I'm happy to discuss all my edits and any matters of common interest. Suggestions for how to improve my editing and articles to work on, especially in the field of music theory, are much appreciated. Ben Kidwell 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
There should be a wikiproject music, hold on...here we go Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres have fun :) Joe I 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to handle the talk, if it should've been done on your page (due to the notifications / alerts which would be sent) ... or if it should be on the wiki entry page, due to the fact that it's relevant to the entry. Please excuse me if this is rude. I have made my request for feedback on the actual wiki item's talk page. --Prasand J. 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
hi Ben, noticed that you were quick off the mark to flag the Bach keyboard article for a merge back to the main Bach article. I am unsure of how much you are involved with the current effort to raise JSB to FA status, but if you nose around you will see that there are serious concerns regarding the length of the JSB page even as it stands. Tony and others who are currently working on the main article are contemplating a split of the main article into several sections, so the separation out into several broader generic articles on Bach's works seems likely to pass muster with the principal contributors. Please feel free to weigh in on the discussions we are having either on the bach, my or tony's talk page. As it is, I will remove the merge tag until consensus arises. (You will note that the article redlinks a number of such articles now as part of the attempt to keep down the length). Eusebeus 11:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! When an article has the same title as its creator, you can just move it to their User space, and explain to them why you've done it (rather than marking it for speedy deletion). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for reverting the edition of 86.28.214.34 in the article Siam. His information was totally wrong. It seemed to be vandalism. Please keep an eye for me. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 09:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion. Awful but throughly delightful puns. Ray Talk 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
However, do you still think the Anthropic Principle deserves the NPOV tag? And why? The intro has been improved to address your concerns by focusing on the weak anthropic principle and the difference between weak and strong wordings and versions has been explained in other sections. Highlander ( talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss all my edits and any matters of common interest. Suggestions for how to improve my editing and articles to work on, especially in the field of music theory, are much appreciated. Ben Kidwell 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
There should be a wikiproject music, hold on...here we go Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres have fun :) Joe I 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to handle the talk, if it should've been done on your page (due to the notifications / alerts which would be sent) ... or if it should be on the wiki entry page, due to the fact that it's relevant to the entry. Please excuse me if this is rude. I have made my request for feedback on the actual wiki item's talk page. --Prasand J. 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
hi Ben, noticed that you were quick off the mark to flag the Bach keyboard article for a merge back to the main Bach article. I am unsure of how much you are involved with the current effort to raise JSB to FA status, but if you nose around you will see that there are serious concerns regarding the length of the JSB page even as it stands. Tony and others who are currently working on the main article are contemplating a split of the main article into several sections, so the separation out into several broader generic articles on Bach's works seems likely to pass muster with the principal contributors. Please feel free to weigh in on the discussions we are having either on the bach, my or tony's talk page. As it is, I will remove the merge tag until consensus arises. (You will note that the article redlinks a number of such articles now as part of the attempt to keep down the length). Eusebeus 11:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! When an article has the same title as its creator, you can just move it to their User space, and explain to them why you've done it (rather than marking it for speedy deletion). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for reverting the edition of 86.28.214.34 in the article Siam. His information was totally wrong. It seemed to be vandalism. Please keep an eye for me. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 09:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion. Awful but throughly delightful puns. Ray Talk 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
However, do you still think the Anthropic Principle deserves the NPOV tag? And why? The intro has been improved to address your concerns by focusing on the weak anthropic principle and the difference between weak and strong wordings and versions has been explained in other sections. Highlander ( talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)