like you, or some of the other editors defending this, have an anti-Daly agenda they'd like to work in here if possible. Look, the original source material is only a couple of clicks away for those who are interested, and there's plenty of other hot stuff there about Daly's behavior as it is; what's the big deal? +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Richmond, California. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Chris! _{my talk} 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Richmond, California[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richmond, California. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. - KrakatoaKatie 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Krakatoa. You have done similar stuff in the Veena page. Instead of 'removing names not placed in alphabetical order from list' umpteen number of times you could have 'really contributed' by placing the names in alphabetical order when you edited. That way you would have improved the content / presentation and reduced unnecessary entries in the History page of the article. Cheers. --Antariki Vandanamu 10:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the header back to Richmond, California.--Antariki Vandanamu 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plovdiv article[edit]

Hi,

I think that both of us must make some effort to stop the edit warring on the Plovdiv article. I have a proposition:

I will rewrite the section History of Plovdiv and form a separate subarticle. I do intend to add more to the section, as the city itself deserves it. In the current format of the article is mentioned nothing about the town during the 500 years of Ottoman rule - this must be corrected. However, I still oppose the inclusion of the external link and I will continue to do so. I've been looking for other, less vehement and more neutral and objective links that deal with the history of Plovdiv during the Ottoman presence. I haven't one ones written by Turkish historians, but I did found an interesting work written by a Bulgarian for his masters thesis in Balkan History at Bilkent University in Ankara. The link is here [8](given as a pdf file, so you would need Acrobat Reader if you use Windows). I found the material is rather interesting and it can be a very good source for the history section that I am writing. Since this is a masters thesis, the link itself is very long, so I guess it can be used as a reference, rather than as an external link, but information from it WILL be used. I will try to find a document written by a Turkish historian, a document that can be included as an external link, but this is a good start anyway.

My provisions against the external link remain the same - the article does not have ANY historical significance - I see it only as a anti-Christian/secular bashing, with which by the way the author's work (if you care to read more of his articles you would notice this) is rather plentiful. In addition I have already pointed out the factual errors in the article and its bias in language and expression. I will give you more: "Unemployment in parts of Bulgaria stands at well over fifty percent, even in places where many young men have left to work abroad. European Union scientists are struggling to deal with the soil and water pollution bequeathed by Communist neglect." - the author does not support any of those two rather strong claims... the unemployment in Plovdiv is definitely less than 50% "Sadly, many in Bulgarian society are frightened by the growing Muslim presence, reflecting insecurities over the identity of a Christian country created when most of its population was Muslim" - yet another thrown in sentence that has no support...

I think that if we are looking for a source about the history of the city, we should concentrate on sources from historians and not from religious pundits. I have already given mine in the Plovdiv talk page and here.

My proposition is: include the mentioned link as a substitude of the Tim Winters article until I rewrite the history section, and then once I am ready (until this Sunday I hope) we can move the external link [9]and any other external links or references that deal with the history of the town to the new article. If you do not remove the external link then I will do it by myself and the edit war will start all over again.

P.S. Faith&reason is a sockpuppet of Enthogenesis - just look at the horrible way the external link is included for a second time in the section Churches, Mosques and Synagogues in the CURRENT version; the link was put there by user:Faith&reason... it is included in the very same way that user:Enthogenesis put it there on May 24 2007 - [10]. You claimed that my opposition to the link seems to be a vendetta on my part, but it seems more likely that it is the other way around - at least I do not use sockpuppets to create an impression of being supported. I originally thought that those users were your sockpuppets, but I was wrong and you have my appologies for that. Also, I don't think that the inclusion of an external link in two places in the same article is favoured in Wikipedia - you should at least check the content before/after reverting. --Cnn lies 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TodorBozhinov is a Bulgarian contributor to the English Wikipedia. I do not him or Gligan personally, I just asked for their opinion and possible help in the mess. Thanks for the willingness to discuss the situation.--Cnn lies 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Grappelli[edit]

I was not suggesting that Stéphane Grappelli was a gypsy. I was merely stating that he performed violin in the Gypsy jazz medium when playing with Quintette du Hot Club de France. As you can see on the Gypsy jazz article, violin is one of very few instruments used in the medium. (Mind meal 03:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

which facts am i twisting?[edit]

^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivility[edit]

It has come to my attention that you have not been very civil I strongly advise you to be polite and courtious to myself and others. I hope we can apologize and try to solve things more constructively in the future and I regret the things that have happened. I feel they are detracting from the purpose of this encyclopedia. I strongly advise you read the following and implement more poltite behavior than yours is at this time.

Personally i feel that Honestly, An uncivil environment is a poor environment, and "Don't be an egg" are the ones that are best suited for you. Please understand that I am not implying anything by #2, It is simply called that and I would never call you that. I am also not being sarcastic in the least. I seriously am not. I Hope you know It is not my intention in the least but it is a good essay and I believe you should read it. Thank you in advance.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones."

3RR.[edit]

I would just like to let you know that you are one revert away from violating the 3RR on Richmond, California, as you have already made three reverts on the article today. Cholga inadvertently asked me for help on this. I looked into it, and found saw that you have both made three reverts in the past four hours. I would seriously suggest cooling off on this, as I'd rather not report either of you. Alcemáe T • C 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resolving this dispute[edit]

i have requested mediation^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 06:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use check user on me[edit]

I see that you suspect me as a sockpuppet of Cholga here. I can't stop you from checking on me. But since I did nothing wrong, and I am in fact not related to Cholga in any way, I am not going to worry about this.

Your confrontation is getting bad as you are doing bad faith actions trying to disprove Cholga. You almost violate 3rr. You are even using check user against Cholga. All this is not going to help resolve this matter. I have been in wikipedia long enough to know that this matter can only be resolve if you guys can calmly talk about it and make a compromise.

I am writing this in good faith and hope that you can resolve this issue. Chris! _{my talk} 19:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just telling you that doing such bad faith actions like check user during a dispute is not good because these actions might provoke other users like Cholga and possibly escalate the dispute. And as a wikipedian, I have a responsibility to help resolve dispute, so don't take this personal. Chris! _{my talk} 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten Rosen quote[edit]

You're right. Opus33 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

...I see the above situation has transformed a bit since you left the note on my talk page (I answered you there; not sure if you saw it). I now think the CU is a bad idea, and the situation can resolve easily without. By the way, the current proposed wording I believe is quite good--I can leave a note there in support if that would help. (Problems with previous version included use of the word "gridlock" on a linear rather than grid feature, as you know.) Let me know if you still need help with anything. Antandrus (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superscripting[edit]

Thanks for your contributions, but please note that Wikipedia does not superscript ordinal suffixes ("th," "(1)st," "(2)nd," and "(3)rd"). Per WP:MOSDATE:

Ordinal numbers should be spelled out in words using the same rules as for cardinal numbers. If digits are used, the ordinal suffix (e.g., "th") should not be superscripted. For example, "fourth", "twenty-third" or "23rd", "496th".

I noticed this superscripting on the Muni Metro pages, which I watchlist. —Kurykh 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Richmond, California.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

"skewed" photo[edit]

You and i must be looking at different photos. While the photo does suffer from telecompression, there is absolutely no tilting. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If there is in fact tilting, I invite you to save the image to your computer, "fix" the tilt using some basic photo editing software, and upload a new version of the image (under the same name and license). That would be way more constructive than just removing the image from the page. —lensovet–talk – 05:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just checked and edited the photo in Photoshop, it was skewed by 1.5 degrees – personally I wouldn't consider that a "dealbreaker" for an otherwise demonstrative image but OK. As far as showing nothing distinguishing, that's a fault of the station and not the photo – I presume you've been to it at least once to know? —lensovet–talk – 19:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPunch is left-wing?[edit]

Please read WP:V#Burden of evidence. Sala Skan 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you asked if I disputed it or were just trying to be difficult: actually, neither of those possibilities. I am not American, so I don't know the magazine, that's why I want to know if it's really a left-wing mag. That's what fact templates exist for. I'm repeating the same sentence again: If you think it is so self-evident, it shouldn't be so hard to find a source. If you cannot find one, apparently it is not self-evident, and the tag is justified. Sala Skan 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far as your not being American goes, that's hardly a valid objection, as the magazine is trivially easily available on-line to anyone anywhere in the world (and the print version is only a little less easily available). You have looked at the web edition, right? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not meant as an objection, rather as a reason why I never heard of the magazine until I read the article. Note that I believe you when you tell me it's a left-wing magazine, however, if this is so obvious, why not just source it? Can't you find one? Sala Skan 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Sala Skan 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Richmond, California[edit]

Your rationale ("Remove poor-quality photo. This isn't a popularity contest to decide whether your favorite picture gets to stay here.") for removing an image from the Richmond, California article was not very forthcoming IMHO. The image is not of poor quality, 2 independant users who commented on the image in addition to myself did not believe the quality to be in issue to the point of mentioning it, therefore i feel it is safe to assume that it is of least average quality. I believe that it is of great quality and another user expressed that it has artistic qualities; artisitc is a very desireble quality in a photograpgh especially for a photograph. I'm not sure of what you mean by "popularity contest" could you please explain? thank you. If in fact you think discussions on talk pages are popularity contests, well the fact is that they are not, they are ways to communicate varying opinions to make a desision on a point of contention within an article to foster better understanding and harmony between users and to be used as a platform to demonstrate the policy based rationale for certain disagreements. When no rules apply then common sense and "consensus" is used, consensus may be the most popular opinion so in that aspect it is a popularity contest and if you think the image should not be included but the rest of us either do or are neutral you must accept that. Now wether this is my favorite picture is quite irrelvant it could be but if most say dont include it well then it surely cant be allowed to or else i would be blocked. Now your second comment ("What are you talking about? There's no "consensus. There was no "decision to keep". That's all in your head, apparently.") What I am speaking of is the consensus on the talk page for Richmond, California here which after 2 reverts you still have not participated in. User Fizbin expressed support along with myself and user Charlene made a comment. two to zero is clearly a desicion to keep, a week is a long enough time to expect that anyone that is against would have said somthing by then, and even then it would take 3 to take it down. I ask you to please not make inflamatory comments regarding my sanity i find them quite innapropriate and rather insensative. Nothing is in my head, click on the links/diffs yourself. No a single person expressed any desire for the image not to be included, not even you even though the topic has been up for debate since July 3, you frequently participate in editing this article and discussing on its talk page therefore I find it strange that you have not commented if you feel so strongly that the photo does not belong. So I will put the image back where the discussion put it and if you violate the 3RR i will report you. Content removal and uncivility will get you nowhere.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 07:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reconsidering your user name[edit]

Anonymity often leads to a false sense of empowerment which often leads to making inflammatory decisions based on the idea that you can avoid the consequences. I'm seeing this in your edits right now. I never do anything, anywhere anonymously. Take full responsibility for your actions. Signed, with my real name: - Richfife 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Take full responsibility for your actions. - Richfife 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chiding) Read your talk page. Nothing else seems to get your attention. Also, Cholga seems to be able to take criticism and seek consensus. You insist on acting unilaterally even in opposition to consensus, so I don't see him (or her) getting drunk on anonymity. As far as gender goes, I stand by my guess in the absence of further info. - Richfife 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity leads to a false sense of empowerment just as often as having a high edit/post count leads to you feeling like you have a big e-penis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meltingwax (talk • contribs).

WikiProject NIH[edit]

I noticed you've been editing articles that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject NIH, a project to further the coverage of the National Institutes of Health. It's a new project, so check out the project page if you're interested! Cmw4117 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:PCBS[edit]

No, that works for me. Plus we can just add a note on top of each of those articles' pages that would link to the other article. -- Al Ameer son

According to Jimbo Wales[edit]

"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sortof random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales.

That's pretty clear, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rookery Building GA[edit]

You may want to add the following to you user page:

This user helped promote Rookery Building to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

you're removal of my comments[edit]

I would like to say that I am obviously angered by your removing my comments. It makes me feel really bad that you are a sore loser and would resort to simply trying to silence my voice on a talk page. I think its low and childish. I have reported you here and reverted the changes. DON'T REMOVE MY COMMENTS FROM DISCUSSION. STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT. Don't do it. You have done it before on the very same talk page and other editors told you you could not do that and to stop. It's wrong and against policy and erasing peoples comments goes against the whole point of building consensus. When i gain consensus im glad and feel accomplished that im smart and know how to express my opinions and knowledges. But im often wrong and when consensus doesnt go my way i dont insist on acting arbitrarily. I certainly dont add in my own opinions and claim i have consensus when i dont and in fact consensus is against my edits. Thats a quite a double standard. youre cavalier attitude in defeat is also very disheartening. try and be a bit more civil, yes? i promise ill try harded if you do. How would you feel if i deleted your comments huh? have a good night.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 06:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As my last comments there attempt to make clear, you're welcome to write whatever you wish on that page. You are not welcome to interfere with, destroy the integrity of, make unreadable or make a complete hash out of other people's existing comments (namely, mine). Seems like simple common courtesy to me. Put your comments back in, in the normal (indented) fashion that 99.9% of people here use, and there's no problem."

Hi, Ilike2BeAnonymous. Your recent comments on my page I find hard to find useful, since they seem to be a copy-and-paste repetion of your various comments on the Richmond discussion page and provide no new details or information whatsoever. Your repetitive comments and demands don't seem to take into account policy or actions taken in reponse to your edits.

How did my commenst interfere with yours?

Destroying the integrity of your comments by means of interrupting their continuity with small text is completey acceptable per the policy and guidelines noted many times thus far with regards to long comments such as the ones I intereuped (or as you have put it, "destroyed their integirty"). Furthermore I believe you have a problem with me not using indentation, using small text or is it small text AND interrupting or some combo? I would like to hear your concerns and would like it if you could clarify this point, thak you! Also, you don't have to like it. But just as you cannot demand i write in bold or make spelling errors you may not demand i not interrupt, you do not have to like it but you must accept it. Demanding I do not and removing my edits when formatted in that fashion is unacceptable and you furthermore have absolutly no authority to do so. If it bothers you so much you may try asking me nicely that when i comment in such a fashion it annoys you and ask me if i would consider commenting in a differant way when "interrupting" youre comments, A request which I would consider if you were to apologize. Although I do not have to accept, but thats what you could do if you so wish. It would be a logical and civil response. Another alternative would be fixing my formatting errors when interrupting. But you cant remove small text and make it big text and you cannot erase my comments entirely. Both may be considered vandalism.

My edits did not make your comments unreadable whatsoever, They did put in small comments from myslef between them, using small enables any user to clearly see the continuity of you comments while seeing my responses interspiliced. As for making unreadable, they only person doing that was you, because when you erased my comments on three separate occasions 100% of them were gone and no one could see them at all without flipping through the discussion page.

Would you explain what you mean by "hash"? and as for "namely mine" would you provide me with a diff on what other editor has problems with me and which comments of theirs youre expression that i "hashed"?

You're demands that I must put comments back in the normal way are very condescending in how they make me feel. You have no right to remove them. And ironically enough I did put them back in the normal way, which is to put comments in, in the way in which they are permitted. There is no guideline which requires indentation, although in retrospect I believe it reads easilier

like this

The problem is you're demanding that I enter my comments in the in which your opinion and you believe that 99.9% of people do. The simple fact is that 99% do not and even if they did, I dont have to comment in that fashion. You have been told this by numerous editors and/or admins and that is why you have been warned on this page. They are not taking "my" side they are following policy and guidelines which we must all follow because consensus has agreed on these guidelines. If you where in my shoes I'm sure you would not be the least bit delighted by my actions and in this hypothetical situation I would and should be warned for removing your comments. Also demanding I do things your way when they are NOT policy is i feel a form of intimidation and harrassment. I feel yolu are telling me that you will make things difficult for me in the future if i dont behave in the fashion in which you have unilaterally decided is appropriate. Please stop. I have the freedom to do as i wish on wikipedia and so do you (within the guidlines of course); would you then please accept my request that you will not interfere in my autonomy in the future as you have done now? I would like to express regret over this situation and I am sorry If you feel I have intentionally bothered you, I have not. And if I have hurt your feelings I am sorry. Take Care^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richmond, California[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. sbandrews (t) 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. sbandrews (t) 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Richmond, California, you will be blocked for vandalism. - Richfife 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ext Links on classical music[edit]

Whereas before it was a bit unclear why you removed the link to the "Classical Ear" weblog, I now see what you intend by removing it. However, this is not linkfarming, I'm simply listing a resource that I, personally, found helpful. Also, the wiki page on External Links says: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority, are normally discouraged." The writer of Classical Ear is no doubt an authority... I happen to know him (not intimately, but i do know him) and he is a recent graduate of Cornell with a major in music, and has ample experience in the field of music critique. Therefore, please allow this link to be on the list. (Near the bottom this time, I certainly agree with you on that.) Thanks.

Warning[edit]

This edit is totally unacceptable due to our personal attacks policy. Especially when you consider that someone directly involved in the statement is offended. Please discontinue such conduct or you may be blocked from editing. Thank you, GDonato (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not supposed to do so, but I thank you for what you said on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Tcrow777 talk 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I did not know what I was thinking when I said that. Tcrow777 talk 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They Wikipedia is so wonderful are listening. Tcrow777 talk 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But still, even if you were telling the truth, violating policy is not the best way to go. I need to start to think before I speak, this will not look good in a possible future RfA. Tcrow777 talk 00:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Accusation of Wikistalking...[edit]

here. I can't look everywhere on Wikipedia for problem spots, so I have to concentrate on areas that have a history of being good sources for edits that need attention. That often leads me here: Special:Recentchanges and here: User:Richfife/Content_Pushers and of course here: Special:Contributions/ILike2BeAnonymous. My contributions are here: Special:Contributions/Richfife. I welcome people keeping me honest. - Richfife 14:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago[edit]

Breather . . . The article was a mess and it has just sat that way for months. Hope this helps. Fixed copy. Its in much better shape. BTW, was thinking of Louis Sullivan's Waynewright building (1890-91) in St. Louis at ten stories as the first, it is sometimes claimed as first. Ten stories is usually the cut off for skyscrapers and the Home Insurance Building was nine stories until 1891. Thomas Paine1776 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteen[edit]

It's a small number where I come from, but what the hell :-) Guy Hatton 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

I request your opinion here. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial/Metric dispute[edit]

Would you please comment here? Thank you.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting[edit]

While I agree with your removing the wikilinks from the years in Flagstaff, Arizona, your change to remove the comma from the full date April 11, 2007, is incorrect. Please review the correct format for full dates at: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). There are two acceptable formats:

[[April 11]], [[2007]] (note, this one has the comma after the day and before the year)
[[11 April]] [[2007]] (this format does not have a comma, but the day is before the month)

The links in both of the above formats are also important, as they are both recognized to work with an individual (logged in) user's date preferences. So, if a user prefers the latter format (the British/European format), it will be converted automatically in the user's browser from the American format (the former). Dr. Cash 06:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not correct: the whole point of this kind of date formatting is that commas are inserted or not depending on the user's preferences, so it is correct to omit the comma in text (e.g., [[April 11]] [[2007]], which displays as April 11 2007; see how that works?).

I can see, though, how you drew the conclusion you did from reading the MOS page: it's badly written, and the two examples, like the ones you cited here, make it appear that one should omit the comma when writing dates in UK style but put one in for US style, which is incorrect. (By the way, how do I know this? Because like you, I used to put in commas too until another editor advised me on the correct way.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having published several papers in several paper-based sources, outside of wikipedia, I have never seen dates formatted the way you say. Despite what another editor might tell you, it is just plain wrong. Besides, what's the point of leaving out the comma if your date preferences are just going to put it in anyway? Plus, you should actually put the comma in if you write it in the american style, because non-logged in users don't have any date preferences.Dr. Cash 07:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you misunderstand: of course the displayed date in US style contains a comma; that's put in by the wiki-software. (Or if the given date is in UK style or if the user's prefs are set to UK, no comma displays; that's the whole point of having preferences in the first place.) I'm saying you (as an editor) don't need to put it into the article text: [[April 11]] [[2007]] displays as April 11 2007.

And non-logged-in users do have preferences: they just happen to be the default ones, so they'll see exactly what I just showed above. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IL2BA is correct. Let Wikipedia handle date formatting, don't hard code it. - Richfife 22:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO! This is just plain WRONG! NEVER, EVER, have I seen ANYBODY write dates like that! EVER! If you think wikipedia is right, then you've got to be smoking something. Dr. Cash 05:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit further, I discovered an archive of a discussion page in the Manual of Style (here). Apparently, there was a little discussion about this topic back in May of this year. It failed to reach consensus. So what I see regarding this issue is that the wikimedia software has a nice little feature that will insert a comma (it will insert the space in the date, too) if it is left out by the editor. Which is kind of nice for the uninformed, and it's kind of like spell check. But I still don't think it's a good idea for editors to get into the habit of leaving commas out, since it goes against the grammatically correct punctuation for American-style dates. It also promotes bad grammar among editors, and we should be encouraging all wikipedia editors to use correct grammar, regardless of the capability of software.

So, in the long run, during my usual editing, I won't specifically go in and add a comma to a date, if that's the only editing I'm making. If I'm making another edit, and changing the date format is part of that edit (within the same sentence or paragraph), I'll probably change it. But I'm not going to specifically go on a, "comma-inserting-spree," and change everything. I will, however, continue to revert you if you continue to be a dick about it and take out all the commas in an entire article. Dr. Cash 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why you're putting up so much resistance to this, which is really a pretty simple matter. Just to check: you do understand, don't you, that even when you omit the comma in a date that it displays correctly (with a comma) when Wiki-linked? Your objection about possibly lazy editing is noted; all I can say is that I intentionally leave out the commas with Wiki-linked dates, as I was advised to so some time ago by several experienced editors. As that other person said above, let Wikipedia handle date formatting; that way, all viewers will see the correctly-formatted date, regardless of their preference settings (or none in the case of non-registered readers). +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what the wikimedia software does with date formatting. I also understand that it will render the date correctly even if the space is omitted (e.g. [[July 20]][[2007]]), so by your argument, why don't you just omit the date and the space altogether? My point is, despite what the software does, and it is admittedly, a nice feature, it's a bad habit to get into because it promotes bad and incorrect grammar usage among editors. If we start this, what's next? Remove the commas from the entire sentence because the wikimedia software will get so advanced that it will know where all commas go? Let's get rid of the period next? Just because, "several experienced editors," advise you about something, doesn't exactly mean it's wiki policy. I've already pointed out that the Manual of Style disagrees with you, and I've already pointed out some debate on it's talk pages. So there's clearly no consensus here to change the whole policy and get every editor to remove commas entirely. Dr. Cash 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, no, I don't suggest being "lazy" in editing here; this is simply one instance where it's best to use the mechanism (date formatting) that was specifically coded for this purpose. I don't consider that "laziness" but smart use of the software. (Besides, this doesn't even fall under the heading of "grammar", but rather typographic formatting, which is an entirely different animal.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your suggestion, which was supposedly passed down by random, "experienced editors," is not a policy, either. It's also apparently much less of a guideline, too, considering that the manual of style is recommending use of the grammatically correct version. Personally, I really don't give a rat's ass how you write it, since it really doesn't matter with the software-correction, but I do get a little ticked off when you just mass-revert every date in an article. Dr. Cash 20:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake[edit]

Wether or not it was a disaster it not enough to erase it from the article. That may be seen as vandalism. If you think it is in the wrong section, move it to geography or environment. Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornados are disasters according to wikipedia policy. The disasters section seemed like the most appropriate section for inclusion.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you agressively and persistantly erase or gut every edit I make to the Richmond article? Why did you nominate the Earthquake article for deletion? Why do you follow me around and dispute my edits on other article? Do you have a vendetta with me? I don't understand why you don't dialogue with me or use good faith. Or for that matter discuss edits of mine which bother you. Edits of yours that I disagree with, I go straight to discussion without removing them, and if I do, you just begin a revert war. If I add an edit you dislike, you revert it and If i revert it back you'll begin a revert war. Why this double standard. See WP:OWN, because I feel you act in this manner. I have expressed a strong desire for cooperation and for good faith edits but I feel harrassed by you. Would you please accept my offer of cooperation and reply on my talk page?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuking information from an article list...[edit]

because it wasn't in alphabetical order isn't a good idea: [11] and [12]. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, not score points on newbies. Rearranging the list and then, optionally if it's a repeat offense, dropping a note on the user's talk page improves the article and is, frankly, a lot more social. - Richfife 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your reply on my talk page: 1) Yes you do, 2) Removing information because it is not in the order you prefer does not improve the encyclopedia, it makes it worse. If you were truly interested in improving the encyclopedia, you would fix it, not remove it. - Richfife 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Formatting in stringed instrument tunings article[edit]

You wrote:

I notice you seem to be the person who went through the entire chart and started to replace the tunings with your own formatting. Please don't do this; the current formatting was arrived at through a discussion on the "talk" page, and whay you're doing is contrary to what was decided on. If you want to change this, the thing to do is to discuss it first. Thanks, +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the Stringed Instrument Tunings discussion page:

I'm quite happy with your use of the Acoustical Society of America Octave Designations, but I have to admit to being a little annoyed at the manner in which you're setting formatting policy for this page. I see little or no discussion regarding the way it should or shouldn't be laid out. As the creator of this particular page and the ASA diagram, I'm certainly not looking for personal glory, just a little more respect in this matter. The removal of the bulleted entries seemed to be a little petty, when in my opinion the entries are lot less cluttered, rather than using endless parathenses which make the columns unnecessarily wide. I was tempted to revert the page again, but feel it's an exercise in tit-for-tat futility. Also, I fundamentally disagree with you over the labelling of entries involving Europe as an origin. Certainly this isn't as specific as other entries, but it does give sufficient information about the approximate region, rather than leaving no idea at all about where an instrument originated. Comparing it with the relevancy of the world as a destination is spurious in the extreme. Incidentally, I don't feel the need to be anonymous. tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 22nd July 2007.

Holst First Suite[edit]

Why must you persistantly re-do your own edits of the instrumentation when other editors are in favor of the original scorce names of the instrumentation? I find it is much more authentic and even makes more sense in some ways than your way. Also, the whole point of the comparison of the three versions is to show how the instrumentation evolved without Holst's involvement. Perhaps you should have the score in your hand before you go and start editing recklessly. Justin Tokke 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation[edit]

I am not sure which one of you it is, probably both you and User:Desiphral, but there is a 3RR violation on Romani_people and I will be reporting it. Jddphd 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of MOSNUM[edit]

Instead of editing the first few sections of MOSNUM, could you comment on the proposal at talk for replacing these sections with a new, short one, at talk? Tony 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment[edit]

Stop making threatening statements to me as you did on a edit summary for the Richmond, California article, here. I have reported you also, and I would like you to apologize, although I would very much appreciate that in all further occasions you just not repeat this pattern of agression and take disagreents to the talk page instead. Thank you.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed they listed you here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment . I happen to watch the board --Hayden5650 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F Market &/and Wharves[edit]

I created a redirect for "F Market and Wharves." We'll just leave the article where it is now. —Kurykh 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raises the (somewhat) interesting question of whether one should use Muni's wording (or lack of, in the case of "&") in describing their own lines. I'm agnostic on this one for now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no problem until someone makes one up, right? (Not implicating you, of course) —Kurykh 06:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it hard on the eyes? Of course, I can easily change the color, but I want some feedback regarding this. Thanks! —Kurykh 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it darker. How about now? Sorry if I'm turning you into my talk-page-color test subject, but, after all, a talk page is for the reader. —Kurykh 06:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to green (specifically, asparagus). —Kurykh 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

radical/minor edits[edit]

Dear "ILike2BeAnonymous" -- with all due respect - I am sure you are a passionate and experienced Wikipedia-Editor - but how come you keep rigorously deleting and editing within articles, which are objectively completely fine? I find this nitty-gritty-ness a little sad, for there are so many seriously vandalised articles around which could do with a bit of "policing" (if this is the right word here). You delete a name from a performer list because it wasn't placed in the correct alphabetical position, instead of simply putting all of them in the correct order (which they weren't anyway). I can see that I am not alone with this issue: User_talk:ILike2BeAnonymous#Nuking_information_from_an_article_list.... Apart from that you are also inconsistent, "correcting" capitalisation here, but not there... Please give all of us a little more freedom. Thanku! --natz 21:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

berlin wall[edit]

Thanks for explaining it to me. I believed I should provide a source for that picture. Can we change the caption and put the image back? If not, it is OK too.--Mbz1 01:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Fahrenheit 9/11[edit]

In regards to your post, I have posted evidence that proves that yes, it is a done deal, the film is not a definition documentary, and thus should not be labeled as such, if you can disprove my evidence (which to my knowledge is correct, but by all means prove me wrong) I will gladly accept calling the film a documentary. But, until then, my changes to a debated genre, that doesnt fall under the documentary genre, is acceptable, I have posted asking for input on what the genre should be, but just because we don't know the genre doesn't mean we should label it falsely, please take this up in the discussion, I am reverting the page back to the way it was.71.164.0.121 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick edit, sorry forgot to mention (I'm currently responding to another individual about this same issue) I want to find a way to say that the film does not fall under a documentary in a neutral way so as to not imply the whole film is false, or misleading. I just want the correct genre . Thanks :)

"The reason I simply remove out-of-order names is that most of the time they don't belong anyhow"[edit]

Uh, that's a joke, right? You're seriously saying that using formatting and positioning as the sole criteria to judge whether content is worthy of keeping with no further investigation is appropriate? - Richfife 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This must be the most pathetic excuse for rummaging around in random articles. Please, IL2BA, in future either tidy up the alphabetical order, or just keep your hands off those articles where you are lacking expertise. Thanks. --natz 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your favorite player's name in the 'pedia, make sure they are notable enough, consider writing a stub about them so the link is not red, and learn which way the alphabet goes. I agree with ILike2BeAnonymous, most of the time they don't belong anyhow. Deleting such names on sight is actually an efficient method of keeping list-bloat to a manageable minimum. __Just plain Bill 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Also posted to WP:ANI) That's a Straw Man. If he wishes to delete links that he doesn't think are notable, then he should go right ahead. That's OK. The problem is he is removing links for no other reason than they are out of order. Sometimes on the same day they are added. A red-link should be allowed to stick around for a little while unless you have reason to believe it's in bad-faith. Many red-links remain in the lists he purged. The fact that they were added out of order has no bearing on whether they are appropriate or not whatsoever. - Richfife 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does have a tangential bearing on it. Serious good-faith edits are more likely to be from careful editors. If they don't come back and revert the deletion, with some assertion of notability, then that says a bit more about the effectiveness of this practical efficient screening method. __Just plain Bill 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of accuracy, here's the edit summary that set off the OP above, verbatim:

Remove joke/vandalism entry. The reason I simply remove out-of-order names is that most of the time they don't belong anyhow, so no loss.

I stand by the "no loss" statement here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't whether or not it should have been made, the point is you made it completely blindly and only later, after you had been called on it, came back to check if it was a worth making. - Richfife 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to use the same explanation for this edit as well or are you going to come up with a different one? - Richfife 14:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overpopulation[edit]

"But" does not only indicate "opposition." In this case it would be in the sens of "furthermore." --Belg4mit 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Isabel[edit]

Well at least you didn't cuss at me. I have a proposal, let's stop referring to each other in edit summaries and simply state what we are editing? Can we agree on that? And FYI I didn't create the article for the Promontory of Point Isabel, but the park is only a small part of that peninsula. If it weren't an east bay regional parks district park i would say that they should be merged but it one so oh well. Anything else? And thanks for cathing that minor little extra redundant superfulous word. PeaceCholga^talK! 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Article Nuetrality Dispute[edit]

Portions of the Oakland, CA article clearly violate NPOV. The nuetrality of that article is disputed, and should be tagged as such. Not only are the claims unverified, but they are very biased. It would be one thing to make edits that are simply uncited, but to make accusations such are common in this article go way beyond just needing a citation. The article needs to be edited to reflect a more neutral point of view. So I will tag it again. 71.109.119.207 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion not entirely in jest[edit]

Maybe one of us needs to add to Dorothy Parker something like

In his album Sign “O” the Times, musician Prince includes a song called "The Ballad of Dorothy Parker". Many people who have never actually listened to its lyrics believe that the song is about the subject of this article, or that the lyrics refer to her in some way. It is not, and they do not. The Prince song is about a waitress named Dorothy Parker with whom the singer takes a bath.

Regards, CliffC 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added your comment verbatim. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --CliffC 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violin "music" link[edit]

I believe you deleted the music link for the violin page. I was just wondering why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruffy2 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 August 2007

Redstone Building editing help[edit]

Hi, first off thank you for catching my errors. In your edit summaries you could be a bit less judgmental. I do use the preview button and I do check my edits but I'm also human and make mistakes. I will try to be more careful. Benjiboi 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strings (music) corrections[edit]

Thanks for your review and correction of this article :) I'll try to edit it some more, may be restructure it a bit - please, check it out again a bit later? I like your smooth English style :) --GreyCat 17:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chord[edit]

Hi,

I note your revert to the above. Is there any chance. do you suppose, that you might pay me the elementary courtesy of responding to the question I asked here, which might explain why two chords don't make a chord, even though there are hundreds of situations in which they clearly function as one? --Stephen Burnett 19:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

That "warning" I placed on that IP was in may, it was when I was only a few weeks old on wikipedia, so I didn't know much, sorry for the inconvienence. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing (though not dangling) example[edit]

Leaving aside your catty and dismissive tone ("That's nice, but your addition was unnecessary"), I wonder that you should be particularly aggrieved by the addition of material merely because you find it superfluous. After all, you have left intact, for instance, a passage whose logic is, at best, quite odd. The phrase "One of the reasons that the sentence adverb usage seems more acceptable these days is that its semantics are reminiscent of the German hoffentlich" asserts (unintentionally) that a semantic reminder now more effectively assuages stylistic unease than it once did.

I don't mind your questioning the value of my further example. Nor do I wish to start either a flame war or a do/undo cycle. But I do hope Wikipedians might give one another some credit. My reason for making the addition was to provide a simple example of dangling modifier that did not involve a participle.—PaulTanenbaum 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness[edit]

Hey, I love irony. And hurling insults is a lark. But like email, this medium doesn't always make clear what is in fun. So, you call me "scum bucket," I'll call you "weasel," and—just like that—we are fast friends.≈PaulTanenbaum 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, gonna have to think about that a minute: many levels of irony there in your remarks, it would seem. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Meetup[edit]

I am not sure if you live in Chicagoland, but I see you edit Chicago quite a bit. If you are not from Chicago I apologize for the following message. A Chicago Meetup has been scheduled. I hope the time and place are convenient. Your reply would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fingerpicking[edit]

Hi, you were in a disscussion on the fingerpicking and fingerstyle merger thingy and as it's been almost a year now since anything's been done(!) and I think there's no logical reason to keep them seperate. I'll bear your's and pleather's discussion in context when I merge it with the fingerpicking article on tuesday as it's my day off, would you mind giving your opinion once it's done?--Mikeoman 20:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Romani people[edit]

Ohhh. Sorry about the spurious blank lines, most of which I created! --Kuaichik 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects[edit]

Hi. Just a reminder: whenever you move a page, be sure to fix any double redirects that might have been created. I just resolved all of the ones that were created by your move of Compact disc, so no worries there. Regards ×Meegs 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No.7 (Mahler)[edit]

Are there no any ways but just delete all those wordings? Those are about comments on the symphony. Those comments are excerpts but not disembodied or out of context. (Addaick 08:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They were both disembodied and out of context, which is why I removed them. You can't just plunk down text in an article in a random fashion and not expect it to be challenged. This material needs to go in the proper place, with some introduction, rather than just placing a quotation in a new section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really know what a Gibson is?[edit]

Dear Sir/Madame, you have removed my challenge to the "IBA" assertions that a Gibson is mixed with a 6:1 ratio. The very well documented history of the Gibson repeatedly shows a 3:1 or 2:1 ratio. Why are you acting in the interests of the IBA? Why are you supporting the claim that a Gibson is mixed in a 6:1 ratio? Your actions of removing alternative definitions are harmful to freedom of speech and alternative views. I am not sure how you understand your version of fascism but can you please kindly allow other opinions to exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Redmind11:55, 19 August 2007

ArticleIssues[edit]

Yeah, sorry, I thought I had replied. Anyways - all you have to do is put article/section= anything (i.e. section=y).--daniel folsom 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do it?[edit]

You say that these should be stated in the right place. Why don't you do it, which put them in a suitable place?

PS: I certainly know that all users' edits may be challenged. (Addaick 01:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I apologise that I didn't read carefully that there is a analysis section. But what are you talking about? Weird? Those comments about the Seventh symphony are not nonsense. Those are excerpts that I tell you many times. Youm should point out where the out-of-context is. (Addaick 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

comment request[edit]

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 01:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Richmond etc[edit]

You may have comments you wish to make on the individual pictures in the article and on the talk page. Your view may differ from mine on them, but they may be worth your while commenting upon. Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra, link removal[edit]

In response to your recent editing of the "orchestra" article. You called a link to MusData, which existed for a year a "non-useful and suspiciously commercial-looking site link". The web site is non-commercial, it really includes orchestras that even don`t have web sites. Any orchestra or musician can register for free. The web site is fully functional. Explain, please. I am the developer of the project. User: Horbor

BfC[edit]

You might want to consider reporting User:Heqwm for violating WP:3RR. smb 02:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I have reported both of you for vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bowling_for_Columbine_Vandalism_.28Smd_and_ILike2BeAnonymous.29 Heqwm 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to this article - please refrain from insulting other editors (WP:NPA) in your edit summaries. Incidentally I have blocked User:Heqwm for violating the 3 revert rule. ugen64 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit summary on the article Point Isabel Regional Shoreline[edit]

Thanks for your edits to our Wikipedia. However, please assume the good faith of other editors and do not make personal attacks in edit summaries. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks.

Can't you make ONE EDIT without misspelling? Get a spell checker, for chrissakes., would you please not make such insolent and patronizing edit summaries about other users.Cholga^talK! 02:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest in the future you make your edit summaries based on the edit you have just done.

An alternative to the summary you made could have been, fixed minor sp error and to contact the editor in question and communicate your desire for them to be more careful with their spelling of words.Cholga^talK! 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Oakland, California, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not remove an optional parameter, as it was given consensus to keep. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the revert warring on Oakland, California. I have warned you twice now. Unless you stop, you will be blocked for breaking the 3RR. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had this been reported closer to the revert war, it would have merited a block. Please do not break the 3RR again. You only just avoided a block and will not be so lucky next time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Oakland talk page[edit]

Feel free to comment on the recent renewed discussion on Oakland nicknames. Chris! _{my talk} 04:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already have, thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commas[edit]

Hi ILike2BeAnonymous. I saw that you reverted my edits involving commas in the Oakland article. Normally I wouldn't bother discussing something as trivial as commas, but I'd like to be grammatically correct. I was taught to use commas when writing about cities and states, and to not use commas when two clauses have the same subject. I did a quick Google search on "comma use" and it brought up the following links. [13] does support the fact that you don't always have to use a comma after naming a city and state (though it's still acceptable), so I'll concede that. However [14] (rule 13) and [15] support what I learned about using commas with compound predicates. Still, I realize that these aren't official rules, so I was wondering if you had could explain your reasoning. -JSmith60 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]