This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Thanks for the bassoon info on the transposing instrument page. According the the boehm system article, neither bassoon nor oboe uses the Boehm fingering system. The paragraph was meant to only address Boehm system instruments; I was trying to focus the point and limit the discussion of exceptions. I could certainly be off-base, though - while I play single reeds and flute, I know (almost) nothing about double reeds. Special-T 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments - this is my first stab at editing.
I am far out of my depth in discussions of double-reed instruments, but I understand your point about the bassoon's "home" scale being F instead of C. I also know very little about the historical evolution of instruments, so I have no insight into any Boehm/Heckel discussions, but logically and gramatically I see your point about the Boehm article wording.
I realize that 'Why transpose at all' duplicates other sections - I plan to re-organize the article a little more. I think that addressing different aspects of transposing instruments in a clearer order would make the article easier to understand. I have explained transposing instruments to students (and other musicians...) for years, but explaining it verbally is quite different from explaining it clearly in writing! It can be a tough subject to understand. Thanks again for your help. Special-T 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've marked Surender Bhutani for speedy deletion since it is a non-notable person in Polish language. Much appreciated. Dr Debug ( Talk) 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have added three webpages with information about the Church of San Juan of Portomarín, one of them from the Instituto Cervantes. If you find it satisfactory, would you be so kind to remove the unreference tag? Thank you for your help, -- Garcilaso 11:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
fyi - as nobody else entered into a discussion, I have now dutifully changed the section on venues. BAK 06:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you have restored the paragraph on Talk:Tbilisi. I had removed it before because it looked very much like vandalism. It was written by an established POV-pusher User:ArmenianNY who posted his comment under the name of another Wikipedian, namely User:Ellsworth. Please check the page's history [1]. Thanks, Kober 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The sentence claimed something without any back-up whatsoever. WP could be dotted with such statements if they were allowed to pass. Obviously nearly all words have connections in various other languages. It wasn't clear in the sentence whether it was the dance or it was the word, which was being referred to. My edit can be improved upon. MelForbes 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It was originally done that way because I understood that links to references that required registration (free or not) were to be avoided. That was compounded by people removing information or putting an unsourced tag on because there was no reference at all. Did you see the comment at User talk:Wangi#United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Colin, if you're still interested in the above, I replied to your comment on that Humanities Reference Desk query (already archived!). -- Cheers, Deborahjay 08:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you please check this?
"Der Leiter der NSDAP Auslands-Organisation (AO), Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, wurde 1903 in Bradford geboren."
You will find it in the German Text under Bedeutende Persönlichkeiten. I think it could be wrong. Trolls maybe? Greetings -- 82.83.238.124 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Gabriel-Royce (German Wikipedia)
Re: the rude edit summary you wrote in conjunction with the unnecessary change you made to this article, "legitimate" is not a "bizarre" word in describing a theatre. As defined in the dictionary, "legitimate theatre designates one presenting professionally produced stage plays, as distinguished from motion pictures, vaudeville, etc." It's a common term. Additionally, there is no reed for a "reference" template, as the external link leads to the Official Website, which was the reference. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Finally got around to writing it - care to give a critique?-- Crestville 17:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You referred to Rhodymenia palmata...it is indeed a synonym of Palmaria palmata (dulse) An old synonym. Old synonyms are usually noted in (brackets). Sometimes there ccan be several or even more synonyms. You may find "Algaebase" interesting ...I wll return to this note when I'v checked the website. Osborne ( talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some dialects are more conservative in some areas then others, but taking all things considered, which is the most conservative? 70.74.35.144 ( talk) 08:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Impact Theatre Co-operative, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Impact Theatre Co-operative.
—dgies
t
c 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Colin. Remember me, the Impact Theatre Co-operative guy. You will have seen the notice above. Is there anything that we can do to stop the article from getting deleted? I have no way of establishing notability beyond what is on the web, and as we discovered earlier there is not much to go on. (I just had another look.) There were many newspaper articles on the company at the time, but they are not on the papers' websites. I would have thought the Hoban connection itself would have been enough to pacify the deletionists, but obviously not. Any thoughts? Best wishes, -- Richardrj talk email 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Great work - thanks very much. The more I read about Impact, the luckier I feel to have seen even just two of their productions (when I was just 16 or 17!). -- Richardrj talk email 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Colin! I've added a response to your query and hope it point in a helpful direction (and isn't too late...). I don't know the grammatical terms for the various passive forms, nor am I all that knowledgeable on the topic, but as an archivist in Holocaust-era history, I know there are Web-accessible information resources on Jewish burial customs so you're not restricted to local resources. I hope you'll be able to clear this up (by the unveiling date?) to everyone's satisfation, and that you and your family will know no more sorrow and be free to cherish the memory of your late mother. -- Best, Deborahjay ( talk) 07:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Could you point me in the direction of the previous AfD, as I can't find it to check before i delete. Thanks. Ged UK 18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that nobody says *I are or even *I aren't suggests that nobody interprets aren't in aren't I as a contraction of are not. And of course I believe in prescriptive grammar as a social phenomenon: I just don't believe that it has much to do with the grammar of English (or any other language). -- ColinFine ( talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Kara Kennedy Allen - a page you tagged - because: article has changed significantly since last AfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just got your message today. Who was offended by my userpage? Is it the sole purpose of Wikipedia to promote knowledge, as so many youngsters today from around the world have easily and quickly discovered? Had my Userpage contained intimate details about Satan instead, would Wikipedia find the same to be just as offensive? Ronewirl ( talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what I should put in my article for House of Heroes. (for the stuff saying don't put the song meaning in if it's a rumor, only if it has reliable sources) I'm going to try to make that article much better. Thanks. User: Moptopstyle1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
Sadly, English philology is a much-maligned field today, and not the subject of much lay interest either, and therefore particularly subject to misinterpretation. I manage to chip in with what I can, now and then. Nevertheless, I thank you for your appreciation. Voltigeur ( talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I just copied this from our recent discussions, and it would be appreciated if you could point any errors and be able to provide the grammatical reasons (here bellow or in my talk page). If you want, please delete this post once you read. Thank you.
Or, here are few other options:
I expected somethings else, but there are some additional information as well. Thanks. —Mihkaw napéw ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For your work on the Help Desk, New contributors' help page and the Research Desk -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 13:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
In case you're interested, I have started a proposal to have Mihkaw napew banned from responding to comments on the Language reference desk. The relevant thread is WT:RD#This is not working. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted the question on malysz as nearly no one who responsded appeared to think it was a genuine question and give the history of similar questions from that IP. Feel free to discuss it here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Why can't X be a Y word: Proposed response Nil Einne ( talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your correction! I was so overjoyed to find a "mistake" I could fix I didn't think that it might have been correct initially. Once again, thanks, especially for being so nice about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.108.96 ( talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I should have dropped you a note about the removal; all I remembered to do was mention the removal on the discussion page. Since I was able to discern a question that had an answer, your unhelpful paragraph seemed ripe for removal. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have removed it if the question had been true gibberish and I had nothing to contribute. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on this poor, tortured page. Although it remains a stub, every now and then it is vandalised and then corrected by what appears to be on the one hand a hostile element of the readership, and on the other hand an element of the newspaper staff. I'm an outsider and my only interest has been providing images, and then watching it for vandalism. I get the feeling that the bit about being printed in India is either not true, or is a disputed point. Either way, there is no citation for it. Several of us try to keep the page tidy, but only the edit-war guys appear to have any inside knowledge. Ah, well. We can but try.-- Storye book ( talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there were two reasons I changed it. Firstly, the data I was using runs from 1998-2009 and I felt only mentioning the start without the end would make it sound dated. I was going to state 'between 1998-2009' but that would imply the changes have definitively ended, when in reality they are ongoing. Secondly, even though the council website talks about changes since 1998, I noticed that this just happened to 'coincide' with the exact year that the Lib Dem council come into power (after 25 years of Labour/NOC). Obviously, I know this isn't a real issue because all councils/organisations will put emphasis on actions that occurred under their tenureship, but I just felt using 'during the last decade' was a little more neutral and took away the focus on the changes in the economy being so closely linked to a change in the council. I have no problems if you want to revert the last edit. Cheers -- Daviessimo ( talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me if this is not the right place to respond to you rmessage; I'm not a usual Wikipedia user.
If you have consulted sources that recommend translating "carmen" for "song", it's ok, although I don't see any reference which supports it either. I've always translated it for "poem" -or some kind of poetic composition-, or in cases like this for "chant", taking into account the mediaeval meaning of "chant" in most romance languages, which included "poetic composition", even more than "musical composition". I suppose "song" would fit too, if we take "song" with it's "real" meaning, that's why I say if you think it's better then it's ok, but I think for modern readers "song" is too identified with music, and even more, with pop or popular music; I thought "chant" might still keep some of its ancient relation with literature and some kind of cultural "stature".
Also, I must admit I edited the article influenced by the almost telegraphic french article in WP: "« Poèmes de Beuren » (traduction littérale du latin) ou « Chants de Beuern »"
and Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana, which are entitled "Carmina burana: Cantiones profanae cantoribus et choris cantandae comitantibus instrumentis atque imaginibus magicis". He didn't write "Cantiones Burana: Cantiones profanae etc" or "Carmina burana: Carmina profanae etc". He wanted to make a difference between "carmen" and "cantio", "poem/chant" and "song". So, well... that's why I thought "chant" was better, but, again, if you think "song" fits well, ok, its fine. Sorry for messing in your article.
Best regards. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.37.145.47 (
talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the imput. Can you pleaese give me a citation for the entry? I do not have access to the Oxford dictionary. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Please add your comments after what they're directly in reply to, instead of indiscriminately throwing them in at the bottom of the section (something which can disrupt the logical flow of discussion, and in the case of a discussion with many participants can quickly become rather annoying). AnonMoos ( talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! You seem knowlegeable about the subject of zoology. I am also working animal related articles of Wikipedia. I have had some debate with some other editors (administrator?) about using subfamilies. It seems that some have taken it upon themselves to delete information on subfamilies which are useful to readers. Have you had any frustrations with this?
I checked the Wikipedia Taxon page ( Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage ) and found this: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, PLUS minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." Was some council of the scholars held deciding more? What are your thoughts on this?
Cheers, bruinfan12
Cheers, Bruinfan12 ( talk) 08:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Bruinfan12 ( talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine, sorry about that, I didn't know it was copied off Facebook, I can't go on www.facebook.com so I can't check it. As for understating the problems, I was just trying to avoid WP:BITE. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine, I did some changes to the article as you also suggested me, so I was wandering if my article is now ok or still not ok to be published ?-- Oxbowoly ( talk) 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok ColinFine, I'll start from the beginning again. I checked the WP:BAND before that's why I started to write an article as they fit the criteria for a band. I started to write something because they were red inked at the Pukkelpop festival wikipedia article. Anyways, won't be for today as I call it a day after 2 days trying to write my first wikipedia article. Thanks for your help.-- Oxbowoly ( talk) 22:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
ColinFine - you marked two articles related to free shows for deletion - However I think they are both very important. I have added the following reason why I don;t think they should be deleted to both discussions and would like your advice in how they can be updated and the deletion notice removed.
The importance of the Laughing Horse Free Festival and PBH Free Fringe cannot be understated at Edinburgh Fringe... and therefore on Wikipedia. C Venues is just another collection of venues with the same business model that puts artists into debt. However the Free Festival and Free Fringe are challenging this traditional model in order to give artists and the public an alternative. See Harry Deansway's article about how much the traditional model costs performers [2]
The importance of Free [3]
The Free Venues give artists an alternative that is not as costly. For a long time Free Venues were seen as second rate. Artists felt that they could not get reviewed unless they did a paid show. However this is becoming less and less the case and Imran Yusuf's Fosters award for Best Newcomer in a free venue is really ground breaking. [4]
There are also large differences between Laughing Horse Free Festival and PBH Free Festival which are growing to provide two distinct opportunities to performers. PBH is a purist who feels the Free Venues should be run as a collective with everyone putting in an equal amount of work for the good of the group. Laughing Horse's approach is more commercial and aims to find an alternative business model which is economically sustainable but is a much cheaper option for punters and performers. This difference means that Laughing Horse is able to provide more support in terms of PR and marketing for performers, something which is set to grow. Laughing Horse is not adverse to sponsorship and just missed out on a large deal for this years event [5] comment added by Bobslayer ( talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It would seem one "Sven Manguard" sees it fit to nominate my userpage for deletion. Is the "issue" still unresolved? Ronewirl ( talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I had issues with naming this article and I'm not sure we are there yet. It is destined to be linked to the already misnamed National Track and Field Hall of Fame, of which this Hall of Fame is a subsection. "National" is extremely jingoistic or Americentric, exclusionary to the rest of the world, particularly the english speaking world. However, that name is not only spread throughout wikipedia, but is also embedded in WP:ATH Guideline, thus a condition of notability. Obviously, this Hall is not limited to Track and Field as it has Roadrunners and Racewalkers. Both of those sub-categories are under the administration of USATF, but politically those groups also take offense at the name of the organization (being exclusionary to those groups in name by omission). Most specifically, USATF was left off of the National Hall of Fame article title. Their administration is potentially fleeting, the organization changed name in 1991 and was created in 1978 to replace the AAU. Masters specifically has a political movement aimed at seceding from USATF which potentially might happen in the next decade. Sure, all this can be accomplished by wiki redirect, but I was trying to take all this into account in creating the (more generic sounding) name. Trackinfo ( talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Colin-- Thanks for the feedback on my proposal. I've added the citation back in as you suggested. Look good otherwise? Thanks, -- CBuiltother ( talk) 15:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If you recall on the New Contributors Help page, you replied to my question about the article plasq being like an advertisement. I've done a little work (though a lot still needs to be done), and was wondering if you could look at it and tell me if it is progressing in the right direction. I've added other some other references, not just the company's web page, I've added a history section (which needs a lot of work, still), and I removed some of the more minor products. I would appreciate it if you could just take a look at it and give me some feedback. Thanks for helping, and I hope I'm not bugging you! -- Thekmc ( talk) 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm glad it's better. Thanks again for your help. -- Thekmc ( talk) 23:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks so much for helping me with plasq. I appreciate your help a lot. Great work! -- Thekmc ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for the message. Intentional. You removed more than just what the IP added; you removed some material that had been in the article for a while, is adequately referenced, and seems notable enough to me. It was the first production by a professional repertory company, so it seems OK to me. Feel free to leave a message on the article's talk page if you disagree. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know which of the entries in WP:ELNO you believe that the link at docs.google.com violated. Naraht ( talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If this was an AfD or policy debate, I would welcome discussion of semantics, but on the new contributor's help page it is completely out-of-place. In this case, I made one mention of importance as a synonym for notability (having used that word several times already) in order to help the new user understand what I was talking about. By all means nitpick elsewhere, but otherwise assume with ~40 created articles and 6,000 edits I know the difference between importance and notability, and am deliberately simplifying terms to aid the new user. Thanks Jebus989 ✰ 15:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Naturally, I appreciate that you were on hand to mediate the dispute about Abū al-Wafā' Būzjānī. No reply necessary. Seanwal111111 ( talk) 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Because you are Fine by name and fine by nature!
Manytexts (
talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Your bot has made a number of spelling and punctuation changes to this page, but -
Yours, -- ColinFine 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Osborne ( talk)== Topdog == Good day Colin. Thanks for your comments. I started searching for other references to Top/under dog and saw pits, so far without any luck. I note that the term 'dog' was widely used for the 'hinge' on hinged structures on ships - port holes, etc. I will keep on digging. Any help would be much appreciated. Rosser 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added a citation for Joe Ray and have therefore undone your undoing of him being added to the list of OMTs. 90.195.15.129 ( talk) 09:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this edit, Colin. I was kind of confused about "ignore" there until you explained. FWIW the German verb "ignorieren" means what it appears to mean in English: to brush off, disregard, ignore, slight. Regards, Tonywalton Talk 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your comments Wow, as this is my first attempt to create a page I'd no idea it was so complicated.
I'm a bit thrown by the citation requirements as I guessed all the information I got is easily verifiable in the public realm. But I know I said he "published numerous papers" for example - which is very unspecific, but he sent me a long bibliography which I gather was also in Brighton University website until he left, but that would be daft to detail. He should be widely known, but this is not his CV!
I'll give it a go, and any further thoughts very gratefully received. Cheers, Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie melville ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I've had another break in work and a chance to get together a pile of citations - 2 to 3 pages A4 reviews, citations, awards of his writing - which I hope makes sense... I have gone through WP:YFA but I must be a bear of very little brain as I can't really see how to insert the stuff. How can I show to see if this is the material you felt necessary?. Thanks a lot. Laurie melville ( talk) 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Two points:
FYI, [6] - all help welcome, of course. Cheers! Chzz ► 15:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you the expert in charge of personal security at Wikipedia ? You were the person/entity that responded to my question regarding exclusion from the Wikipedia database. Please help me find the correct procedure to person/entity to ensure my name cannot be used in the Wikipedia database. I am looking for a person/entity that can thoughtfully discuss my concerns, which perhaps are more strange, unique, and/or important than is obvious. Thank you for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.137.21 ( talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of ART Co., Ltd - a page you tagged - because: Seems to have produced plenty of articles notable enough for articles. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A speedy deletion declined that is interesting, as there seems to be too many unsupported claims for these on Wikipedia and somewhat misuse or administrative privileges. Thanks Ged UK for this insight. CatWizard777 ( talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noted that you seem to always place your comments below the last post and indented one step further. This typically means the post is in response to the post above and to the left (by one indent). As a correct example:
Original post.~~~~
and so on. The following however, is quite incorrect:
Original post.~~~~
The third post in this thread is indented in such a way as to denote that it is in response to the second post. This can get very confusing.
I'm sorry if my pointing this out seems patronizing or needlessly prissy, but it is often difficult to tell who you (and others who do the same thing) are talking to. We have this guide to advise users how to maintain continuity with regard to the use of indents in discussion threads. fredgandt 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No indent, blank line between.
No indent, blank line between.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Thanks for the bassoon info on the transposing instrument page. According the the boehm system article, neither bassoon nor oboe uses the Boehm fingering system. The paragraph was meant to only address Boehm system instruments; I was trying to focus the point and limit the discussion of exceptions. I could certainly be off-base, though - while I play single reeds and flute, I know (almost) nothing about double reeds. Special-T 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments - this is my first stab at editing.
I am far out of my depth in discussions of double-reed instruments, but I understand your point about the bassoon's "home" scale being F instead of C. I also know very little about the historical evolution of instruments, so I have no insight into any Boehm/Heckel discussions, but logically and gramatically I see your point about the Boehm article wording.
I realize that 'Why transpose at all' duplicates other sections - I plan to re-organize the article a little more. I think that addressing different aspects of transposing instruments in a clearer order would make the article easier to understand. I have explained transposing instruments to students (and other musicians...) for years, but explaining it verbally is quite different from explaining it clearly in writing! It can be a tough subject to understand. Thanks again for your help. Special-T 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've marked Surender Bhutani for speedy deletion since it is a non-notable person in Polish language. Much appreciated. Dr Debug ( Talk) 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have added three webpages with information about the Church of San Juan of Portomarín, one of them from the Instituto Cervantes. If you find it satisfactory, would you be so kind to remove the unreference tag? Thank you for your help, -- Garcilaso 11:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
fyi - as nobody else entered into a discussion, I have now dutifully changed the section on venues. BAK 06:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you have restored the paragraph on Talk:Tbilisi. I had removed it before because it looked very much like vandalism. It was written by an established POV-pusher User:ArmenianNY who posted his comment under the name of another Wikipedian, namely User:Ellsworth. Please check the page's history [1]. Thanks, Kober 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The sentence claimed something without any back-up whatsoever. WP could be dotted with such statements if they were allowed to pass. Obviously nearly all words have connections in various other languages. It wasn't clear in the sentence whether it was the dance or it was the word, which was being referred to. My edit can be improved upon. MelForbes 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It was originally done that way because I understood that links to references that required registration (free or not) were to be avoided. That was compounded by people removing information or putting an unsourced tag on because there was no reference at all. Did you see the comment at User talk:Wangi#United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Colin, if you're still interested in the above, I replied to your comment on that Humanities Reference Desk query (already archived!). -- Cheers, Deborahjay 08:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you please check this?
"Der Leiter der NSDAP Auslands-Organisation (AO), Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, wurde 1903 in Bradford geboren."
You will find it in the German Text under Bedeutende Persönlichkeiten. I think it could be wrong. Trolls maybe? Greetings -- 82.83.238.124 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Gabriel-Royce (German Wikipedia)
Re: the rude edit summary you wrote in conjunction with the unnecessary change you made to this article, "legitimate" is not a "bizarre" word in describing a theatre. As defined in the dictionary, "legitimate theatre designates one presenting professionally produced stage plays, as distinguished from motion pictures, vaudeville, etc." It's a common term. Additionally, there is no reed for a "reference" template, as the external link leads to the Official Website, which was the reference. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Finally got around to writing it - care to give a critique?-- Crestville 17:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You referred to Rhodymenia palmata...it is indeed a synonym of Palmaria palmata (dulse) An old synonym. Old synonyms are usually noted in (brackets). Sometimes there ccan be several or even more synonyms. You may find "Algaebase" interesting ...I wll return to this note when I'v checked the website. Osborne ( talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some dialects are more conservative in some areas then others, but taking all things considered, which is the most conservative? 70.74.35.144 ( talk) 08:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Impact Theatre Co-operative, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Impact Theatre Co-operative.
—dgies
t
c 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Colin. Remember me, the Impact Theatre Co-operative guy. You will have seen the notice above. Is there anything that we can do to stop the article from getting deleted? I have no way of establishing notability beyond what is on the web, and as we discovered earlier there is not much to go on. (I just had another look.) There were many newspaper articles on the company at the time, but they are not on the papers' websites. I would have thought the Hoban connection itself would have been enough to pacify the deletionists, but obviously not. Any thoughts? Best wishes, -- Richardrj talk email 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Great work - thanks very much. The more I read about Impact, the luckier I feel to have seen even just two of their productions (when I was just 16 or 17!). -- Richardrj talk email 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Colin! I've added a response to your query and hope it point in a helpful direction (and isn't too late...). I don't know the grammatical terms for the various passive forms, nor am I all that knowledgeable on the topic, but as an archivist in Holocaust-era history, I know there are Web-accessible information resources on Jewish burial customs so you're not restricted to local resources. I hope you'll be able to clear this up (by the unveiling date?) to everyone's satisfation, and that you and your family will know no more sorrow and be free to cherish the memory of your late mother. -- Best, Deborahjay ( talk) 07:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Could you point me in the direction of the previous AfD, as I can't find it to check before i delete. Thanks. Ged UK 18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that nobody says *I are or even *I aren't suggests that nobody interprets aren't in aren't I as a contraction of are not. And of course I believe in prescriptive grammar as a social phenomenon: I just don't believe that it has much to do with the grammar of English (or any other language). -- ColinFine ( talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Kara Kennedy Allen - a page you tagged - because: article has changed significantly since last AfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just got your message today. Who was offended by my userpage? Is it the sole purpose of Wikipedia to promote knowledge, as so many youngsters today from around the world have easily and quickly discovered? Had my Userpage contained intimate details about Satan instead, would Wikipedia find the same to be just as offensive? Ronewirl ( talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what I should put in my article for House of Heroes. (for the stuff saying don't put the song meaning in if it's a rumor, only if it has reliable sources) I'm going to try to make that article much better. Thanks. User: Moptopstyle1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
Sadly, English philology is a much-maligned field today, and not the subject of much lay interest either, and therefore particularly subject to misinterpretation. I manage to chip in with what I can, now and then. Nevertheless, I thank you for your appreciation. Voltigeur ( talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I just copied this from our recent discussions, and it would be appreciated if you could point any errors and be able to provide the grammatical reasons (here bellow or in my talk page). If you want, please delete this post once you read. Thank you.
Or, here are few other options:
I expected somethings else, but there are some additional information as well. Thanks. —Mihkaw napéw ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For your work on the Help Desk, New contributors' help page and the Research Desk -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 13:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
In case you're interested, I have started a proposal to have Mihkaw napew banned from responding to comments on the Language reference desk. The relevant thread is WT:RD#This is not working. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted the question on malysz as nearly no one who responsded appeared to think it was a genuine question and give the history of similar questions from that IP. Feel free to discuss it here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Why can't X be a Y word: Proposed response Nil Einne ( talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your correction! I was so overjoyed to find a "mistake" I could fix I didn't think that it might have been correct initially. Once again, thanks, especially for being so nice about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.108.96 ( talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I should have dropped you a note about the removal; all I remembered to do was mention the removal on the discussion page. Since I was able to discern a question that had an answer, your unhelpful paragraph seemed ripe for removal. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have removed it if the question had been true gibberish and I had nothing to contribute. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on this poor, tortured page. Although it remains a stub, every now and then it is vandalised and then corrected by what appears to be on the one hand a hostile element of the readership, and on the other hand an element of the newspaper staff. I'm an outsider and my only interest has been providing images, and then watching it for vandalism. I get the feeling that the bit about being printed in India is either not true, or is a disputed point. Either way, there is no citation for it. Several of us try to keep the page tidy, but only the edit-war guys appear to have any inside knowledge. Ah, well. We can but try.-- Storye book ( talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there were two reasons I changed it. Firstly, the data I was using runs from 1998-2009 and I felt only mentioning the start without the end would make it sound dated. I was going to state 'between 1998-2009' but that would imply the changes have definitively ended, when in reality they are ongoing. Secondly, even though the council website talks about changes since 1998, I noticed that this just happened to 'coincide' with the exact year that the Lib Dem council come into power (after 25 years of Labour/NOC). Obviously, I know this isn't a real issue because all councils/organisations will put emphasis on actions that occurred under their tenureship, but I just felt using 'during the last decade' was a little more neutral and took away the focus on the changes in the economy being so closely linked to a change in the council. I have no problems if you want to revert the last edit. Cheers -- Daviessimo ( talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me if this is not the right place to respond to you rmessage; I'm not a usual Wikipedia user.
If you have consulted sources that recommend translating "carmen" for "song", it's ok, although I don't see any reference which supports it either. I've always translated it for "poem" -or some kind of poetic composition-, or in cases like this for "chant", taking into account the mediaeval meaning of "chant" in most romance languages, which included "poetic composition", even more than "musical composition". I suppose "song" would fit too, if we take "song" with it's "real" meaning, that's why I say if you think it's better then it's ok, but I think for modern readers "song" is too identified with music, and even more, with pop or popular music; I thought "chant" might still keep some of its ancient relation with literature and some kind of cultural "stature".
Also, I must admit I edited the article influenced by the almost telegraphic french article in WP: "« Poèmes de Beuren » (traduction littérale du latin) ou « Chants de Beuern »"
and Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana, which are entitled "Carmina burana: Cantiones profanae cantoribus et choris cantandae comitantibus instrumentis atque imaginibus magicis". He didn't write "Cantiones Burana: Cantiones profanae etc" or "Carmina burana: Carmina profanae etc". He wanted to make a difference between "carmen" and "cantio", "poem/chant" and "song". So, well... that's why I thought "chant" was better, but, again, if you think "song" fits well, ok, its fine. Sorry for messing in your article.
Best regards. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.37.145.47 (
talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the imput. Can you pleaese give me a citation for the entry? I do not have access to the Oxford dictionary. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Please add your comments after what they're directly in reply to, instead of indiscriminately throwing them in at the bottom of the section (something which can disrupt the logical flow of discussion, and in the case of a discussion with many participants can quickly become rather annoying). AnonMoos ( talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! You seem knowlegeable about the subject of zoology. I am also working animal related articles of Wikipedia. I have had some debate with some other editors (administrator?) about using subfamilies. It seems that some have taken it upon themselves to delete information on subfamilies which are useful to readers. Have you had any frustrations with this?
I checked the Wikipedia Taxon page ( Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage ) and found this: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, PLUS minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." Was some council of the scholars held deciding more? What are your thoughts on this?
Cheers, bruinfan12
Cheers, Bruinfan12 ( talk) 08:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Bruinfan12 ( talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine, sorry about that, I didn't know it was copied off Facebook, I can't go on www.facebook.com so I can't check it. As for understating the problems, I was just trying to avoid WP:BITE. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine, I did some changes to the article as you also suggested me, so I was wandering if my article is now ok or still not ok to be published ?-- Oxbowoly ( talk) 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok ColinFine, I'll start from the beginning again. I checked the WP:BAND before that's why I started to write an article as they fit the criteria for a band. I started to write something because they were red inked at the Pukkelpop festival wikipedia article. Anyways, won't be for today as I call it a day after 2 days trying to write my first wikipedia article. Thanks for your help.-- Oxbowoly ( talk) 22:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
ColinFine - you marked two articles related to free shows for deletion - However I think they are both very important. I have added the following reason why I don;t think they should be deleted to both discussions and would like your advice in how they can be updated and the deletion notice removed.
The importance of the Laughing Horse Free Festival and PBH Free Fringe cannot be understated at Edinburgh Fringe... and therefore on Wikipedia. C Venues is just another collection of venues with the same business model that puts artists into debt. However the Free Festival and Free Fringe are challenging this traditional model in order to give artists and the public an alternative. See Harry Deansway's article about how much the traditional model costs performers [2]
The importance of Free [3]
The Free Venues give artists an alternative that is not as costly. For a long time Free Venues were seen as second rate. Artists felt that they could not get reviewed unless they did a paid show. However this is becoming less and less the case and Imran Yusuf's Fosters award for Best Newcomer in a free venue is really ground breaking. [4]
There are also large differences between Laughing Horse Free Festival and PBH Free Festival which are growing to provide two distinct opportunities to performers. PBH is a purist who feels the Free Venues should be run as a collective with everyone putting in an equal amount of work for the good of the group. Laughing Horse's approach is more commercial and aims to find an alternative business model which is economically sustainable but is a much cheaper option for punters and performers. This difference means that Laughing Horse is able to provide more support in terms of PR and marketing for performers, something which is set to grow. Laughing Horse is not adverse to sponsorship and just missed out on a large deal for this years event [5] comment added by Bobslayer ( talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It would seem one "Sven Manguard" sees it fit to nominate my userpage for deletion. Is the "issue" still unresolved? Ronewirl ( talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I had issues with naming this article and I'm not sure we are there yet. It is destined to be linked to the already misnamed National Track and Field Hall of Fame, of which this Hall of Fame is a subsection. "National" is extremely jingoistic or Americentric, exclusionary to the rest of the world, particularly the english speaking world. However, that name is not only spread throughout wikipedia, but is also embedded in WP:ATH Guideline, thus a condition of notability. Obviously, this Hall is not limited to Track and Field as it has Roadrunners and Racewalkers. Both of those sub-categories are under the administration of USATF, but politically those groups also take offense at the name of the organization (being exclusionary to those groups in name by omission). Most specifically, USATF was left off of the National Hall of Fame article title. Their administration is potentially fleeting, the organization changed name in 1991 and was created in 1978 to replace the AAU. Masters specifically has a political movement aimed at seceding from USATF which potentially might happen in the next decade. Sure, all this can be accomplished by wiki redirect, but I was trying to take all this into account in creating the (more generic sounding) name. Trackinfo ( talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Colin-- Thanks for the feedback on my proposal. I've added the citation back in as you suggested. Look good otherwise? Thanks, -- CBuiltother ( talk) 15:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If you recall on the New Contributors Help page, you replied to my question about the article plasq being like an advertisement. I've done a little work (though a lot still needs to be done), and was wondering if you could look at it and tell me if it is progressing in the right direction. I've added other some other references, not just the company's web page, I've added a history section (which needs a lot of work, still), and I removed some of the more minor products. I would appreciate it if you could just take a look at it and give me some feedback. Thanks for helping, and I hope I'm not bugging you! -- Thekmc ( talk) 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm glad it's better. Thanks again for your help. -- Thekmc ( talk) 23:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks so much for helping me with plasq. I appreciate your help a lot. Great work! -- Thekmc ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for the message. Intentional. You removed more than just what the IP added; you removed some material that had been in the article for a while, is adequately referenced, and seems notable enough to me. It was the first production by a professional repertory company, so it seems OK to me. Feel free to leave a message on the article's talk page if you disagree. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know which of the entries in WP:ELNO you believe that the link at docs.google.com violated. Naraht ( talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If this was an AfD or policy debate, I would welcome discussion of semantics, but on the new contributor's help page it is completely out-of-place. In this case, I made one mention of importance as a synonym for notability (having used that word several times already) in order to help the new user understand what I was talking about. By all means nitpick elsewhere, but otherwise assume with ~40 created articles and 6,000 edits I know the difference between importance and notability, and am deliberately simplifying terms to aid the new user. Thanks Jebus989 ✰ 15:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Naturally, I appreciate that you were on hand to mediate the dispute about Abū al-Wafā' Būzjānī. No reply necessary. Seanwal111111 ( talk) 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Because you are Fine by name and fine by nature!
Manytexts (
talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Your bot has made a number of spelling and punctuation changes to this page, but -
Yours, -- ColinFine 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Osborne ( talk)== Topdog == Good day Colin. Thanks for your comments. I started searching for other references to Top/under dog and saw pits, so far without any luck. I note that the term 'dog' was widely used for the 'hinge' on hinged structures on ships - port holes, etc. I will keep on digging. Any help would be much appreciated. Rosser 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added a citation for Joe Ray and have therefore undone your undoing of him being added to the list of OMTs. 90.195.15.129 ( talk) 09:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this edit, Colin. I was kind of confused about "ignore" there until you explained. FWIW the German verb "ignorieren" means what it appears to mean in English: to brush off, disregard, ignore, slight. Regards, Tonywalton Talk 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your comments Wow, as this is my first attempt to create a page I'd no idea it was so complicated.
I'm a bit thrown by the citation requirements as I guessed all the information I got is easily verifiable in the public realm. But I know I said he "published numerous papers" for example - which is very unspecific, but he sent me a long bibliography which I gather was also in Brighton University website until he left, but that would be daft to detail. He should be widely known, but this is not his CV!
I'll give it a go, and any further thoughts very gratefully received. Cheers, Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie melville ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I've had another break in work and a chance to get together a pile of citations - 2 to 3 pages A4 reviews, citations, awards of his writing - which I hope makes sense... I have gone through WP:YFA but I must be a bear of very little brain as I can't really see how to insert the stuff. How can I show to see if this is the material you felt necessary?. Thanks a lot. Laurie melville ( talk) 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Two points:
FYI, [6] - all help welcome, of course. Cheers! Chzz ► 15:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you the expert in charge of personal security at Wikipedia ? You were the person/entity that responded to my question regarding exclusion from the Wikipedia database. Please help me find the correct procedure to person/entity to ensure my name cannot be used in the Wikipedia database. I am looking for a person/entity that can thoughtfully discuss my concerns, which perhaps are more strange, unique, and/or important than is obvious. Thank you for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.137.21 ( talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of ART Co., Ltd - a page you tagged - because: Seems to have produced plenty of articles notable enough for articles. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A speedy deletion declined that is interesting, as there seems to be too many unsupported claims for these on Wikipedia and somewhat misuse or administrative privileges. Thanks Ged UK for this insight. CatWizard777 ( talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noted that you seem to always place your comments below the last post and indented one step further. This typically means the post is in response to the post above and to the left (by one indent). As a correct example:
Original post.~~~~
and so on. The following however, is quite incorrect:
Original post.~~~~
The third post in this thread is indented in such a way as to denote that it is in response to the second post. This can get very confusing.
I'm sorry if my pointing this out seems patronizing or needlessly prissy, but it is often difficult to tell who you (and others who do the same thing) are talking to. We have this guide to advise users how to maintain continuity with regard to the use of indents in discussion threads. fredgandt 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No indent, blank line between.
No indent, blank line between.