![]() | This page 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. |
Hello, I made these changes for reasons such as: The songs released, the remixes are the same as in the artist discography but I removed the "Unreleased" in the artist page but I kept it in the discography. DOORN, artist influences, records singles and genres are asked to leave for a good reason. Why you removed the recorded and genre of all songs. The Martin Garrix's album "+x" is release this year. Timothe8872 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, all of the work I posted on the Sini Anderson Wikipedia page has been deleted and i don't know why. Besides quotes that i cited from sources WITH the source links, there is not one plagiarized sentence. Please help me, as I am a college scholar doing a research assignment in which i conduct my own research about a director and add to her Wiki page. I have done thorough research on Anderson and everything I posted is factual. Thank you. Maggiefrank (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)maggiefrank
Hello Binksternet, could you explain in a little more detail about your issues with the section you're removing from Sucker please? I see you cited WP:TONE, but I'm not sure what aspect you mean, you were a little vague, could you go into further detail? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 13:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not disruptive editing. Wikipedia is a reference work to educate and inform and it is a completely valid entry to include the tracks on this album when they have been released specifically for the gay community, especially where mainstream music for a gay audience is almost absent. The references to the released covers of these songs are not intended to promote anything, they are intended to show that these tracks have been openly recorded for a gay audience in a 2008 album, something which is of notable social importance. There is no commentary on the work, no promotion of the work, no external links, no adjectives of any kind, simply a reference that the work was recorded and released in the public domain in 2008. [1] The artist is not notable but the fact these songs were done for a gay audience is. Taurusthecat (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
References
I need to warn a particularly annoying genre warrior about what they're doing, as he/she never has been warned before. He/She repeatedly adds funk rock to the Nickelback song "She Keeps Me Up," which has been challenged (by me) because of no sources and a possibly inaccurate description. I have seen you send warning messages, but they all appear to be the same message. Is there a literal automated code that makes that message in which I could put on his/her page? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Bink, would you mind to leave a comment or vote at the AfD discussion I've recently opened? Appreciate the input.--Retrohead (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea how to reply to the "John I Leanard" edit I was attempting to add. so I'll try it here...
I have simply tried to add myself to the "John I Leanard" notable alumni. Pam Rose said they had my video playing at the HS reunion - I couldn't attend because I was touring.
I was thinking "maybe this isn't 'notable' enough to have an article on wikipedia", but I noticed that the blocker of my edit is "only" a sound engineer, so if HE has a page, surely *I* shauld. Pam recommended it, so I attempted to add it. Normally, I only edit METRIC additions, as wixi seems to love the King (Imperial) as it's US-based.
Again, that's all I was attempting to do. Since I've played with many famous bands, I thought it may deserve a mention.
MC_Squared@partycentral.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.211.187 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.
For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you have undone my revision last night after I undid the revision that removed the whole "prehispanic metal" section on Folk_metal article. Can you explain why before we start an edition war ? The guy who first removed that section only wrote "unsourced section". In this case, is it not better to either add『source ?』tag if the text is correct but lacks source, or remove the text and add a "this section is incomplete, please help" banner if the text is obviously bad ? Completely removing the section as if prehispanic metal never existed is vandalism/censor ihmo. You are just removing knowledge from Wikipedia. I've done some research about the genre yesterday and was puzzled to see that the section I saw years ago disappeared from Wikipedia. The genre exists and is very large, ranging from black folk metal and death folk metal to power folk metal. If you need to add sources to the existing text before putting it back, here are a few links (I don't know how to add them as sources or where exactly they are relevant) => http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/world/americas/headbanging-in-bolivia-to-the-flutes-of-yore.html?_r=0 / http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=67972 / http://www.metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=17234. Also, bands that were listed in the text you removed are easy to find on google/youtube. Keorl (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is a good example of problems encountered while trying to apply WP:SONGCOVER. It seems that whatever attempt there is to establish boundaries, someone will come along with "It's in my collection/recollection, I'll have to add it". The editors are encouraged by other articles that have seemingly random covers lists and may be working in concert ("more like what we'd like this to be", "what we are dealing with here"). SONGCOVER is flawed, but its application may lead to more awareness (and discussion/improvement). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't Michael Jackson start off as a soul/R&B singer and then moved onto other genres such as pop, rock, new jack swing, disco later on in his career? UKoXYgen (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
you're literally arguing that "third party observers" are a better authority on what the author of a statement means than the author himself is. I suppose I can interpret every claim that you have ever made better than you can, then? Whatever. However, in addition, the statement you are restoring is not actually cited as you claim. Instead, it's a very ordinary case of Original Research, where a general claim is sourced, but its application to the specific case is the editor's own contribution - an WP:Original synthesis. The cited book does contain several pages on the role of ambiguity in Japanese culture, but no mention of the Hiroshima cenotaph inscription and no claim that it is supposed to be ambiguous (it's on Google Books and the cited pages happen to be available for viewing). In other words, the "third party" on whose authority this interpretation relies is the editor who wrote this sentence.
Greetings,--91.148.130.233 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Roscelese where your name has been mentioned. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add; Binksternet to not get me involved and I saw that genre war you and the IP was having on the Kelis album "Food" page and I reported it; if you've got a problem with me doing that then tell me directly and not do the dirty later on up here, thank you and I would also like nothing to do with you ever again; any of the pages YOU edit I'LL leave alone and vice versa; many thanks UKoXYgen (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on user if s/he would continues add unreliable or improperly sources. 115.164.217.16 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stop reverting my edits they are good faith edits talk whith me please instead of avoiding them I know may about electronic music and I also can help I don't consider that my editions are vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
On15 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Switched-On Rock, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the producer Norman Dolph re-tuned the Moog modular synthesizer every 15 minutes during the recording of Switched-On Rock? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Switched-On Rock. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Hello there! I note that you have noted the return of Andrewbf. His persistent citing of the Fairfax media article for the "electro" claim at the House Music page is rather wearing as the article is written by a provincial journalist and is not an acceptable resource for inserting a whole genre into the "stylistic origins" section. I have left the genre listed (I'm uncertain of its validity) but removed the citation. I will advise this disruptive editor to find a more dependable source.
(Etheldavis (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC))
Binksternet though I talk spanish I consider that I have experimented english skills enough to edit music genre and my object isn't vandalize wikipedia and I'm not a sockpuppet and if you think I'm wrong in one of my edits please notice me leaving a message in my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
If Paul McCartney isn't known as a guitarist, why do his notable instruments include Gibson Les Paul and Epiphone Casino these "two electric guitars"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunyin&kinwa (talk • contribs) 07:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Moreover, the Beatles were proficient instrumentalists, why can't "musician" be added to their occupations? Still, Robin Gibb is less known as an instrumentalist, why do his instruments played contain "keyboards" and "guitar"?
Dear Michael Knowles, I see you are having trouble with a maverick user Deadwords on the rock band's article Faith No More and you reported him on the administration board of Wikipedia. I am hoping you'll get resolution. I see you have great experience, probably greater than my 15 years here, but I hope you won't have trouble with me. :) Joking. I made severe and much needed changes, because the article was just getting out of proportion. I removed the RHCP controversy as it is clearly tabloid-oriented and its place is just not here, probably NME, but just not here. I also trimmed much of the sections as they just don't stand test of time. Have a look at yourself and I hope we'll get better of the article if we discuss all changes, peacefully. Have a great time, Michael!
Comments:
- Spare us the kumbaya moment, Mad Hatter. There is nothing productive about attempting to form alliances with others over trivial issues, & summoning me by tagging my name in your post above. It comes off as a juvenile taunt. I am absolutely willing to work collaboratively with others & reach compromises as needed in order to resolve differences. Historically, the Faith No More page has been loaded with run-on sentences, grammatical oversights, and erroneous information (i.e. Allmusic.com's auto-generated "Similar To" page as the only source for certain musical influences). I've attempted to clean up certain things while keeping ideas intact, & point out some weaknesses with sources. My contributions are well intended, & the majority of them have been well received. Binksternet's detective skills are commendable. He did a wonderful job of cherry-picking information from my edit history & presenting it in a way which favored a certain point of view. I will not disagree that I ignored the "edit war" warning. That was an honest mistake, but mistake nonetheless. I have never been in this situation before and didn't pay enough attention to the meaning & consequences of the warning.
Ultimately, it is not my intention to be perceived as a "maverick," or an inflexible contributor. I will work harder to take a more diplomatic approach in regards to my edits. Any feedback on how to do so, beyond notations in the edit summary, would be appreciated.
To clarify, I never stated that there was an alliance, only pointed out that his approach was unproductive. I believe that it was inappropriate, & that should be acknowledged. Is this sort of behavior tolerated here? Furthermore, your response seemed to gloss over the fact that I made a genuine effort to articulate the motivation behind my previous interactions with the band's wiki; instead, you chose to reiterate the previous incident, which I explicitly stated I have learned from. I returned to express that I've reflected, & will work harder in cooperation with other contributors in order to serve "Wikipedia's readers." I requested feedback on how to improve, not have sand thrown in my face. Users such as myself should have an opportunity to learn & grow from a situation, not have the past evoked after providing a thoughtful response. Binksternet- when you write "And I mean 'for' Wikipedia's readers, not 'for' the band," it could be interpreted as a bit passive aggressive. There is no reason to write "for" twice in quotes/italics, as if to imply that this concept is above my ability to comprehend. Simply delivering your feedback directly & professionally at this point is all that is necessary. Reinforce & encourage the behavior you want to increase, don't peseverate on the behavior you wish to decrease (especially if it's in the processes of being resolved/extinguished). I am not asking for special treatment, nor am I seeking any enthusiastic words of forgiveness & praise. I just want to be treated fairly. I don't believed that's happened at certain points. Again, I will work harder to take a more diplomatic approach in regards to my edits & be receptive to feedback during the process. Let's move on from this, please.
Hello, quick update, I made serious changes regarding the bloated tabloid page of the famous singer of the band. Have a look at it. It was absolutely ridiculous, I tried to be absolutely uncompromising with it. Several ot the info on it, was very, very big mud of tabloid-oriented piece of garbage, apologies for the word, but it was this. So, now have a look at the page and of course on the other bandmembers and say your opinion on my page. Apologies if my talk page is bloated, but I decided not to archive anything. :) Have a great time, once again, Michael!
I do not understand what exactly was "promotional material". I can see not liking saying "A rising Star" without citing that he was called that be David Foster. But with that, I see nothing wrong in the rest. You can go through any number of pages and find similar entries. If you object to all of what I added back, I certainly think much of what you took out is in-objectionable. At least put it back to something closer to what it was... Please!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawillia (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Binksternet, Jason Orange says that "I want to blend in to public life and not be recognised", that's why I decided to end his active years on Wikipedia. No interviews, no nothing since he left Take That. Why do you think he is still active? Thanks! --Szilardka (talk) http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/goss/440010/Jason-Orange-Take-That-beer-local-Gary-Barlow
I appreciate your answer, thank you. I don't think that you are right though: if Jason decides to do something than his article can be edited. At the moment this Wikipedia article is incorrect, because he is not active. Thanks again, have a nice day! --Szilardka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
i added relible citation Ancient astronaut hypothesis http://skepdic.com/vondanik.html is it ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manteshwiki (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, sometimes you don't have to "protect" pages so that no one else than you can edit them. I made a lot of good faith edits to it. You're reverted them all. I applaud to you, because you've ruined everything without even understanding why. The key of that song is F-major - you didn't care. The first tritone sounds like "Children" - you didn't care. Garrix's discography, Afrojack's discography - all down the drain. It's "big room house", I know it because I'm listening to it right now, and yes, it's a genre whether you like it or not. You did you job very well, I hope you've very proud of it, because moreover, you had the guts of accusing me of block evasion! Bravo! No go ahead and revert this very edit because you know you want to. Seal the deal. Have a good day, 96.127.247.194 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I see the equipment list had been recently removed from the page of Christoph Schneider with the note of it being unencyclopedic. The reason I started to add and expend this list was to inform anyone who was interested in his sound to let them know what instruments were used. I am having troubles in understanding why it had to be removed. Good day. XFerence (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't skip user warning template levels on the user pages of good-faith newbies. On User_talk:Zhyboo I saw you skipped unsourced level-1, skipped unsourced level-2, and threw out a level-3 block threat. That's not merely BITEy, it denied Zhyboo the important educational links in the level-1 template. I find it particularly ironic to bite a newbie for adding unsourced material to an article that itself is almost entirely unsourced. If I were in his place, I imagine I would have been dumbfounded by that. Alsee (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hiya Binkster! I found a pair of BLPs with no oversight or review, both on same individual and was wondering if you could help with tags or whatever these should have? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_Genis & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_A._Genis. Please ping me if reply is needed; it's a very busy weekend. Hope yours is great, too! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Sorry never thought a simple change from are to is on this article would offend Johncmarcia (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
hey
This IP changed the genre for No Me Ames despite your warnings not to do so on other articles. Where do you go to report IPs who keep doing this? Erick (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There was trivia in the RHCP version but somebody keeps screwing it up. I trying to fix it and restore the facts as they were on the page b4 the incident happened.72.64.207.76 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
In I want Action From Poison The Genre Is Glam Metal Heavy Metal And Hard Rock Its Hard Rock Because After The Guitar Solo There Is A Break In The Guitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The Genre To Shooting Star Is Glam metal Hard Rock And Heavy Metal The Cover Art Is The Album Cover And The B Side Is Wasteland and The Song Was Released On November 5, 2002 Because The Song Came Out The Same Day As A Single As A Bon Jovi Song Did And The Personnel Is Who I mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Binsternet, an IP with range 200.*.* is creating havoc on the Barbra related lists and articles. Was blocked twice but keeps coming back with false info, record label sources etc and continuously WP:EW. What to do? Keeps on triggering the edit semi-prot template even after being answered his false claims. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 12:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Rate Your Music and Discogs might not be reliable as for their user-posted music reviews and ratings. That's fine, however, I use such online databases to consult basic data such as track listings, catalog numbers, etc., but I mostly use them for collecting the highly reliable info printed on the cover art itself, that at least in the case of Discogs are quite legible scans and photographs from the originals that I haven't found in any other website.
Besides, AllMusic leaves a lot to be desired.
Well, thanks anyway.
(LFdoR (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC))
If reliable sources were saying the song had a stadium rock (AKA arena rock) sound, then why did you put "rock" and "alternative rock" for genre instead of "arena rock"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
You may or may not have figured out by now that genres confuse me and I don't agree with many genre rules, but for the sake of Wikipedia I'm trying to positively contribute by seeking help with edits and trying to find sources that are deemed reliable. Anyway, if this song is considered "stadium rock" than from what I've learned I would either put "arena rock" or just "rock" like you did the first time if the former isn't considered a genre. A lot of rock music has always been played in large stadiums so in my head rock/arena rock would flow together more than arena rock and alternative but again the many subgenres confuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomChoiceForMe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
One of the sources did say pop/alternative sound it but also said stadium rock, which I've seen in other sources as well, so if it's okay, I'd like to insert "rock" as a genre for the song.
The song is alternative metal and industrial rock it was recorded in 2000 and was the first single released on the bands independent label cyanide music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
On Power to the People from Poison I feel the genre is alternative metal and industrial rock because musically its heavier than anything the band has done before it and musically the song fits the cards for alternative metal and industrial rock as it is alternative and industrial sounding and its alternative metal because it has guitar all the way through it its based on guitar riffs and its heavy like a Marilyn Manson song its industrial rock because it has the carectoriztics of a industrial rock song and on Shooting Star from poison the genre is glam metal heavy metal and hard rock its the glam metal because its not all that heavy and it is pop sounding like glam metal is its heavy metal because its a little heavy on the bass and its hard rock because the guitar breaks a little. Planetofjelly (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I would ask that you stop reverting my edits. They are made in good faith. I would prefer if you would discuss your issues with me first to try to come to a consensus. Although I am new as a logged in user of Wikipedia, I have made numerous anonymous edits over the years and have always tried to behave congenially and move the project forward. On that note, my objection to your reversion of my contribution to the LGBT Parenting article is two fold: 1. The reason for your reversion deals only with one sentence of a larger critique of the study (which has appropriate citations) but you deleted the entire critique by your reversion instead of editing the sentence you believe offends the WP:SYN guideline and 2. I don't believe the reverted material in fact offends the WP:SYN guideline. Fitzgerald's analysis applies to all small sample convenience studies - Fitzgerald was making a universal statement which had direct application to this 2010 study because it had the exact same methodologies - a small sample convenience study (the citation is also quoted in the "Methodologies" section of the article because the critique applies to virtually all studies on LGBT Parenting). Approximately 0.18% of U.S. Households with children are headed by a homosexual couple which makes conducting a random population based survey essentially impossible because you would not find enough such households through a random survey to qualify the sample as having statistical significance. Hence, the use of convenience or snowball samples in LGBT Parenting research - but these samples all suffer from the critique that Fitzgerald provided - it doesn't matter whether the results of the survey were published before 1999 or after. What's sad is that another editor cited to the Fitzgerald analysis as evidence that there is consensus in the field - without noting that while there is consensus among the studies, Fitzgerald stated that the studies were universally weak, limited and subject to bias because they were small and non-representative of the population.Sapientia-et-veritas (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I added User:Babsfan24 to your SPI report, now IndianBio and I have this new message maybe they should join the party ? Mlpearc (open channel) 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I had a look through this user's recent contributions. They seem to all be related to fiddling about with birth places in infoboxes. When they violate WP:BLP, I don't think they do so out of malice or pushing any POV, and there's definitely nothing I would define as vandalism. I can't see any problematic edits since your final warning, so a block would not be appropriate at this stage. You might want to try a personalised message explaining what the problem is, rather than a template. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
it is not my personal analysis re B-17 use to attack cities. You can read about that in wikipedia articles such as firebombing of dresden, hamburg, hannover and so on. Furthermore, I have been there and I can certify the bombing took place. Why you think what I wrote is a personal analysis and not historically accurate? Also, where is the formal tone breached? Just so I can avoid doing that in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bavareze (talk • contribs) 07:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
How could a fashion icon like Barbra whose article without her influence on fashion? There's so many fashion magazines such as Vogue, Elle, Marie Claire, Harper's Bazaar have contributed to Barbra so many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skkywill (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
She is,there's so many fashion magazines such as Vogue, Elle, Marie Claire, Harper's Bazaar have proved Barbra is a great fashion icon. http://www.stylelist.com/view/barbra-streisand-turns-71/ http://www.vogue.com/1449687/barbra-streisand-new-album-partners-celebrity-style/ http://www.elleuk.com/fashion/celebrity-style/barbra-streisand-is-victoria-beckham-style-icon http://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/g2204/barbra-streisand-style/ http://www.instyle.com/fashion/undefined http://www.glamour.com/inspired/women-of-the http://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/photography/g1211/jennifer-aniston-barbra-streisand-pictures-0910/ http://www.vogue.com/869224/andre-leon-talley-on-the-best-oscars-dresses-of-all-time/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skkywill (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not by comment the popular media, it's comments about Barbra as fashion icon by the most popular fashion magazines in the world, and words “style icon", "fashion icon" were used to described Barbra’s fashion icon statue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skkywill (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Have a read here: Adult contemporary music. Caden cool 17:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Binksternet,
You recently undid the addition of a section with cited, published articles about Albright being an improviser and composer, with the reason being that your opinion is that he is not "famous as a composer" and that ""Improviser" is not warranted -- not enough sources saying "the improviser Albright" or similar."
Below are just five (5) published and cited articles that state otherwise. Please revert your "undo"ing of the additions. Thank you!
Sources: DC Metro Theater Arts: http://dcmetrotheaterarts.com/2015/04/24/keith-lockhart-bbc-concert-orchestra-center-for-the-arts/ "So much so, that Albright was brought back to perform an encore: the audience picked four musical notes and he improvised a piece using those four notes as a base. To hear the initial sequence of four notes and then what an elaborate, beautiful piece Albright turned those simple notes into was thrilling—we had heard what he could do with a piece by someone else, but to listen to his own improvisation, and the emotion he poured into this simple piece – really showed his skill and passion for the piano and for music. He received a well-deserved second standing ovation."
El Nuevo Herald: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/entretenimiento/musica/article19210155.html "Decir que el joven solista es genial, ya resulta un lugar común, pero por si quedara duda, ante la ovación final, ofreció improvisar sobre cuatro notas que le dictaron al azar desde el público… No hay palabras para describir lo que hizo con ese “pie forzado”. Un intérprete único y, para colmo, vestido con impecable y ultramoderna elegancia. Su blanca chaqueta no tenía botones, bolsillos ni solapa."
Classical Source: http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_concert_review.php?id=12778 "Charlie Albright, who joins the BBCCO on its tour of fourteen American cities, gave an exciting account of Ravel’s G major Piano Concerto and thrilled the audience with a brilliantly improvised encore." "Albright offered a rather unusual encore – an improvisation based on four notes called out by members of the audience (B flat, D, A flat and E). The spectacular result, about five minutes long, was suggestive of the great Romantic composer-pianists, leading one to wonder whether their now-familiar works might have had similar improvisational origins. Albright has a bright future not only as a pianist but as a composer as well."
Palm Beach Daily News: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/local/bbc-concert-orchestra-gives-afternoon-concert-of-l/nkttw/ "Albright displayed his virtuosity by performing an audience-driven improvisation as an encore. Asking the crowd to provide a handful of pitches for him to use – B-flat, D, A-flat and E – he settled into a comfortable language living somewhere between Dmitri Shostakovich, Ravel and Frederic Chopin. - See more at: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/local/bbc-concert-orchestra-gives-afternoon-concert-of-l/nkttw/#sthash.rQwclIFB.dpuf"
AL.com: http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2013/03/pianist_charlie_albright_techn.html "Improvisations are starting to become more commonplace among classical performers, and Albright has followed suit, his 10-minute on-the-spot composition conjuring Beethoven. A minor-key classical-romantic hybrid, it began as a kind of slow theme and variations and morphed to more of a fantasia, never straying far from familiar 19th century ground." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdanieloh (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. In response to your posts: 1) You, Binksternet, made the conflict of interest. That is also, in a way, a conflict of interest. 2) The sources are saying that he is, indeed, an improvisor. Just because his concerts often contain more than 50% non-improvised pieces does not deter from the fact that he is an improvisor. Check out his videos on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/pianomanca)...a large number are also of improvisations. Your reasoning is simply invalid. If someone knows how to sing, that doesn't mean they can't also be a dancer during a show, no? 3) Again, this is an opinion. I am backing it up with published articles. Do not use your seniority on Wikipedia to overrule published facts.
Hi! In light of a flurry of recent edits to Ave Maria University, I've opened a couple of new discussions at Talk:Ave Maria University. We should probably work to achieve consensus there. I'll be inviting all the named users who have been editing at AMU. Thanks in advance for your input! Jacona (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Trying to cause trouble at Talk:Easter Rising. I notice him here supporting himself. Scolaire (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That Chinese IP user is back again on Babs articles. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I had already reverted the sock puppet edits you were concerned about on Eric Clapton, plus the one before it, and opened a discussion on the talk page. Your revert partly undid my revert, so I've undone it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
You really should not have kept reverting at User talk:Kelisalicia. For one thing, an editor has a right to remove messages from their talk page when they have seen them. For another thing, and more importantly, a blocked editor has aright to have their unblock request reviewed by an administrator, and by repeatedly removing the request, you were denying her that right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
{{Sockpuppet|MariaJaydHicky}}
the talk page. The template is intended for use on the user page, but displays fine on the talk page as well. This action will be unnecessary most of the time as currently like you I am now spotting the socks within minutes (unless I am at the gym or not yet out of bed) and will act. Regarding information placed by the blocking admin on the user talk page, I don't place a block template on this particular sockmaster's talk as I don't want her wasting admin time applying for unblocks. I agree we have to play our cards close to the chest and not let her know what her "tells" are and how we are discovering her so quickly. But note I blocked Cazzaflazza based on behavior alone, and did not discover the contents of the log until afterwards, so she in fact learns nothing from me having posted this info on her talk for the benefit of the reviewing admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)I added a genre ('art-rock') with a proper citation to back it up. I'm not sure what the problem is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.213.1 (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you look at[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pahlavi_dynasty&diff=next&oldid=1706530] November 2003 and [2] dated May that year, looks as though the first major edit was copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission_Indians&type=revision&diff=663436495&oldid=656540069 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.66.178 (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Binksternet. I just want to share some thoughts of mine about the use of templates at Pahlavi dynasty. Having in mind that, so far, Imperial State of Iran isn't yet recreated as an article which would contain Former Country template (as it should be), I think it would be a good idea to include both Former Country template and Royal house template at Pahlavi dynasty, at least for now. After all, at this point we still have Former Country template at Qajar dynasty (it should also be corrected at some time in the future), so I really don't see some strong reasons not to temporary include Former Country template at the Pahlavi article. --Sundostund (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME....WHY DO U KEEP REMOVING MY EDITS... REALLY ANNOYING ME, I LIKE EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA...BUT YOUR NOT LETTING ME , IT'S UNFAIR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britneyspearsfan17 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello there!
More problems, I'm afraid...
IP addresses 173.215.218.83 and 72.50.54.115 are making similar un-cited revisions to the format and content of the House Music and Garage Music pages - and others. I am also concerned about the activities of Frevel8093, who seems to be behaving in a similar manner (and has also moved the Garage music page without citing the reasons). Your experienced input would be much appreciated!
(Etheldavis (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC))
Thank you very much indeed. I hope all is well with you.
Yeah, you removed my placing Maya Jane Coles as a producer on the song. I'm not sure why you'd do that when it's clearly stated (with sources) that the song was originally produced by Coles, and then slightly edited by producer Nineteen85. You said to provide sources, so if that is not enough, then go to the ASCAP website (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers), go to the ACE search, enter the Work ID of 888201326, or just type in the name "Truffle Butter," and the second result is the Nicki Minaj song. Minaj is listed as a writer and performer, Aubrey Graham Drake is listed as writer, Dwayne Michael Carter (Lil Wayne) is listed as a writer, Maya Jane Cole is listed as well, as a producer, as well as the other guy. So there you have it, straight from the official documents. I changed it back already, so you don't have to worry about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.113.4 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, you're probably already aware that you've been reverted. I was hoping it would stick, because you are 100% correct: Trainor isn't a singer-songwriter by the actual definition. Even Wikipedia's article on singer-songwriter refutes the consensus reached a while back at the Trainor article. Sadly, too many who have no clue what a singer-songwriter actually is went with "it's what reliable references support" in spite of the fact that just as many (if not more) reliable references don't incorrectly refer to Trainor as a singer-songwriter. At the discussion, I was called every name in the book (including a "music snob") for insisting the definition not be used as it doesn't apply. It was a losing battle, and the encyclopedia is not the better for it. It was nice to see someone who gets it attempt to make the correct change. Maybe it's an age-thing, in part, as there are a number of very young Trainor-fans who edit and watchlist the article; whereas people like myself who actually are musicians and old enough to remember what a singer-songwriter truly was/is seem to be in the minority. Pity, really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you mind if who would add unreliable sources (maybe)? 115.164.54.124 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet, just giving you a friendly heads up about this AN/I post, since I linked one of your diffs in my reply. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but if you really listen carefully and perhaps, read the description on the page about the song. You'll find that this particular Genesis song uses a Electronic drum pad and also uses Synthesisers. It's popular "Pop" song of course yes, which you've gotten correct. I ain't no sound technician or DJ for that matter as you appear in being. But in understanding music you don't need to be.
I've gather some important reference material after reading extensively. We have Allmusic; http://www.allmusic.com/album/invisible-touch-mw0000190104 and here at Consequenceofsound http://consequenceofsound.net/2010/03/dusting-em-off-genesis-invisible-touch/ Plus this source possibly http://diffuser.fm/genesis-invisible-touch/
So.. I'm getting at it's a Synthrock song with large elements of electronic instruments. Due with being "pop" It can also fall under the Synthpop genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.69.45.28 (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Invisible Touch is, without a doubt, Genesis' poppiest album, a sleek, streamlined affair built on electronic percussion and dressed in synths that somehow seem to be programmed, not played by Tony Banks. In that sense, it does seem a bit like No Jacket Required, and the heavy emphasis on pop tunes does serve the singer, not the band... the arty moments sank to the bottom, obscured by the big, bold pop hooks here -- pop that was the sound of the mainstream in the late '80s, pop that still effortlessly evokes its time.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey I'd just like to chime in and say that I'm actually NiklawskiMSTM. I am NOT, in any way, shape, or form, Binksternet. I have a dynamic IP address and I'm guessing s/he does, too. My IP, due to my dynamic IP address, is 63.230.55.164. But that IP probably will not belong to me for an extended period of time (who knows; I remember last year I had the same IP for over two months). I was actually reading exactly how long a sidereal day is when I got this notification saying that I have a new message, which is weird because I just formatted this hard drive last week (I have [[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu as an OS and I like to edit system files so I end up formatting my hard drive a lot due to screwing up) and haven't logged back into Wikipedia yet.
Tl;dr: This IP is not Binksternet's. I have a dynamic IP address and s/he probably does, too. So this IP (63.230.55.164) currently belongs to me (NiklawskiMSTM) and probably won't tomorrow. So yeah don't associate this IP with him/her and if you associate this IP with myself, don't associate it with me for an extended period of time.
Just logged into my own account to verify this claim.
NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 22:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
De verdad
Gloria roman (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping this is the best way to communicate my reasoning for the re-inserted revisions.
para 1 - the building of the time machine itself is not what Alexander thinks will save Emma - he intends to travel back in time, so this needs to be included; don’t use passive voice for the mugger killing Emma and Alexander completing the machine
para 3 - “one” agrees with “speaks” (an Eloi who speaks; one Eloi speaks; etc.) - this is a common grammatical mistake (like Match.com's adds: One out of five relationships begin online.. You wouldn't say "One relationship begin online")
para 4 - should end with description of Uber-Morlocks
para 5 - The film shows the Uber-Morlock revealing the machine, so it is useful in the plotsum; “suddenly” is not necessary in the plotsum; “into the machine” is redundant; “Alexander gets into the machine, but also pulls the Uber-Morlock in with him” takes care of both points; he “prepares to return home” is unnecessary for the plotsum
para 6 - useful to know about the Morlocks’ pursuit; they don’t just let the pair leave freely
para 7 - after the escape and “new life” scenes, a new paragraph is needed for the final scene (i.e. "the film ends" = "in conclusion" = new paragraph); “displayed in parallel” is a poor wording (“juxtaposed in the same location but in different times” is much clearer); “until the master returns” is a quotation, but “until Alexander returns” is correct for the plotsum; mentioning the housekeeper's exit isn’t needed in the plotsum; “she turns” isn’t needed since we already have “as she leaves”, which also makes “she then quietly walks out” redundant; the plotsum doesn't need quotation of housekeeper's farewell; we don’t see Philby walking out and he isn’t facing away from the laboratory, so he can’t “look back”; Philby’s focus is not the whole house (i.e. “walks out the house and looks back”) but rather the laboratory; “before walking off” is not necessary, but the “in tribute” clause is an appropriate summary
"The film ends with two scenes juxtaposed in the same location but in different times: while Alexander shows Mara and Kalen a field that was once his home, Philby and Alexander's housekeeper, Mrs. Watchit, sadly discuss his absence. Philby tells Mrs. Watchit he's glad that Alexander's gone to a place where he can find peace, then tells her that he would like to hire her as a housekeeper, which she accepts until Alexander returns. Mrs. Watchit bids Alexander farewell and Philby leaves, looking toward the laboratory contentedly, then throws his bowler hat away in tribute to Alexander's distaste for conformity."
Xanderox (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet, I'm hoping you can help me out as you don't seem to approve of my updates to the DJ Fresh page. I am part of DJ Fresh's digital team at Ministry of Sound, his record label and would like to update his Wikipedia page as it is massively out of date. All of the information I am using is taken from his official biography which will appear on his website. Please let me know specifically what issues you have with the information and what I need to do to get this page updated with this information. DJ Fresh has done so much since the last update so we would really like to give him an accurate representation on here.
Regarding the image, that is an official press shot that we use on all promotional material. As his record label, we have the rights to use this however we want. Again, please let me know what I have to do specifically to get this image on the page.
Thanks for your help, Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumaso31500 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Please do not reundo my changes to "Unlocked" again. All the new material is referenced right now.
Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:65:EE28:5946:68EF:F24D:4F9B:7FEE (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet, in case your ears start burning, I mentioned you in passing at this ANI report. If you have anything to add, please do. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for accidentally having Dick Dale's name censored due to my autocensor filter that I have in my browser.
I wish I could undo without changing any text... Tharthan (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic Metasonix. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I noticed your recent report on the admins vandalism page. I'm following to see what becomes of it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's dismissed there. The admins edit war & 3RR page is a better bet. One reason I hadn't moved to prevent disruption much sooner is that the editor has a large number of positive or at least innocuous edits, so not really a vandal. Since the issue's been brought up on the article's talk page, the repetitive, unexplained, undiscussed edits are an even better candidate for handling at WP:ANEW. Well, let's see what happens. Willondon (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Some day I'll learn how to do an SSPI myself. But right now, there's GavinHerlihy. --Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This page 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. |