User talk:Iadmc/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
You deserve a barnstar from me, so here's one! Good luck in RL. Brambleclawx 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate it I'm grateful for the nice note you put on my talk and still more than a little put out by that ridiculous block. Wikipedia is not worth real life stress, and kind words defray tension. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Featured sounds on the main page

It's been discussed at least twice on the main page talk archives. Durova412 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova. I'll check the archives --Jubilee♫clipman 21:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A little something

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For all you hard work reviewing WP:MoS I want to personally thank you and more specifically your work with WP:record charts and WP:USCHARTS. Its been such pleasent and informative experience working with you. If it wasn't for your involvement the transclusion and merging of the proposals would have taken a much longer time. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. A long way to go yet, though, with the MoS, especially all the Music stuff. We'll get there in the end, though, I guess --Jubilee♫clipman 15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Im happy to help contribute other music MoS work where possible now that i have a good grasp and understanding of editing practises in music related articles.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Great! "Steady as she goes..." is the best phrase I can think of here, though. No rush, basically: let's get it right --Jubilee♫clipman 16:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Defo... steady and thorough produces the best results. Time is needed to conider all of the options thoroughly anyway.=) Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Thinking caps on then. I have one or two ideas already (obviously) but I need to think about things more. My appraisals of the Music Mos's (see here) need revisiting, for instance --Jubilee♫clipman 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And another one ...

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Now that the dust has settled I wanted to recognise the sterling work you and others did on the infoboxes RfC in order to work out a compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much! I need to build on that experience: some of my recent forays into RfC-land etc haven't been quite so well thought out, perhaps (though I do genuinely feel the Photo Credit RfC is a dead horse...) --Jubilee♫clipman 16:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1812 Overture

In the article, near the bottom, there are 2 recordings. One is a recording via Musopen, another, an organ arrangement. Is it necessary to have 2 recordings, or would it be better to just keep the Musopen one? Brambleclawx 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think there is anything inherently wrong with having more than one sound file of the same piece in an article, indeed listeners can hear different interpretations that way. The exception I would make is where one is simply a MIDI or some such (perhaps put together because no other version was legally available at the time of upload) while the other is a performance on real instruments (thus making the MIDI or whatever obsolete). OTOH, I would also tend towards ruling out arrangements of a piece unless there is a strong reason for retaining that arrangement. The article does not seem to make it clear why that organ arrangement is included. However, the piece is quite often played by organists as a showpiece which fact might thus explain why that Perschbacher performance is included, though given that the organ version just predates the orchestral version, my suspiction is that the organ version was meant as a "sample" (i.e. like a MIDI, in fact) in lieu of a "proper" version appearing—especially looking at the edit summarys ("added sound sample" vs "add audio of the whole thing"). I'll have to look at it more tomorrow (going to bed now) and I hope my ramblings haven't confused you too much! However, my thought is that the organ one can probably go. I'll talk to you on the article's talkpage when I have looked at all more fully. (And when I am more fully awake!) Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. Brambleclawx 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I have asked about this on the article's talkpage. I now strongly feel that the organ version is just an artefact that hasn't been noticed till now and that could be removed with impunity --Jubilee♫clipman 16:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB moɳo 23:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A message awaits

Look here, and tell me what you think. Hi878 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Again. Hi878 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
And again. I would recommend just checking back every few minutes. Hi878 (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Music Notability

Hello, I'm opening a discussion about the refinement and clarification of notability criteria. your opinion here would be appreciated. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

WP:PED

Re. [1] - the trouble is, as it reads now, it seems like you always block - even in the non-clear cases; because it says, In all cases, administrators should use a neutral block summary.  Chzz  ►  23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I got reverted anyway! I'll have a think about it a little more (!) and get back to you --Jubilee♫clipman 23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, fair enough. On the one hand, I think it needs to make the two possible cases ultra-clear - ie if it is clear-cut, block immediately; if not, ask arb. At least, that is my understanding of things.
OTOH though, I'm not sure any of that is relevent - it's more like 'instructions for admins' than policy. Perhaps it should just declare what will happen, rather than how - ie what any user should do if they find such stuff. In other such policy documents, that's how it is written. So, directing to ANI for clear-cut, and functionaries email for other, I would think?
My other concern would be the definition of paedophile, which may need clarification, to prevent problems. I can imagine cases where a user might jokingly add a comment on a pic of a slightly young girl saying "I'd hit it", and the possibility of others jumping upon that. Unfortunately, somewhat like 'porn' itself, it's going to be damn hard to define.  Chzz  ►  23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I say here, I think Equazcion made the right choice in reverting me. Regarding the rest of what you said... have you read the talkpage?!? And it is a !Policy at the moment not a Policy (the ! is important...) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I read the talk; I'll try to discuss things there, when I get time. I know it's just an essay at present, but I imagine it is heading for policy. Anyway - the talk is the right place; I'll take a note, and hopefully make comments there.  Chzz  ►  00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll see you over there sometime --Jubilee♫clipman 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cabal

First, I just want to say that I am sorry for what it was that I was doing. Second, in regards to your things on the MfD page: Yes, I agree completely that I took it too seriously, I feel bad about that. Second, It was a bit of an afterhought, however, the reason that I didn't do too terribly much vandal-fighting was because I was focusing on getting that to a point where I was happy with it, which I definitely tried too hard to do. Read my post at the bottom of the MfD page, I have realized the error of my ways. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Don't take my comments personally, BTW, I was simply observing and drawing conclusions. The fact that you are serious and singleminded is a good thing, in fact: you just needed to focus your seriousness and singlemindedness on vandal-fighting or something! Fight the good fight and you'll be amazing! Fight vandals with the serious singlemindedness you used in that cabal and they'll have no chance! --Jubilee♫clipman 12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. :) That means a lot to me. Hi878 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. See you around, no doubt --Jubilee♫clipman 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a good chance that I'll end up reverting you if we fight vandals at the same time. :) Igloo Still isn't quite perfect. Hi878 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I haven't even got rollback, actually.... I use Twinkle and Friendly for most jobs like vandal-fighting and plain editing for the others. I might request rollback soon though as TW and FR are not exactly perfect either --Jubilee♫clipman 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Get Igloo when you get rollback. It's still in alpha testing, but it is still great. Hi878 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I just added WikEd and got the fright of my life when I came to edit this page, BTW! Had to toggle back to Classic View rather than WikEd View: that will take some getting used to... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried it for a very, very long time, but I just gave up on it a week ago, because there were certain bugs that made editing unbelievably difficult. So use it only if you want an adventure. :) Hi878 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up: not sure I do want an adventure but I'll give it a go, anyway --Jubilee♫clipman 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, good luck. :) Hi878 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks... I think! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (music)

My reversion of the change to WP:MUSIC (which you have put back) was because it completely changes the meaning for Mixtapes. I'm not sure, reading the debate about demos, that consensus had been reached for any change at all - but the change to mixtapes had certainly been certainly inappropriate. I have not changed it back again yet but something certainly needs to be done, and IMO the original text is preferable. I42 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about mixtapes but I am beginning to think we are looking at this issue in the wrong way altogether. I am starting to formulate a way out of the mess but am not yet able to fully explain it. See the WP:MUSIC talkpage for my thoughts so far --Jubilee♫clipman 14:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Iadmc. You have new messages at Torritorri's talk page.
Message added 20:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Combined arch pgs

Hi-I was combining the archive pgs down to four at WT:Article size, and I forgot to put an edit summary (I've fixed 'my prefs' now). Sorry about the confusion, and have a good weekend, anyways! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hey! We made the same mistake! Brambleclawx 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL! I was writing the below as you posted! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. It rolled by on Recent Changes and I wondered what was going on! By pure coincidence, an editor I work closely with, Brambleclawx, caught one of the other pages and I saw your comments over there just before you posted to me. I also saw the Speedys as I was investigating the other pages. The reduction makes sense but won't earlier messages that link to those archives be affected? E.g. "see Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 7..." or whatever. Just a thought --Jubilee♫clipman 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about rattling the cage, but I was just trying to combine archive pages that were only 34kBs, so that we don't have a run-on list of archive pages, and I did check "what links here" to see if anything really important needed to be updated. :-} --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. "As you were!" --Jubilee♫clipman 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I never said you could mess with my talkpage. moɳo 03:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL! This is not serious if any one is worried, BTW. I hope not any way... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is. lol, :p, moɳo 03:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Bah humbug! No turkey for you this Christmas --Jubilee♫clipman 03:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Just saw one of your edit summaries on Mono's talk - I'm sure you'll get it if you apply. BTW, your edit notice is creepy - what did you type to make it recognize me :)? Airplaneman ✈ 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)He used {{REVISIONUSER}}. (Similar to how I use {{BASEPAGENAME}} on my warning templates). I believe a whole list can be found at WP:MAGIC. Brambleclawx 22:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL! It even recognises me: "Welcome to my talkpage Jubileeclipman" But yeah, it's: "Welcome to my talkpage {{REVISIONUSER}}". I think I might ask my old adopter, MSGJ, directly rather than RfPe or rumaging through that that Admin cat. Might ask for Autoreview while I'm at it Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice find, Bcx! Airplaneman ✈ 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And good luck getting Rollback, Jubilee! Brambleclawx 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Any idea why Qui in IE8 generates the message I posted above, BTW? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
One of Martin's TPS's gave me Rollback but not Autoreview. I agree that the latter is less than useful for an editor such as me --Jubilee♫clipman 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to start a new section to address this, and none of you can probably ever answer this question properly, but last night, while trying to carry out step three of the AfD process on Twilight: The Musical, the spam filter decided to act up, and deny from doing so. It claimed I added a link(s) to some examiner.com which apparently is on the Wikipedia blacklist, even though I did not add such a link. (I don't suggest going there, as I have no idea what it is, and it's probably blacklisted for a reason). Anyways, have any of you ever come across something like this, and if so, did you ever find out why? (This was perhaps the worst possible first experience into the AfD world) Brambleclawx 22:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Examiner.com is a load of people sounding off as if they know everything and pretending to be "experts". Not exactly reliable, then... I only know that because I tried to add it once then got told off by the Wikisoftware thingy that you came across. Are you using Twinkle to AfD Or are you doing it manually? I found the AfD anyway. Not sure what happened but it seems to have resolved itself as phase 3 when through OK (at least, eventually): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_18#Twilight:_The_Musical --Jubilee♫clipman 22:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Manually. You should know by now! I don't use any tools, Twinkle , Huggle, or Igloo. (or for that matter Rollback). Anyways, I freaked out pretty badly, and went to WP:VPT and begged for help. Someone did it for me. Brambleclawx 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah... I forgot for a moment there! Um. Perhaps the problem is that the previous AfD links to Examiner (it was only blacklisted very recently)? Not sure... but that would be my guess. Presumably, the VPT editors didn't know either? Anyhoo... I wouldn't get freaked out too much: as I say I got that scary page, too, once and I survived! Let me know if it happens again though (i.e. next time you AfD...) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm getting busy in RL again (teachers just love piling on work as exams approach), so I will be semi-wikibreak until... maybe Jun. 24. I will still be watchlist patrolling everyday if possible though. Brambleclawx 23:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. My big move to my dad's place is coming up very soon so I'll probably not be on-line much as I frantically try to sort out my packing at the last minute, as usual—I have moved about 20 times in as many years! When I get there, he will be my number one priority, obviously, so I won't be active much, though I will keep in touch with my adoptee, WP:CTM and you lot as best I can. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the same situation as BcX. If you haven't checked :), my edits have been decreasing the past few days. I'll be back in early June! Airplaneman ✈ 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, and Brambleclawx, consider getting another browser (such as Google Chrome) so you can use tools. That way, it'll make tedious stuff like AfD listing and vandal warning easier. Airplaneman ✈ 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S. I also tried and failed in creating a blog (www.airplaneman.blogger.com) for out more random comments. My account got disabled and they asked for my mobile phone number for confirmation...?!?! So in short, I have run into a roadblock in that front for now. And I'm constructing a Wiki for a school project. I'm putting my Wiki-skills to good use! It's quite epicly exciting :) erm... yes, that was Wiki-related, totally... Airplaneman ✈ 23:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, the Cat hates tools: he avoids them like the plague. As far as the off-WP stuff is concerned: why not create a Wiki? No, seriously: one of us creates a Wiki-site for themselves. Something like http://www.oscarvandillen.com/ (He is the guy whose article I sent to AfD... only to find out that he is actually this guy...) Note that you have to register to edit. We could just use our same usernames. Anyway, we re all in the same boat then—or rather separate boats sailing away from each other! BTW, I commented over at Lawler's SPI and the editor has now written a defence --Jubilee♫clipman 00:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe in a couple of years, when I have my own computer, I will use tools. But for now, everything feels like a mini-adventure, and it's fun that way. I could set up either a Webs.com forum or some sort of lame-wiki-wannabe thing on Google Sites, but both require registration, which means revealing our email addresses to whoever sets up the site (and possibly the other people in the site too). Other editors, this is Wikipedia related: it has to do with setting up a way to not use Wikipedia for anything too MYSPACEY. Brambleclawx 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you misunderstand here, read the edit summary :) Airplaneman ✈ 00:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood :) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me if I seem a bit demeaning or anything, but I think you might be in need of an actual wikibreak.; you know, sometimes, after an absence, we feel recharged, and more ready to work on Wikipedia. Just a suggestion. Brambleclawx 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You are probably right, actually. I have kind of blown my self out recently first with the infobox RfC then with the MoS audits. No wonder I am a bit erratic at the moment. Thank you Brambleclawx. I might look up that bot that stops you logging in actually --Jubilee♫clipman 01:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a bot; its a javascript thing that is inserted into your monobook.js, though I guess its vector.js now. Be careful with it, we don't want to lose you forever. Brambleclawx 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You can still edit as an IP, though... Anyway, a week or or so with or without the enforcer wouldn't be a bad idea and I really do need to look after my dad rather than worry about things like "is X an RS or not?", "what exactly does Y mean in in such-and-such a guideline?", the behaviour of user-Z. Wikipediholicism really does exist! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it exists. I see proof of it when I find that I've been using the computer for so long that the monitor starts getting flickery from overheating probably. Brambleclawx 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope that's your eyes going all funny! I am serious. Anyway, I am still trying to decode the instructions for the enforcer... There is a much better explanation on the talkpage and I am really tempted to copy in over to the project page! Must resist... Must be Vector skin, though, that needs ch... I think I get it though: you put the date as say var date = { year: 2010, month: 6, day: 1} and time as var time = { hours: 20, minutes: 0, seconds: 0 } if you want to be away until 8pm (UTC) on 1st June 2010. Correct? Javascript confuses the heck out of me... (And I don't touch infobox coding etc, BTW) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I've never used it, and I'm not fluent in Javascript. Good luck. Brambleclawx 02:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But... but... Anyway, I asked on the talkpage. Not sure how often anyone looks at at it though as it still say monobook as you pointed out! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Thanks!

I totally forgot to change my age. Gracias!!! Homework2 TalkWhat I do 00:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's OK! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Intervals" template

Thanks for the thanks. Just a passing musician incorporating some tricks I've seen in other templates. 212.84.121.75 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! Hope you continue your great editing with or without an account! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Template loop

Did you mean to create a template loop here "User:Jubileeclipman/Ironbox"? I was just cleaning up the category and couldn't tell if this one was intentional. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It was intentional; please see here Airplaneman ✈ 02:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Plastikspork. As Airplaneman says, it is indeed intentional. I was just pushing the idea of overtemplating to the extreme on that page. I might work it a little to make my points clearer sometime. For example, all too often infoboxen merely repeat exactly what the article says so transcluding the article into the template is an attempt to make that point clear. Obviously, the loop is thus part of the "joke" --Jubilee♫clipman 20:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Dom & Roland" vs. "Dom and Roland"

Hello, could you have a look at various pages which contain both denominations? There should be a standard, and i think his official nickname is "Dom & Roland". --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Don't know much about him but my first impression from glancing at the page at Dom & Roland is that the ampersand is most likely because "and" it far too suggestive of two actual people (e.g. Morecambe and Wise, etc) while the symbol, being less understood these days, can be used in a subtly ironic manner just as appears to be the case in "Dom & Roland". Roland being the make of his sampler thus becomes an "extension" of Dom or his "shadow" or whatever. Maybe it's a bit like a joke version of adverts proclaiming "Vanessa-Mae & her violin" or whomever in other words. Perhaps, Ant & Dec can be explained because they are often seen as the "same" person—i.e. the exact opposite of Dom & Roland who is one person often seen as "two". OTOH, the use of ampersands v "and" is by no means consistent on WP, so all my ideas above might just be pure speculation. You have me fascinated by this question, now though, so I'll check it out --Jubilee♫clipman 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this further, this was a good call, IMO. The page was moved in 2005 from Dom and Roland but nobody seems to have updated the lead till now. (Unfortunately it appears to be weird sort of cut-and-paste move plus history merge so the move isn't logged in the history of Dom & Roland.) A quick Google suggests that the drummer calls himself "Dom & Roland": MySpace Also, most site I have seen so far seem to favour the ampersand: Discogs, Outlar etc. Not found any really unequivocally reliable sources yet, however, so I can't confirm anything. Even his official site is confused (in more ways than one): http://www.domandroland.com/ I strongly favour the ampersand but it only my POV, therefore... I'll hunt around more though and see what turns up --Jubilee♫clipman 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Skynet (artist)

Help, the page needs expansion and citations --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)He's not going to be online for a few days; I don't think the page meets our notability guidelines at first glance. Myspace is not a reliable source. Airplaneman ✈ 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
@Jubilee: see here and here as well. Airplaneman ✈ 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Tyler, please follow the instructions I gave on your talk page regarding making a draft copy if you believe you can create a worthwhile article here. This will give you the time to collect sources and build on the article without having to worry about the page being speedily deleted. It seems that this article may not meet the notability guideline, however, so if you can't get any referenced, drafting won't make a difference.
Sorry I noticed it was unusual that Airplaneman used a talkback to a different user's talk back, saw the talk page stalker thing and I had to join in. ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know, speedily deleting Skynet before it has chance to nuke us all would solve a lot of problems. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Talkback

Hello, Iadmc. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathe (Pink Floyd song)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You asked parenthetically whether Andy Mabbett was the author of the book. This (linked from his user page) seems to indicate it is the same person. Not that it really makes any difference to anything, but you did ask... --John (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the info on Andy. I guess it is little wonder that many Wikipedians are published authors and that those authors concentrate on the subject of their books. No real COI, as I say, it just helps place editors in context --Jubilee♫clipman 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Inversions.jpg

I've redone File:Inversions.jpg as File:Inversions.png for clarity and switched them on Post-tonal music theory. What do you think? Hyacinth (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hyacinth, that looks much better! My horrible messy thing was meant as a pro tem measure but I forgot about it. The article needs a few tweaks, perhaps, but RL is getting the better of me at the moment so I am less able to contribute than I'd like at the moment --Jubilee♫clipman 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Copy of what I put on my talkpage as a response to you

Thanks for your help! Now while your reading this can I ask you quickly three very unimportant questions? How you did you get that "status: online" thing on the top of your talk page, did you use {{REVISIONUSER}} for your editnotice to diplay the name of the viewer and how does that work, and last (and most pathetic) question: are there really people watching your talkpage? I've seen that on a few people's talkpages and always wondered...
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 07:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hello. yes, there are people watching his talkpage, like me. {{REVISIONUSER}} is a "magic word", of which there are many, like {{VIEWINGUSER}}, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, etc. (see WP:MAGIC for more). Finally the status online thing is obtained using {{statustop}} (read that article for how it works), and is mostly used by users who use the tool QUI, which is a way for users to see when other users are online. Hope this helps, as Jubileeclipman may be busy in real life, and may not actually answer this question himself for a while. Brambleclawx 22:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks BCx! That answers the TPS question quite neatly! I actually answered over at Mod mmg's talkpage as requested: I forgot to tick this off. Done now --Jubilee♫clipman 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

I have copied this here so you cant miss it, it concerns a conversation you took part in

Hi. I noticed your signature and was thinking that it is kind of confusing/distracting. I don't know if other people thinks this, it's just my opinion. Happy editing! Homework2 TalkWhat I do! 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with that. The Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose/Uh-huh link especially is not useful, IMO. See WP:SIGLINK. Also all the words make it look like a comment rather than a signature! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I love my signature actually! The black really catches the eye in a debate involving many people, which is the whole idea as people then read my comments.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Eyecatchingness is the same reason I made mine bold and included a <br /> to put it on its own line – but only to make it more obvious (to me or anyone else) which comments were mine. A black background looks more obtrusive and out-of-place. Also, it does not make me read your comments; it only tells me "Mod MMG wuz here".
My recommendation would be for you to go the route of xeno and use bold, black text with no special background. Lastly, there's no reason your username itself cannot also serve as a link to your user page.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It links to my talk page.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iadmc/Archive_7&oldid=1145838918"