User talk:Special-T

Trumpet

I agree that the trumpet article needs a lot of work. I've noticed your efforts and appreciate them. Welcome to Wikipedia!--Dbolton 07:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overtones

Here's the image as promised. Please put it into relevant articles as soon as possible. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More trumpet vandals

I noticed that you reverted some recent vandalism to Trumpet. There's another one on there and since I'm fairly new at this (haven't read up enough on reverting and the appropriate warnings, etc.), I thought I'd ask you to revert it and take the appropriate action. Thanks. Special-T 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I have gone ahead and reverted the vandalism. If you want to read more about reverting vandalism, check out WP:VAND. Thanks again, --Hansnesse 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Do you mean our anonymous friend who inserted links to videposters dot co dot uk again? Yes, as you no doubt saw I dealt with this yesterday. I am afraid the best way I know is going through the anon's contributions list and reverting them singly, which is probably what you did. Looking at the user's contributions, s/he spent three-quarters of an hour adding links that have been almost immediately removed - s/he will probably work out that it is not the best use of time, and that there are more effective methods of search-engine optimisation! Keep up the good work! Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 13:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Special-T! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bass clarinet category

A lot about the categories don't make sense. Anyway, you're right that it seems strange that the Bass clarinet article would be part of a category called "bass clarinetists." The most logical way would be to have the bass clarinet article in a category "Bass clarinet," then "Bass clarinetists" be a subcategory of that. But there's no "Bass clarinet" category right now because there's not really anything to put into it other than articles on bass clarinetists. In the future perhaps one could be added, to include articles on various models of bass clarinet or other bass-clarinet-related articles. For now, the main thing is to direct Wikipedia users to other related articles and categories so that they can further their research. Without including "Bass clarinetists" as a category there's no good way to do that. Badagnani 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least that's the way I've been doing it because to me the usefulness of the site is more important than being a stickler to the rules. It's very possible that having the players as a category in the instrument article is not kosher but I just don't see any other way to get our readers to the category otherwise. Badagnani 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. This seems most sensible, though many editors are very strict about not including overlapping categories, treating them as mutually exclusive. In many cases I disagree with this. Badagnani 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz

Thanks for your gentle reminder to clean up the grammar on my last jazz entry. Americasroof 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flat signs

I noticed the new round of flat sign changes on the trumpet article too. Apparently this isn't a problem for any of the main competitors to Internet Explorer, i.e. Mozilla/Firefox, Safari, or Opera. I was hoping this problem would fade away with time, since Microsoft is releasing a new version of IE in the next few months. Unfortunately, this bug has not been addressed in the current preview release (beta 3) of IE 7. The missing flat sign in IE is part of a wider issue: lack of support for mixed Unicode blocks (See Unicode and HTML#Web browser support). --Dbolton 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed some symbols to "flat" in the clarinet article on the basis of wanting to be more understandable. Apparently, there's a group who feel strongly against this, despite obvious problems with so many users seeing blank spaces. Just as the "real" flat sign is unsupported in some browsers, surely it is also difficult to comprehend for people outside or tangentially outside the music world, who have no idea what that "b" thing is. I'm in the music world myself, but think it would be far better to use English (spelling out "flat") rather than using a specialty symbol. If, that is, we want the most people to read and understand and comprehend, rather than merely being "correct" in our own small field. Yes? No? Other thoughts? (Wasn't sure where to put this, so I put it here.) QwertyUSA 11:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have been trying to develop a possible solution to the Unicode flats and sharps issue at the Manual of Style for music. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)#Unicode template for sharps and flats if you have an interest in this or care to comment.--Dbolton 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on ANI

I read your note in the Adminstrators' Noticeboard...on the vandalism-only account. I've reviewed the edits. With the exception of one/two edits, as you noted, they are all vandalism. I've placed a temporary block on the editor. — ERcheck (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploading

Drop me an email with the images attached and give me as much information about when, where and what was photographed. Also, let me know if you took them yourself or if there is another source and what license you would like them to have. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Rollins?

See my query there about yesterday's revert - I'm interested in understanding the reasons? AllyD 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rm linkspam?

Hi, I would like to understand why you removed Dave Douglas @ All About Jazz from the external links section of the article Dave Douglas (and links to other allaboutjazz.com pages from other jazz related articles). Your edit summary rm linkspam doesn't make it clear for me what your objections to that link are. Best regards, BNutzer 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found User_talk:Infrogmation#Jazz_link_-_spam.3F after posting the above ... BNutzer 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Jazz#Commercial_links for more discussion on this topic ... -- Nilinator 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd vandalism

Greetings! It took me a minute to figure it out before I reverted that one. Apparently the vandal copied and pasted the entire paragraph on "Renaissance self-awareness" into another section later in the article, so unless I'm missing something (not impossible) it should be right now. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

206.219.87.130 vandalism

Greetings! I've twice removed your report of User:206.219.87.130 vandalism from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The reason is that no vandalism has occurred past a {{uw-vandal4}} type warning or similar within the recent past. We do not operate on the immediate assumption that all edits from an IP are from the same person. The IP, especially one that is shared, could be used by anyone. In this particular case, there is no persistent chain of vandalism on related articles pointing to the possibility that this is a static IP used by a single person. As such, we must assume that we are dealing with multiple people, and use warnings appropriate to the occasion. With that in mind, we usually block an anon IP after they have continued vandalizing past a level 4 type warning that was given within the last 24 hours at most. This is why I've twice removed your report. I have left a level 2 warning on the IP's talk page. This, combined with the fact that there has been no activity from this IP for the last three hours means a block will have little, if any, effect on the person committing the vandalism. I hope this helps. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Special-T and Durin, and all! I agree that it is pretty certain that anon IPs are used by multiple users, and not all users are to be blamed for mis-use, but I have come across some/many cases in which there are clear patterns that suggest the same person/s (dare I say vandal?) is/are participating at the same time of day/once a week or whatever. Such behaviour seems to take place during school time and if such is the case, the teacher might be interested to know why a certain IP in his/her class has been blocked. My rationale for thinking that it's just kids having "fun" is that, barring some nasty arguments I've seen on Wikipedia, most adults don't really have time or interest in vandalising other people's contributions - do they? Be that as it may, my original reason for contacting you was to ask you to direct me to the ABC of reporting/dealing with vandalism, etc. for a crash course in helping out. Thanx and rgrds. Technopat 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your prompt reply and recommendations. --Technopat 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello! I just noticed that you helped fix one of my userboxes earlier and I just wanted to say thanks. Have a good day and take care! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ann Stouter --Ann Stouter 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

How DARE you try to patronise me - I made a legitimate edit to cut out an unnecassary statement and I will be reverting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:144.82.208.13 13 February 2007

In response to your unsigned hostile message on my talk page, you should probably look at Wikipedia:Civility. There’s a link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks there as well.

Your edit removed information from the article Clarinet that was somewhat useful. You did not include an edit summary, so your actions were open to misinterpretation. It looked like someone who had never edited Wikipedia (I checked, and these were your only edits) had experimented with the page, so I posted the good-natured test-1 warning. Notice that it says “Welcome and thank you…”. As for deleting the test-1 warning from your talk page, have a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism “removing warnings from one’s own talk page is often frowned upon.” I’m sure you noticed (since you re-reverted) that another editor reverted your deletion for that very reason. So please use edit summaries, sign your posts, and do not attack other editors. This isn’t my opinion, it’s Wikipedia policy. (copied from User talk:144.82.208.13)- Special-T 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have been editing wikipedia for a number of years now, just becuase my IP address only has edits today does not mean that I haven't edited it before. You will put people off editing if everything you don't agree with is construed as "vandalism". Why should I be warned about making a legimate edit just becuase you don't necessarily agree with it? Oh BTW how was my comment a personal attack. If people are going to "warn" me for no good reason I have a right to respond, I did not threaten you or insult you in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:144.82.208.13 14 February 2007

Your edits came from an IP address with no other edits - by all appearances they were someone's first edits. They had no edit summary. They removed somewhat useful information. In short, they looked exactly like someone had experimented with Wikipedia by changing text in an article. Your failure to sign your post on my talk page also indicated an editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Your response, while not a threat, was a personal attack in that it was not about the content of the edit, but was rather directed at me personally - it started with "How DARE you..." - and was certainly hostile and uncivil. That and your deletion of the warning also indicated an editor who was not familiar with Wikipedia policy, as does your deletion of your hostile comment from my talk page. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent. (also copied from User talk:144.82.208.13) - Special-T 12:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More insanity from the same user (editing as User:Vcxzfdsa ), copied from his blanked talk page:

In response to your unsigned message on my talk page:

On the clarinet page you removed the comment saying they are made out of wood or plastic, what else can they be made from then? you said "many materials" - yes - that's becuase there are many types of wood and plastic - and all common clarinet materials fall into these two categories. (unsigned again)

- First, please sign your posts on talk pages. - Second, I'm guessing that you are the same user as User:144.82.208.13, since you have both been making the same edits and posting unsigned comments to my talk page. It is easier for everyone to keep track of who's who if a logged-in user uses his/her username instead of ISP. - Third, please read the Clarinet article before you edit it further. There is a section dealing with the instrument's construction. If one wanted to know what materials clarinets are made of, one place to look would be, indeed, the Wikipedia article Clarinet, which provides that information. I hope this helps. - Special-T 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't - it says exactly what I said, generally wood and plastic - barring metal, which is very rare. Do not presume I have not read the article becuase I have.

Question

On the clarinet page you removed the comment saying they are made out of wood or plastic, what else can they be made from then? you said "many materials" - yes - that's becuase there are many types of wood and plastic - and all common clarinet materials fall into these two categories.

Re-linkspam

I just removed a bunch of it :). Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Special-T, I noticed that you reverted one of my edits, but I can't for the life of me figure out - what did you change? (Sam Rivers's flute entry?) Thanks.Carlaclaws 16:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that clears it up for me.Carlaclaws 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion/Clarino

A Google Books search turns up the following uses of "clarino register" in relation to clarinets:

Anthony Baines, Woodwind Instruments and Their History
Albert R. Rice, The Clarinet in the Classical Period
Nicholas Cox, in Colin Lawson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet

If it's a mistake, it's a mistake being made by some pretty major authorities. (I note, though, that Rice uses both "clarino" and "clarion".) On the other hand, it looks as though "clarion" is considerably more commonly used than "clarino". My inclination would be to use "clarion" but note "clarino" as a synonym. -- Rsholmes 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I catch you using "nukular", I will revert! -- Rsholmes 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake. See cited source, New Grove Dict. of Musical Instruments; it gives "clarinet", "clarino", and "clarion" all as accepted names for the second register, with "clarinet" being the term they prefer. -- Rsholmes 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad? - actually not...

User T, I have not edited any wikipages recently. I believe that my IP has been confused. No Big Deal though. - unsigned

The IP from which that message was posted (User:70.135.223.171) was the source of vandalism and was properly tagged by me in November 2007. - Special-T 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appologise

Thanks for the message on this IPs talk page. This is a school computer, and I'm very sorry for telling my classmates that you can edit wikipedia. Probably shouldn't have done that...--207.195.51.199 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You may go ahead. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khushab District

Well, thank you Special-T. I am grateful that you pointed out the page to my notice. I am on it now and would like to help clean it up. - Arun Reginald 22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have tried to contact other people in the WikiProject list, but would you be working on the page as well. If yes, then I have tried to include some grand chunk of information and managed to remove redundancies on the page. The most intriguing fact about the place is its Uranium and Plutonium enrichment plants which you can help me with. Another would be to include a brief history. As far as I know Alexander loved the land because of its lush meadows and vegetation. So! Are you up for it? - Arun Reginald 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:Din&tony

This page was deleted three times this evening, and has now been WP:SALTED. If you find another page created by this/these user(s), please report it to WP:AIV with reference to this identity. Thanks for your work. LessHeard vanU 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit

I don't think one can delete an article because people vandalize it. If you want to argue she's not Notable, afd would be the place. Per WP:BIO, if she is of borderline notability she herself can request deletion. DGG (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see, the history got rather hard to decipher. Feel free to delete my comment. If you want it semi-protected from anons, let me know. DGG (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Burnett

Hello – thanks for the message. I checked, and you've done everything correctly. There's a backlog at AFD, and we're a few days behind. Three to four days isn't so bad for an AFD backlog – last fall we had a backlog of over a week. An AFD isn't required to close after five days, but it needs to run at least five days, with a few exceptions for WP:SNOW and speedy deletes/keeps.

In fact, looking at this one, I'd probably close it as 'no consensus', which defaults to 'keep'. I haven't read the discussion thoroughly, but that's my first impression. Let me know if you need more help or have questions. Thanks! - KrakatoaKatie 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Master of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Thanks for your input. I have rewritten most of the article, to make it more neutral. Feedback welcome! Chr 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta 'church advertisement'=

I'm not a member of 'Northpoint' but I've certainly heard of them. I find it fallacious to include 'ads' for the Salvation Army but not mention other groups.Ryoung122 11:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone's copyright/spam beef

This user was mentioned in a Webmaster World discussion regarding content that was illegally copied to wikipedia without proper attribution. Postings made it appear that this user was attempting to prevent the owner of copyrighted information from being properly attributed for his/her work (see http://www.webmasterworld.com/content_copywriting/3429096.htm )

Just calling the user out for his spamming, actually. - Special-T 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

I disagree that my edit you undid on Trombone is original research. It is in fact information all professional trombonists have been taught, it is factual, and although it may not appear as a citable piece of writing (It may, but I am not aware of it) it's something any trombonist can verify as accurate. I'm curious as to your rationale. 72.79.207.149 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anon IP adding country names

Hi – I came across this anon IP's contributions today, and saw that you warned him at the end of September to stop it. He didn't, and I've given him a level 3 warning. I added links to the appropriate pages. Why on earth someone wants to change 'New York City Council' to 'New York City Council, USA' is beyond me. He's done it to hundreds of articles, probably for WP:POINT, and I've spent a lot of time reverting him today.

At any rate, I'll keep an eye on him. If you see him do it again after today, he should get the final warning. After that, it's a block for disruption. Thanks – KrakatoaKatie 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry about the duplicate sections - I got the "Wikipedia is experiencing technical difficulties!" message. Why is that message so cheerful?)

I agree, and I'm still working at reverting him, although I think I've got 95% of it reverted/removed now. He must be using Special:Random – Jackson State Community College, then Staylittle? What's the connection? And "University of Oklahoma Sooners, USA" ? Not.

I'm settling in for a nice long admin weekend here since my husband and kids are either gone or working, so I'll watch him tonight. WHOIS returns an ISP for businesses (not individuals, see here) in Canberra, and he claims he has multiple user accounts and IP addresses, which may or may not be true, of course. We'll see. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just blocked him. On my talk page, he clearly stated he's not here to write but to disrupt by adding useless non-linked country names. (Why add it non-linked if you're trying to "write for those struggling with English in 'lesser' countries"? If they can't click on 'Colorado', how could they know what 'USA' means?) Oh, well. Chalk up another guy who uses beans for something besides chili. KrakatoaKatie 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What???

I did not edit the clarinet page, I've never been on it before.

203.89.172.162

Please see latest post at User_talk:203.89.172.162. I hope this person gets blocked sooner rather than later. Greg L (my talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz musicians

There are 1000s of jazz musician articles on wikipedia. That article is for the most historically important ones. It's an experiment to see whether or not consensus on notability can be reached, as with List of hip hop albums. I took out the red people for that reason.Cosprings (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Peter Guidi

It's no problem. The article was a virtual copy of that website. (I looked before I deleted) I could have choosed either copyvio or empty as the deletion, but chose empty. --Michael Greiner 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birgit Nilsson - Thanks!

Just a note to say thanks for the great copy-edit job you're doing on Birgit Nilsson. Much appreciated! Whenever I used to pass by that article, I'd sigh but couldn't quite work up the energy to fix it.;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was quite a hodgepodge of bad grammar, bad syntax, links to random nouns, and breathless fancruft anecdotes. Still needs work, but I'm glad I could help. - Special-T (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the link in recipe

Look, you have no right to make the decision as to remove my link and leave 5 other links up on the recipes page. If you intend on removing my link, you must remove the other links. The link I posted is relevent to the topic and is strictly vegetarian recipes, unlike the others, WHICH VEGETARIANS FIND USEFUL, so stop removing it. Gtg228r (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to do that. Read up on what Wikipedia is about. And read the very valid rationales on your talk page and the Recipe talk page for removing that link. Just because there are other possibly inappropriate links on there doesn't make yours right, or useful, or appropriate. - Special-T (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you remove the other so called 'inappropriate' links? I am not sure why you feel the need to remove the link I posted, and keep the others on there... Do you have an explanation for that? -sorry I am new to this wiki stuff- Gtg228r (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caps in Titles

Hello Special-T: If you check any book in any library, chapter and section headings are generally always capitalized, at least for books printed in the English language. I just went through my own library to make sure, including books going back to the early 20th century. If the Wikipedia manual of style states otherwise, then that manual is incorrect on this point, and needs to be amended by whatever mechanism exists in the Wikipedia community to initiate such changes. Thank you.PJtP (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Block disparity

The IP was blocked for a short period because it belongs to a wireless device. Those usually switch IP addresses every time the device accesses the internet, and the block was a bit long for that type of device, the address had a previous block of only one hour. If you think something more of it, try bringing it up at either WP:SSP or WP:AN. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera references

Hi. i see you've been removing references to some Italian books relating to Italian opera. Any particular reason? I reverted one of them but then I found another and i thought I should ask you why you've decided to do this. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One IP user was merely adding these books - all in Italian, all from the same publisher - to lots of articles. They were not added as references to any edits he/she had made (although they were sometimes listed under a "references" header, sometimes not), indeed no other content was ever added. This struck me as being promotional spam. Since, in addition, none of these books is in English, I thought they didn't meet standards for inclusion. If I'm wrong about this, feel free to restore them. - Special-T (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do use foreign references on the Opera Project, in fact we often have to in order to establish notability etc. The two particular references I saw were copied from the Italian wiki. I can't see any evidence they were spam, but if you notice anything strange please let us know, otherwise I'll assume they are bona fide. Best --Kleinzach (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the vandal revert on my userpage. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha

Sorry, I'm sometimes in a rush and forget to place any edit summaries. I'll keep that in mind from now on, mate. Thanks, and have a good one.

Picc trumpet

Hi - thanks for your vigilance on the piccolo trumpet article. In fact, it should in the end have gone back to Bb as this is all that history records. Hope this makes sense to you: if not please yell. Cheers Nomorenonotnever (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

erm. Yes. In fact: you right, me wrong! (See private email). Sorry and thanks. I'm changing the article now. I feel a bit {DOH!} about this, to be honest ... :) Nomorenonotnever (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and thanks! :) Nomorenonotnever (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of cover versions of Robert Johnson songs

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of cover versions of Robert Johnson songs, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My bad - thanks for fixing it

Hi. I've replied at my talk page. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn vandals

69.255.148.57 made a crapload of changes on 4 August that modified population numbers of cities (and other tidbits) in obvious vandalism that you reverted (thanks!). Yet the IP's talk page was blank, so I added l1-l2-l3-l4 warnings to it in chronological order. If you could, please add warnings to the talk pages when these happen, so others can escalate the issue if it continues from the same IP. We non-admin types can't get an IP tempblocked without giving ample warning first. :) Todd Vierling (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I generally do warn vandals without reservation and report them to AIV when appropriate - I don't recall why I didn't do it in that case. - Special-T (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trombone

Hi Special-T,

I seem to have annoyed you by changing the spelling of a couple of words in the trombone article; however, I'd like to point out that it was not, as you might have thought, simply a matter of changing American spelling to British spelling because I prefer British spelling. I realise though that my summary, "Fixed a couple of typos", was misleading and probably contributed to the misunderstanding.

While reading the article in question, I noticed that it contained the words "characterized" and "characterises". To me, an article written in a mixture of American and British spellings looks unprofessional; one containing different spellings of what is essentially the same word looks ridiculous.

Closer inspection revealed that the article contained just one other word, "favor", spelt in an American (i.e. non-British) way and at least two other words, "practised" and "popularised", spelt in a British (i.e. non-American) way. Since converting the article to British spelling required fewer changes than converting it to American spelling would have (and since my American spelling is unreliable), I decided to make the changes to which you objected.

How should we resolve the problem then? If you no longer object, I'll make the changes again. If you can think of something better though, let's do it instead.The Stickler (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes again, but this time I've tried to make the edit summary more accurately reflect what I've done. Thanks for keeping me honest.The Stickler (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using your own works as a reference

Regarding Reeds (instrument), I was unaware of this. Thanks for pointing it out. You may remove citation, if you like. Henrydoktorski (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline

Sure thing - I'm hoping we can continue to improve the refs and flesh it out some more. My expectation, though, is that the more press she gets, the more the crazies will be trolling. But, I've been there before in the last couple of years, to say the least, and if there are enough of us, we can keep it under control. Cheers Tvoz/talk 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flautists

I would be grateful if you would add other names to the Flautists section od Template:Western concert flutes, please add as many as you feel are notable, the equivalent template for Clarinets has 20 names. -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 16:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Star (Book)

I agree that the article you nominated was pretty awful--it looks like it was written by a child who had read the book, actually. However, it does appear that there's a solid, notable, book behind what mess was there, and I've pretty much rewritten the article. Please swing by the article, and feel free to withdraw the AfD if you think the article as it stands now meets the WP:HEY standard. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask you to close the Afd too, but Jclemens beat me too it. Please consider closing this Afd. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I'm glad it got brought "up to spec". Good work. - Special-T (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help deleting categories

Sure I'd be glad to help. Is there a "master" category that all of these are under? It looks like the Road accidents one you mentioned has a master category of. If you feel like it's just a matter of categories that have no chance to be more than minimally populated, I'd nominate some of the cats with that basis. It's a very established master category (and it's master is even more established and large), but underpopulation is definitely a basis you can use. Here is the CfD procedure. Obviously you want to follow the delete path. Let me know what else you need. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sax on the Web

If someone removed that tag without explaining, then, yes, reverting/undoing that edit was correct. Thanks for telling me :)-- fetchcomms☛ 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent link additions to jazz articles

See Talk:American_Jazz_Museum for a follow-up note to the links that were added and then removed from various articles. I had reverted their link addition to that article; they've just reverted it back on and I've removed it again. I'd prefer if they read and acted on the various policy documents referenced in our messages on their Talk page. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Jazz

I think most of that content was added recently by an anon- I'm not sure most of it is worth preserving in any form. Zazaban (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz

I have the matter of removing sourced information on a notice board, although I would be really interested in knowing how you can state "some of the material is cited and might be relevant, but put it in context somewhere below, and state it clearly and grammatically"

All of the material is cited, in the right place, and is clearly stated. So it would be great if you could provide examples, and why you removed the information for an unreferenced statement. It is interesting that RepublicanJacobite never reverted another edit again, as he/she would be in contention with the 3rd revert rule, but you show up shortly after to do the same thing. Considering you both edit the same type of pages from time to time. Coincidence maybe.... although I would assume most editors wouldn't remove cited material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.46.229 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Hungary

"You need to maintain a neutral point of view; many of your edits seem like attempts to publicize the importance of Hungary in all areas of history" Perhabs medieval Hungary had bigger political weight and bigger military power than the little medieval England. Keep it in your mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, yes. But that's not sufficient to add these claims as fact to an encyclopedia. And calling it "little medieval England" certainly adds weight to my claim that you are here to push an agenda. - Special-T (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andras Hess

Only Germany And Italy had priting presses before 1472. And one workd in Paris. No other countries had printing press in 1472-73. That's why Hess's priting press was an unicum.

So it was unique except for all those other printing presses. Which, by definition, means it was not unique. - Special-T (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaaissance article

The renaissance was unknown in Russia, some Italian architects went to Moscow to biuld some buildings. Under Ivan III, thew united Russia had only 5-6 million population, therefore Russia wasn't in the top 5 most populous European country, and it was a peripheric and backward country. There wasn't renaissance arts,r. style poetry or other r. literature, r. paintings,r. philosophy or humanists, r. castles, r. clothes, r. style music, and r. lifestyle. The section of Russia is misleading in the article. These buildings existed only in Moscow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again - YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY REFERENCES FOR YOUR CLAIMS. Also, please learn to sign your posts. - Special-T (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Russia is an Orthodox country, and it is not part of the Western World. Please show me a Russian r. style poetry or other r. literature, r. paintings,r. philosophy or humanists, r. castles, r. clothes, r. style music.

You can't.

And there are many moderators in wikipedia, they are not important people. But, there are some who had right to delete your moderator status rights in wikipedia. Don't forget it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Stamford Bridge

Why do you keep changing the numbers of troops, the English army was smaller in size to that of the Norwegian army with 7,000 men and 10.000 to 15.000 Norwegian men landed with 300 boats, it's a well known fact that the Norwegian army was all but destroyed and only 24 ships returned it's nonsense putting them English casualties on there and insulting, the Norwegians were caught completely by surprise, and saying they lost 7000 men would mean that historically speaking would mean that the English army was destroyed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.225.157 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made several changes to articles without any reference to back them up. You have also posted a run-on POV rant on Talk:Grenadier Guards that shows that you have an agenda to push regardless of the rules and policies here. I have no idea what happened at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, I've never even heard of it. I only know that you've been changing the numbers without explanation or references, so those edits need to be reverted per policy. So stop making personal attacks on my talk page, and read up on what this project is about, particularly WP:NOT. Also, please learn to sign your posts. - Special-T (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference? I need not show you look for your self type in battle of Stamford bridge on google almost every site tells you of how much of a decisive victory it is, I'm sick and tired of people editing articles about English military history on wikipedia, it's clearly bias a article of a countries victory over the English/British it's as plain as that but WHEN it's an article about an English victory over another country people get unfairly technical raise casualties of the English army claim it to be Strategically or tactically indecisive or try to say that the British army was mainly of other ethnicities or only one by man power making my countries military history on wikipedia look weak or reliable other countries which is nonsense. Now I am not personally attacking you but I stumbled upon the Stamford bridge article it was once again changed to a source unreliable I looked on view edit history and it took me to you that changed and it's diabolical, why should I need a reference to it when you haven't got one and all the edits of the army size and casualties before me are the same as my claims. D.Coshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.225.157 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian and Turbo-props

The Hungarians were working on a twin engine attack aircraft starting in 1940 that used crude turbo-props. The story was told in an issue of Air International. It would take a day and forever for me to plow through my back issues of AI I will post a scan of that page. But notice I did not revert your deletion of the Hungarian inventions. I just wanted you to know it was not vandalism on that editors part. It was not a Hungarian version of the Russians with the USSR claiming to have invented anything and everything. There is truth to that claim. Jack - --Jackehammond (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I appreciate it. I nearly got my head taken off on the Bell P-39 Airacobra page when I posted some information about the unsatisfactory performance of the P-39 delivered to the RAF in England (see that talk page) and the one they saw test in the US by Bell and what Bell claimed. I discovered really fast that some pages are guarded and in aviation some aircraft are like a beautiful woman with a lot of character flaws - ie some can not see anything but the beauty (and the P-39 was a beautiful aircraft). I don't believe in edit wars. When my edits were reverted I let it go. Even though I had the references. Now back to the subject. When I one day or one year find that article on the WW2 Hungarian attack aircraft project that used turbo-props, I will scan it and post it in the talk section on turbo-props and drop you a note. If you think the article is legit you can post a small paragraph or not.

A Small Favor (ie you are running now I think<GRIN>). I just finished re-writing the first part of the Curtiss SO3C Seamew. To wit, I am very, very good at getting information with references. I am very, very bad at times with grammar and syntax. If you have the time could you look at that page and do a little word smithing. Thanks. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your editing. PERFECT! Thanks. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disruptive Editing

Your edits are the ones causing the disruption. Please cease this harassment at once. You are violating Wikipedia's guidelines and very purpose for existing. Don't threaten me saying I may be banned from making edits when YOUR EDITS are causing the disruption. Any future acts of vandalism on your part WILL be reverted! Please cease vandalizing the talk pages, trolling Wikipedia, and trolling my Wikipedia talk page immediately. --Þorstejnn (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this here just to document how completely off-base this editor is. - Special-T (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trombone slide

Hi, being a n00b to the world of the 'bone, I left those nomenclature edits alone (which also showed up in leadpipe and sackbut); far as I knew, it could have been a non-US variant. I just call that thing "the slide" if I talk about it at all. Not sure the edits rose to the level of vandalism, but that's your call. Be well, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just reverted it at leadpipe. My mistake-- Sackbut did not get this change. Cheers, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Gardens

You're welcome, and I completely agree in this instance. Most other articles are not that detailed, and I would suggest that section, if it exists at all, should be limited to entire parodies or homages, not an offhand reference on a sitcom. Cheers, SteelIron^Talk 07:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpet -article, external links

Hi! Just wanted to ask why you removed the Trumpet Exercise Database -link from the "Trumpet" -article? It was there from March to December 2010, and then someone removed it, calling it a dead link. The link is not dead so I put it back there but now it's is removed again, this time no reason told. If the site doesn't meet your quality standards, why didn't you remove it in the first place but let it be there for 10 months? Comparing it to the other trumpet exercise -related links, it feels illogical to remove this one. -Janne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus1k (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cornet

FYI, there was also some weirdness at Talk:Cor anglais that I thought might be coming from Template:WikiProject Musical Instruments. Seems to be cleared up now, and Talk:Cornet is looking OK from where I sit. Thanks for what you do here! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing, etc.

I am a bit perplexed as to what gets accepted on Wikipedia and what does not at this point. I can site numerous articles which go far beyond the 'self promotion' catagory outlined by Wikipedia with a great deal less editing and links/references that I have provided. These pages were obviously done by the person themselves (content would not have come from anyone else) whether that person had paid or coersed someone into doing the page for them through another computer/server. I do not have a manager that promotes me and I do not add content under false pretenses, I am a known musical artist and you have 'lesser thans' on Wikipedia already (this is no 'pot shot', this is truth). I guess the 'edit' which really confused me is taking my name off the list of Summit Records recording artists and deleting the Jazz Orchestra of the Delta from there (THAT page had been approved and never edited from what I can see). There is no more or less validity to having the JOD on that list than anyone else there...fact is, the CD is with Summit and it is linked to them/me. Jcooper1 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing, etc.

First, I am a fan of Wikipedia so don't get me wrong on all this. I tell my students to use it and I use (with crosschecking of course).

Second, I have done work for books and publishers (as an academic, writing prose) so I do know what and how all this works (mostly am a composer). Wikipedia sits in an 'ongoing/live stream' which makes it unique, rather than situations like Websters or even New Groves Dictionary.

Yes, I am going to add the listing to the Summit entry because there is nothing non-factual or in conflict with that page. In fact, I was surprised I (or my group) am not there in the first place, it really should be. I do not know who from Summit is doing that editing (and it is coming from Summit, I assure you). I could also argue conversely that there are far too many MORE prominent artists who have not materialized as Wikipedia entries. Who is to make their pages? Them? Thier management? Someone they pay or get a favor from? You see my own entries; I have about enough time for a few little nuggets to Manny Albam's page (oops...old teacher of mine...hmmm, possible conflict). I am very unsure that 100% of the entries and edits approved are from a benevolent source with no self-interest.

Now with that said, I do understand your job and what is supposed to happen. You guys as Wiki editors go by written rules and that is totally understandable. You also have millions of entries to deal with and that is like getting a drink of water from a fire hose. But, the facts are that you have entries from artists' management (or the artist) that have been there for a while now with no flags and that have been approved; some with far more self promotion and less referenced than what I have contributed. It is even outlined in the hidden text edits that I have checked into (behind the edit 'wall')...I know the person and I know the management in some cases. That is the truth and to not acknowledge the inherent "holes to be plugged" (where the information comes from and the intention) in Wikipedia is intellectually disingenuous in this case.

In closing, please check into what I have added a bit more, especially if it has been crossed referenced with citations. I do understand the idea of self-interest here and trying to not allow every grandmother to add somethisg about thier grandkids latest recital, but self-interested artists who do a have a legitimate 'stake' in what is going can be found in many corners of Wikipedia (the evidence is easily found).

Thanks for writing back and taking the time, I do appreciate it. 74.177.26.209 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing, etc. (last for now)

Yes, it was me. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify some points and actually reading my blah blah blah.

We can play "who is on first" all day to be honest. Your points are well made in a perfect world and I DO try to stay in guidelines; but part fo that is what is actually DEMONSTRATED on the site. In a way you have made MY point about how Wikipedia is rather groundbreaking but it has a lot of stuff that is 'unchecked.' Yes, we are all editors and that is the basic principle of the site (that is a cool and unique concept). But, most people I know will start with Wikipedia (to find something) but absolutley cross check it...if the ionformation is wrong do they go back and edit Wikipedia at that point? My bet is no, they don't have the time. And, that is my point, and I think it is a valid one in this discussion. A lot of stuff will be there for a long time to come.

I understand your points and HAVE read the guidelines (several times now) but in the end what I am left with in posting/editing is 'run it up the flagpole' and then see if it stays in order to get 'notable' information out there.

Again, thanks for your time Jcooper1 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing, etc. Kenton/trombone

Me again.

...this has nothing to do with an 'edit war.' I read the violations (2) of what you are asserting and do not see where the Kenton edit or the last trombone edit are in conflict. If you do not find them noteworthy or add to the overall relibilty of the link then so be it, that is your right as an approved, higher level editor of Wikipedia. But, don't site arbitrary rules to make your point when it is a disingenuous tact (at the least) you are following through on. I can read the rules just as well as anyone.

Let's go through the two edits together:

1. Doug Purviance (African-American trombonist in New York City) is in great gratitude to Stan Kenton for Doug getting hired on the Kenton orchestra during the 1970's. Doug is a prominent bass trombonist and has a massive list of credits on Broadway as well as touring with Kenton, Thad Jones/Mel Lewis and numerous other notable jazz 'stars.' He makes the case as an example of a highly successful, contemporary Black musician (who is on the Kenton sideman list below the article BTW), this is fact and this can be easily supported if you need that (again, he is already on the page...why would I have to? That would be redundant). My name WAS NOT mentioned and there is NO POSSIBLE link to me in that edit. Why remove it?

2. The last edit for the 'trombone' Wiki page was void of any association to me, I had removed any mention of the particular works. Both Pugh and Bonilla are recognized world class players in many genres/styles, they are unique in this respect and can do MANY things on the instrument that others can't. They are two prime examples of this furthering of the technique, flexiblity, and range of the instrument itself in contemporary trombone playing (you play trumpet I gathered...do you know these players? Have you heard them?). There was NO link to me in the last edit. No one would gather that either Bonilla or Pugh would be directly related to any of my work or any other composer's work. There were only the words 'orchestra/solo/chamber' used in that edit with no specific works even given. Again, why remove this?

Bottom line is we are all NOT editors of the SAME CLOUT (your point yesterday does not really hold water well). I am not authorized to go in and police Wikipedia like you are, you have more clout in this. Again, I am not in an edit war by any means, I don't have the time for that and it would be plain stupid. If you want to not read what I have ACTUALLY written and then remove my prose that might cross your line based on your opinion of me then I guess I am stuck. Now, if you actually want to read the edit and then remove then fine (the last guy removed the Cole Porter edit based on platinum selling records...so be it even if the CD I cited has numerous reviews from the US and overseas, about 15, that were all very good and do put Porter's music that much further into the future). If you want to re-inforce principles and rules you are trying to uphold then so be it but don't use rules that do not apply to my edits.

Thank you for your time, Jcooper1 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Porter

Thanks for your edit at Cole Porter. Should this sentence also be deleted?: In 2004 jazz and electronica producer Billy Paul Williams released an album named The Porter Project. I have no way of knowing if that is a significant album, so feel free to make an edit if you don't think it's worth mentioning in the article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found this amazing list: http://www.sondheimguide.com/porter/collections.html So I boldly deleted the ones that weren't on it and added a few that have their own article in WP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Special-T. You have new messages at Talk:Piccolo trumpet.
Message added 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know it's rather stale news, but thought you might be interested anyway. I don't know where I was when you commented, but obviously not watching very alertly! :) best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soprano Clef - trimmed.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soprano Clef - trimmed.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpet overtone series

Hi, nice to see you back! If you're interested, expert eyes will be useful at Talk:Trumpet#Fingering:_doubts_about_"variance"_column_in_the_table.

An overtone series of any given brass instrument has, I believe, an interesting correspondence to the harmonic series. In summary, since the quirks depend on things like the shape of the air column and the bell flare, there is room for enough intonation variation between manufacturers (and individual horns?) that it makes little sense to tabulate the tuning of partials with a precision of cents as if they were harmonics. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antecedents

OK. Thank you for explaining.

April 31st (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sopranos "Fortunate Son" Last Paragraph

I'm sorry, but you seem to have made some poor decisions editing this paragraph.

1. You say you "rm. passive voice". There were no verbs in the passive voice.

2. "Svetlana says that possession is nine tenths of the law." Unnecessary detail.

3. steals her leg "during the night". - "during the night" is unimportant.

4. "Svetlana informs Tony." Why not the plain word "tells"?

5. "When he arrives" - stating the obvious.

6. "pinky finger" - Why not the single word "pinkie"? (Both spellings are possible.)

7. "They returned home" - stating the obvious.

8. "That was when Tony had ..." I used the phrase "That was when" to draw attention to a crucial event in Tony's life. You may think it is unnecessary and I agree it can be withdrawn.

The previous version of the paragraph is certainly shorter and probably better. I think it should be restored, perhaps with the change referred to in point 8.

April 31st (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the latter part of 2018 and 2019, I revised the synopses of all the Sopranos episodes, so of course I still take an interest.

Believe it or not, I'm glad when you and others notice things I have missed, and make improvements.

April 31st (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornet

When you reverted my "not in citation" edit you said, "Not in the ref but easily verifiable". If that is true, would you add a citation to that sentence to verify that it is true? Every sentence in Wikipedia must be referenced. Otherwise that unsourced sentence will be deleted. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence does not need to be referenced. From Wikipedia:Citing sources - "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged,...". Wikipedia:Verifiability says "All content must be verifiable." Simply examining a trumpet and a cornet verifies the statement in question. Add a source if you want, but it's certainly not required in this case. Special-T (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm challenging it. Now where is this reference you spoke of?
Vmavanti (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clef to GA?

Special-T, I hope this message finds you well. I was looking around at some of the page views for music theory articles, and (to my surprise) I found many articles that get a lot more views than I expected; for example: Circle of fifths (~700,000 per year), Clef (~580,000), Key Signature (~475,000), Musical note (~480,000). To this end I've decided to focus some of my attention on these articles, with a goal of getting them to become GAs. I see that you've been working on Clef recently and I wonder if you would be interested in working on bringing that article to GA standard with me? I'm not sure what your plans were with the article, so I thought I'd ask. Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I plan to continue cleaning up the Clef article, and would gladly put those other two on my to-do list. I'm better at (and more interested in) clarifying the grammar and flow of individual sections. Many have become a hodgepodge of statements or have had someone's favorite bit of trivia inserted (or bad refs, over-linking, confusing explanations, etc.). I think this is where the quality of WP articles is often weak. I'm not very conversant with technical aspects (creating refs, inserting images,...) but will do the occasional cut and paste if needed. So, yes, glad to help out within my limited sphere! Special-T (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear and your edits have brought big improvements. Rather coincidentally I'm better with research/references than I am with prose/clean-up so our strengths seem to balance each other well :) I plan to add some references and expand the history section later this week. Best - Aza24 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on Transposing instrument, then I might move on to some of the ones you suggested. - Special-T (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Clarinet

Hello Special-T, why did you reverd my edit? We have the 2 systems, look the picture on the right an look 4.3 Arrangement of keys and holes. It may be, that my English is not o. k., but then everyboddy can correct it. Gisel (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the edit summary says, it was ungrammatical and uncited. Also, the Oehler and Boehm differences are covered in the article. - Special-T (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the section isn't about her marriages but sentence is too abrupt as is

User:Special-T I noticed your revert on my change to Maria Tallchief. I know the section isn't about her husbands. But please re-read it after your revert. It suddenly says she was missing her new husband without anywhere prior in the article having mentioned she even had a new husband or had left the old one. It's too abrupt. My edit briefly explained that she had divorced and was on her third husband, then said where to find more info. I think it's better. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maria_Tallchief&curid=1387193&diff=1047035225&oldid=1046997792 Greg Dahlen (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - in general I agree (and made a less intrusive change just now). As with many WP articles, the coherence and timeline of the whole career section is not so great, and I appreciate that you made a change to clarify. f dates can be added to those sections, and maybe mention of her marriages/annulment/divorce where it's chronologically accurate, it would make more sense. - Special-T (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Special-T What you did makes it better than how it was originally before you or I made any change. But I think there needs to be something that says when she was "missing her new husband" that that was her third husband to help the reader keep her story straight.

I'd think there should also be something saying that more extensive info on the marriages and husbands is found in the "Personal life" section. It's true that the Personal life info is easily found if one knows how to read Wikipedia. But not every reader will be familiar with Wikipedia. For those readers I think it makes it easier if there is info that they can get more info about the marriages later in the article. Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about having a link to the "Personal life" section - it's right there, there's a similar section in every bio article, and it's an unnecessary tangent from the material at hand (which already suffers from being too scattered). The "Career" section(s) don't read through coherently - many editors have inserted bits of info but it's not organized well. Organizing it chronologically would help a lot, and small mentions of her marriages/annulment/divorce would be appropriate. But I think it needs a bit of an overhaul, and not another "patch". I don't know enough about the subject to do this and can't infer it from the info that's there. In fact, like you, I was trying (unsuccessfully) to piece together the chronology from other info in the article. - Special-T (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the "missing her new husband" sentence. It may have been supported by the Chicago Tribune obit, but that link doesn't work anymore, so it's currently uncited anyway. - Special-T (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Special-T. Well, I've been rereading the article. The divorce from Balanchine was in 1952. Events of Maria's life in 1952 (generally dance events) would be contained in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Tallchief#New_York_City_Ballet. But there is currently no mention of the divorce there. I'm looking for a place there to smoothly insert a small mention of the divorce. Can you see a place? I do have a good source on the divorce, her obit in the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/maria-tallchief-ballet-star-who-was-inspiration-for-balanchine-dies-at-88/2013/04/12/5888f3de-c5dc-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html. Greg Dahlen (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it says in the info box "annulled" (so technically not "divorced"?). I can't access two of the online obit refs (that are used A LOT in the article). They might no longer be accessible, but I can't check them for actual facts (but the Washington Post one does indeed work). If I had time, I'd get her biographies and start re-writing the article accordingly. Go ahead and insert it in the Career section - it's certainly relevant. - Special-T (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BattyBot

I'm trying out the Wikipedia app and read the BattyBot edit bass ackwards. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I saw it, assumed the human was correct, and was looking into contacting the bot's "master". Then I figured it out. Takes a village! - Special-T (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Merry Christmas! And Happy New year. 23.251.65.195 (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passive aggressive ^

Lol Wallnot (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hi there,

I made a post about our friend over at WP:SPI. You can find in my edit history. Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nice work. Id never used that part of Wikipedia’s bureaucracy but glad we were able to stop a disruptive editor. Wallnot (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I've never dealt with any of that myself. It gets a little exhausting un-doing the same bad edits over and over. There's a brand-new user editing the same area of articles and inserting unnecessary stuff. Not vandalism per se, but similar clutter and edits that don't really add anything, like the editor that was just banned. Doesn't actually seem like a new sockpuppet since the edits are more benign. - Special-T (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

I think we've got another sock at Pat Nixon. Would you mind making the report this time? I’m away from my computer for a few days and it’s tough to do on mobile. Wallnot (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly noticed those edits (and reverted a bunch), and I've considered that this might be another CarmenaSeoul sockpuppet. But I haven't thought the edits are similar enough. Many similar bad or random edits that don't improve the articles, and a handful of the same articles (first ladies e.g.). But there's a focus on Canada (Toronto in particular), a lack of the previous illiterate combativeness in the edit summaries, and some reasonable edits. For now, it seems like lots of editors are patrolling the articles so I'm inclined to wait a while. It's always good to know that there are other editors (like you) trying to keep the quality up! - Special-T (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Special-T! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Categories, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Special-T! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Categories (again), has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trombone

Thanks for this which is much better than my attempt ... I am hoping that people with the best intentions who don't quite understand what they're editing will now stop trying to put it "right"! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm trying to eliminate unsourced off-topic sentences, untangle illiterate convolutions, and and fix unclear grammar. Not exactly a superhero agenda, but these articles shouldn't read like C-minus junior-high English papers. - Special-T (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely!! Well done. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

post reverted on Circle of Vths article

hi, i see you have reverted my change (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circle_of_fifths&oldid=1125401913) because i was the author of the link content. is that a misbehaving in wikipedia code of conduct, or is it the link content which is not appropriate for this article? Christophe.moustier (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content doesn't seem to shed any light on the circle of fifths. But mainly, it violates WP:COI - it's a conflict of interest to add one's own sources to articles. - Special-T (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I understand the COI thing; however, this python code exposes some tools that uses the CoF in different modes (CircleOf5thNaturalMajor, CircleOf5thNaturalMinor, CircleOf5thMelodicMinor, CircleOf5thHarmonicMinor visible in file) to guess any tonality and chords. Moreover, the code is hosted on github; therefore, it is as free and open as wikipedia is and its purpose is purely code-sharing with a simple License. Is it enough to balance the WP:COI risk? --Christophe.moustier (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on policy details. I do think that adding one's own work to a WP article is a conflict of interest, and I don't think the added content adds to a general encyclopedia article on the circle of fifths. ` Special-T (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok

thanks for the review anyway :) Christophe.moustier (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The moon is the only celestial body visited by humans.

I like your change, moments ago, to the article "Moon". But I wonder if it might be a good idea to retain the qualifier "As of 2023". Up to you.
— Black Walnut ^talk 17:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. These "up until now" statements contain no information - it's implicit in the statement. And that statement can be changed whenever the fact changes. - Special-T (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I wonder if there is a wiki tag that one can apply to statements, to help generate lists of needed edits, in response to real world developments. For example, a manned landing on Mars will immediately lead to updates of the Mars article but obsolescent statements elsewhere, like the one in the Moon article, won't get noticed as quickly. Or would you think such a tag more trouble than it is worth?
— Black Walnut ^talk 19:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wiki model here is that so many editors are monitoring each article that these things will be seen and dealt with pretty effectively. Special-T (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Thank you for your thoughts!
— Black Walnut ^talk 22:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Boehm system

The article has already been revised today by User:Grimes2. So you didn't need to take action anymore. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia ! 19:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

When referring to certain positions and titles you do not capitalize them, thus two or more edits you made are not right.Ramblingriver1 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "vice president" back because I think you're correct. But "Chair" should be caps. It falls under "title or position in and of itself, ... not plural, ... not preceded by a modifier" per MOS:JOBTITLE. - Special-T (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your errors in Sex Education (TV series)

Please take more care editing Sex Education (TV series): you have introduced errors into the article over the past few days as you reword and update plot summaries. It is written in British English, as shown at the top of the article, using spelling and vocabulary which may be different from your own. Bazza (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize (realise) now that there are many British usages in there with which I am unfamiliar. I hope I left it in better shape than I found it and I hope others can easily fix my mis-steps. I don't plan to do any more editing on that article. - Special-T (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking a text

Hello Special T. I ask you to check this text to see whether the text corresponds to English language usage. If this is not the case or the text contains other errors, please correct them. It should then be inserted into the clarinet article. Thank you very much for your efforts. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia ! 20:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy edit these section by section when I can. - Special-T (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup. One issue will be to conform the British/U.S. spelling to what is used in the article (if you're planning on inserting it into the main Clarinet article). - Special-T (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work! - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia ! 21:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikkimaria deleted the new section without any justification. I find her behavior impossible and extremely uncollegial. I think it is also against the rules. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia ! 08:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether that content belongs in the main Clarinet article or not. I mostly just copy edit articles to make them clearer. - Special-T (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Moon

The edit at Talk:Moon that you reverted wasn't quite as anodyne as it seemed. It asked for the "weight" of the Moon but the article only specifies the mass since weight is meaningless outside of a specified gravitational field. So it wasn't quite as gormelss as most of these types of edits are Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Lee Black (May 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not clear how subject meets WP:NMUSICIAN

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robert Lee Black and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Liance^talk 02:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Special-T! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Liance^talk 02:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Robert Lee Black

Hello, Special-T. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Robert Lee Black, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Robert Lee Black

Hello, Special-T. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Robert Lee Black".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]