Contents

User talk:Sylvia Anna

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! MilesAgain (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jeff Porcaro page, I can't believe I put "include" twice, but I wanted to get that list shortened to just songs whose artist didn't need to be listed, and I moved some stuff around, and must have forgotten to delete one instance of the word.

Perhaps, (speaking of Jeff indirectly), on the page for Kid Charlemagne by Steely Dan (not him on the drums there), some fool keeps vandalising it with this bit about "Care for wine, Drew Carey?" bit. I'll try to keep deleting it, but I probably should submit the page for protection. ReignMan (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! I have only recently started to take care of this article a bit and I may work on it some more. Advice is always welcome. I am thinking of shortening that long list of artists in the info box.

As to that vandal on the other article, I guess you should report him as such if he doesn't stop.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite figure out what to declare as the reason, as the protect page is sort of specific. I agree the "associated artists" pages are so stupid, they're simply a list of artists users think are similar. These are not facts. "Associated Acts" should be the bands Jeff was with, or worked with often, like Toto, Steely Dan, etc. ReignMan (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a building. Buidling or apartment, there is no difference and it doesn't make much of a difference on wiki to me.Jeneral28 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the fuss is about. Toto's website said nothing about building, abandoned or apartment. Let the reader view the video and decide. It's not like that damages the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong facts do damage an article. Not that the goings on in that video are so important, but if you feel the need to describe it, do it correctly. And the reader shouldn't have to go to Youtube and watch the video to see if the description in the article is correct.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I described it based on what I saw. The edit still does not affect the whole article as a whole. No one will cry if they think its an apartment/building/dark/coloured/light. And the article was not even around until i made massive edits.Jeneral28 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvia Anna

I have uploaded the best photo of Joseph_Williams I have from yesternights concert with TOTO at KB Hallen in Copenhagen. You find the file at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_Williams_live_with_TOTO_in_Copenhagen_July_20th_2010.JPG.

Best regards.

Maltesen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.248.170 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvia Anna, Can we discuss your latest change on Colin Farrell's page? Where is the proper medium for discussing such changes on Wikipedia? Best regards Mte01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mte01 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, discussions about the work on an article should be led on the article discussion page. I have reverted your edit because you haven't provided any proof that the woman on that picture is his new partner. Your reference just led to some picture gallery. --Sylvia Anna (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to join if you are interested in collaborating on articles related to Rufus Wainwright! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I am not sure if I can be of any help as I have never done work on such projects. I have put his article on my watchlist because I wish to protect it from vandalism (not knowing if it gets vandalised a lot), though I am only just about to discover him and do not know where this will lead. Anyway, I will consider joining the project.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project! The WikiProject is not very active, as there are only a few participants, but you are welcome to use the project as much as you wish to discuss anything related to Rufus Wainwright. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for catching my mistake (Lane vs. Lake)! I believe all errors have been corrected. If you see any others, feel free to let me know. The article is currently nominated for Good status--hopefully this will become WikiProject Rufus Wainwright's second GA! Thanks again. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for speaking up on the WikiProject talk page--I look forward to collaborating more on articles, and I hope I did not offend you by nominating the article for GA status without notifying other project members. As I mentioned, I have not forgotten about your comments and we can address them on the article talk page or the GA review page. I was just waiting until the GA review began so that we could potentially have a third opinion. Thanks for continuing work relating to WPRW. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! I just need to know if contributing to the project is worth it, which it is if people work together for the good of articles and those who are supposed to read them and are able to compromise. I have some more comment on said album article which I would post on its discussion page soon if you don't think it would hurt the GA nomination.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the Good Article nomination process is taking so long. I am glad you are keeping an eye on the article--I see you corrected a mistake just a few moments ago. Much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: the GA review has begun. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your input. Between the three of us, I think the article is mighty fine! Looking forward to tackling the next Wainwright article! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure!--Sylvia Anna (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you might have your eye on Poses, an article I previously attempted to get to GA review. I invite you to review the article throughout (assuming you are interested), marking sure to review the concerns I was unable to address during the GA review. Now that I look at the article again, there are definitely some improvements to be made. Feel free to make changes and post concerns/feedback on the talk page. Once Poses is good to go, I'd have a blast working on the Want albums. I am not sure if you like working together or alone, but feel free to keep in touch if you would like to work on other articles (or of course you can use WikiProject Rufus Wainwright to connect.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very easy to get All Days Are Nights: Songs for Lulu up to GA status. I have most of the article put together already, just needs some expansion in select areas. Feel free to provide any feedback on that article as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit/correction on the House of Rufus article--good catch! I posted additional links on the talk page, so these can be used to expand the article. I think there is enough press and reception for the article to be expanded to Good status. Feel free to contribute if you wish. I am working on the article as I have the time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% and will most certainly add additional reviews to the article. The Bloomberg one was left there because I had just incorporated the source into the article and I wanted to remember to include it following the "mixed reception" claim. I am still expanding the article--feel free to add additional sources to the article or to its talk page. Thanks for your feedback. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvia!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why April instead of February? Won't he be promoting the album at the February performances? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The performances today in Spain and on 4 March in London are not about the album. He plays the sonnets there. There's also a date in late March in the US, but I don't know anything about it. So the six dates in Europe starting 23 April seem to be the start of the album tour.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started articles for Prima Donna (the album) and Prima Donna: A Symphonic Visual Concert. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What your are putting on chris pines page is wrong why should one mistake remain forever on his page. Would you like people to continually remind you of your mistakes for all to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottleshock34 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on your talk page.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:This Fall cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]