User talk:Redheylin

This user may have left Wikipedia. Redheylin has not edited Wikipedia since June 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello Redheylin, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jayen466 00:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hi, this discussion may be of interest to you: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Scholarly_sources_vs._news_sources; do participate if you feel like it. Jayen466 13:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that if you do things like this it's important to clean up by checking the "what links here" tab and fix the double redirects, here, here and here. I also moved the page over to preserve the editing history. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion page? If you move an article and the target does not exist (or does but has had no edits) then the talk page should go with it. However, if the target has had edits such as Talk:Demographics of Somalia then the talk page won't go with the move, see Talk:Somali clan, which really should be a redirect now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if the target page has had more than one edit made to it then it needs an administrator to delete it first, then the page can be moved, see here. Next the deleted parts are restored and the page is put back in the correct version, see here. Now if you look at the history all the editors of Somali clan and Demographics of Somalia are listed in one place. I was referring to Help:Merging and moving pages#How to rename a page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No for the redirects that you are doing the history is OK where it is. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but I really think the "Somali clan" article should have been merged and redirected to "Somali people." I'm basing my reasoning thusly: (Somali clan = Somali people) but (People in Somalia != Somali people). If you want to weigh in on another discussion (and I understand if you don't) I've left comments at Talk:Demographics of Somalia#Article merge. I'll also leave a note for CBW. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redheylin. I saw your in depth edits of article Kaula and I was wandering if it is ready for a rating reevaluation. If not, what can be done to raise its level? I am the author of the original form of this article, when it was 44K long. Visarga (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me, and sorry you had not approved the edits before. The article will be further improved by use of scholarly sources, especially historical and with "all India" approach. A while ago I received the following - you might contact Vritti. Please leave any detailed comments on the Kaula talk page. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your nice work on the Kaula article. Thanks for steering it away from the Kashmir Shaivism perspective, which is actually a different thing and different word. Good work. -Vritti (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking back through my talk page and noticed "By the way = no thanks, I just put one out." I think you are the first person who ever got the meaning of my signature. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redheylin! Thank you for picking up the Steven Toushin article in the midst of a COI debate. I appreciate the work that you did to make it more balanced. However, I am concerned that the current version makes no mention of the Miller Test, which was the applicable law that governed Toushin's predicament. Toushin is a notable figure in large part because the U.S. Government was unable to convict him for obscenity despite the fact that his movies were extremely disturbing. It seems that his attorneys convinced the jury that extreme violence is not punishable under Miller. As the wiki article now stands, there is no mention of the Miller test. Can you take a look at the article? You did a good job balancing out the article, but there needs to be more discussion of Miller to understand the defense and its social relevance. Thank you! De Bergerac (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're trying to nominate categories for deletion. However, the procedure you're using is not correct. Please study the directions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion before attempting any more nominations.

In the case of categories that have no pages in them, there's a simpler process, called speedy deletion that can be used. Empty categories qualify for speedy deletion under criterion C1.

If you have questions about any of this, please contact me via my talk page. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, sorry for my late answer.

I deleted the Bulgarian section in Tamburica article because it's not a Central (or Eastern) European tambura (tamburica) it's a South European tamboura as I know. And your map is correct but you cut off some territory on North.

I would suggest you may create a new article for the Bulgarian tamboura.

Outesticide (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the above and am still trying to suss out your music genre hierarchy strategy, but I'm getting a little tangled up in it because I'm not seeing the big picture. Rather than get into the philosophical details, though I really just want to get your input regarding how to categorize a certain few articles which are about genres which don't really fit neatly into the hierarchy.

• Balearic Beat was, in the early '90s, a specific genre of downtempo electronic dance music, under which a number of artists, labels and recordings will fall. But earlier & overlapping that period, Balearic Beat was a style of DJing emphasizing the selection of mostly downtempo/midtempo dance music from different genres -- electronic, rock, jazz, funk -- in order to create & maintain a certain tropical, laid-back vibe. There are DJs, compilations & labels devoted to this eclectic selection and its continuation under the umbrella of Ibiza/Balearic-themed "chillout" music.

• Afro and Cosmic (Cosmic Disco) are a pair of somewhat intertwined styles of DJing emphasizing both the selection and technical combination of different styles of rhythmic music drawn from different genres -- electronic, rock, jazz, funk, reggae/dub, disco, classical -- in order to produce a midtempo mix of psychedelic dance music, even when the source material isn't dance music, per se. There is sonic overlap, and the terms Afro and Cosmic get conflated (and even joined) quite a bit, hence the presence of an "Afro/Cosmic music" article and a possibly-to-be-merged "Cosmic disco" article.

Is there a generic dance music category we can put these under?

Additionally, there's the questionable, maybe deletable articles

• post-disco
• alternative dance
• dance-pop

and maybe a few others, all of which I believe have all been created based on the taxonomy at allmusic.com. As far as I know, allmusic's strategy is to produce a simple, flat tree of genres, and their contributors have no qualms about inventing genres just to bridge gaps or make it possible to tag every artist with a single genre.

"Post-disco" is a good example. It's a half-hearted attempt by one editor (who is now no longer credited on their site) to declare three genres of dance music that were popular between the fuzzy end of disco and the fuzzy beginning of house to comprise a genre, themselves. I recently made significant edits to the post-disco article on Wikipedia to expose what a contrivance it is, but I'm hesitant to nominate it for deletion, because it actually encompasses a legitimate (well, verifiable) genre called "boogie", which is 1979-1984 R&B containing elements of funk, disco, electro, and pop, without being overtly any of those. I'm thinking it would be better to just rename the post-disco article to Boogie-something after better content is added (probably by me).

Notwithstanding the credibility of those allmusic "genres", I'm not sure how to categorize the Wikipedia articles about them. Right now you've got post-disco under disco, which sort of makes sense in that it's a genre defined in relation to disco, but it's a bit like filing Postmodernism under Modernism... the idea is that it's not disco, but rather a reaction against and evolution beyond. And alternative dance is filed under the dance-pop category, as is, well, dance-pop... but shouldn't they be under dance music somehow? —mjb (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have too much information to offer regarding Chinese history and culture, but I'd be happy to help on any China-related article that may need some fixing up. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the text a bit lacking at first, but now on inspection of the sources it doesn't seems too bad. I'll remove the tag. A quick search on the so-called "Further reading" also doesn't seem to turn up anything. Eh, I'll probably just remove that too. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughtful feedback on this situation. You raised a point about unsupported claims on the talk page about possibly living teachers, FYI I decided to redact the names so they are just "A", "B", "C" and "D" now. I've written to two still-active editors whose comments I've changed—the other comments were by accounts (mostly IP users) who haven't edited wikipedia for over a year, so it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie in their cases. - Pointillist (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a fine job of improving the lead of astral projection. I'm sorry that we could not have worked in a less confrontational manner with one another. I have, however, recently retired from the project. I wish you the best, and no hard feelings. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red, please don't take this very minor disagreement to heart. Note that I did not revert your edits, I only removed that one clause about Parsifal. Notable, sure, but it hardly needs to go in the introductory sentence, does it? I have added to the intro and the influence section so that Parsifal is mentioned up front, and placed a hat note lest readers confuse the two works. Please don't think I'm out to own this (or any) article; it needs a lot of work and any improvements are wanted and desired. Cheers and happy editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point, but it would be extremely time-consuming to notify everyone who added unsourced material to an article that "citation needed" tags were added. I advise keeping articles you are interested in on your watch list. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is ok, and will do until a better one can be found. I'm sure you understand that uncredited performances on recorded music have to be carefully sourced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I think of it, I believe that Peter's girlfriend, Sandra Elsdon, played the recorder parts. I'll try to find a reference. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, understood. I do the same sometimes. I too noticed that the refs you just added are the only ones on that page, and your involvement in that article also revealed some other slightly dubious statements that I will endeavour to address at some point. I have so many articles on my watch list that some articles go a bit wild without my noticing, and that is one of them. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - online stuff is pretty thin. Green's biography is a decent source, otherwise interviews in magazines etc are good sources, particularly Guitar Magazine-type publications. The other stuff that needs sourcing is some of the blurb about the various different pressings of the album. It is WP:OR (I remember when the editor wrote it) and could do with cleaning up. Also the other uncredited contributions - Spencer, McVie and Horton. Spencer's piano is a fact, but needs a source. McVie's piano is less certain, and I've no idea about Horton. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I watch edits to Beatle-related articles and I think your recent edits are (mostly) great. I have seen a couple cases, however, where I think you have introduced material into statements with existing citations where the new material is not supported by the source. For example, you added "creating the effect known as 'chorus'" in "Tomorrow Never Knows" as part of a statement attributed to Spitz, The Beatles, page 603. I think that part ought to be sourced. Please be careful with this. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud Cirt's work on this article, which is now far better than before - thank you very much. This comment about my work on the article Alford plea is most appreciated. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've reverted a couple of your edits which I have found difficult to understand. I guess you are trying to depopulate this category. Can you tell me why? Have you discuss this with any of the projects? I'm on some of the CM related ones but I haven't seen anything. Anyway I'd appreciated it if you can explain the reasoning. Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Re "Please note that your reverts have removed genuinely useful categories." Can you clarify whether you have discussed this with any projects? This is important. Many editors will not notice these rapid Hotcat edits until sometime after they have been made. --Kleinzach 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted to various category lists over the past year but seldom got any response, unfortunately. Nevertheless, I feel able to determine, for example, that melodrama is a theatrical genre and maestro is an Italian loanword. Please note, particularly, that a large number of edits are made according to standing wiki principles, such as the non-use of nested categories so that, where "Opera terminology", for instance, is a category that is a member of "Musical terminology", a given page ordinarily ought not be a member of both. I'd draw your attention to the lists of Italian terms, etc, included in the category and recommend that important terms be checked for a bluelinked presence there: please also add any article that sets out to explain a significant amount of music terminology. The picture's very patchy in this respect; there certainly ought to be a "Jazz terminology" page. But I have been at this for a year and it may easily take another year. I am used to a reversion every 500 edits or so, but there's so much to do, others can fight over the small change. I have to say that, when they do, I think "Musical terminology" will end up as a category of articles on....uh..... Redheylin (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important category so I have raised the matter here. --Kleinzach 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Yuletide to you Redhaylin,

All the best to you and yours in 2010.

P.S. I am going to get you a talkpage archiver for the new year. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Category:Catholic Liturgical Rites. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redheylin, I hope 2010 finds you well. Would you have time to help me out with a music-related query? It's at RSN, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Musicnotes.com. Best, --JN466 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your input. (By the way, if you ever want to get into doing GA reviews, WP:GAN#Music has a large backlog currently. There are also several music articles at WP:FAC that need more reviews before the delegates can decide whether to promote or not.) --JN466 09:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know that I take great pains to never, ever be uncivil towards any editors on the encyclopedia--- my comments about "morons" etc were directed at literature sources, not at any editors. WP:Civility is to protect editors from hostility, not to protect literature from informed judgement.Likebox (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason I replied here as well, a discourse on policy is a little off topic. You are not right about civility--- if I say "This source is junk! Its written by incompetent morons who don't know the field!" There is no incivility. The only way it can be construed as uncivil is if the author is editing, which would be an even worse violation: a Conflict of Interest.

In saying this from your own judgment you are relying on OR: you need a source that says so, or you need to refer to RS discussion if you want removal to be accepted. Unilaterally to revert on these grounds is a disruptive and incivil action that invalidates your calls for other editors to seek your own agreement. Edit war results. This leads to blocks, it is not a question of the rights or wrongs of the substance of the argument. Redheylin (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this from my own judgement to other editors in edit summaries and on the talk page. This is not a policy violation--- it is good sense. This is how content disputes are resolved: you talk about the sources honestly (there's no need for sources about the sources), you determine their reliability and you figure out what should be in the article.

To make removal accepted, you argue until convergence. Only if there is no convergence do you need to appeal to bureaucratic rules. If you are honest, and do not misrepresent the literature, usually there is no need for haggling over policy. Certainly there was no need in this case.Likebox (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Red - I kinda liked SA's new picture. very much on point. why did you remove it? --Ludwigs2 02:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redheylin, I reverted edit 284816122 done by yourself on 15:14, 19 April 2009. Your edit removed Category:Musical genres by region and added Category:American styles of music to Category:Canadian styles of music? What were you trying to do? Maybe I can help. In fact, the Category:American music is lacking some cat's. Reply here. I like to keep discussions in one place. Thanks Argolin (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following wiki policy of categorising as accurately as possible, to move "Canadian styles" to its proper place, alongside "USA styles", "Mexican styles" and so forth into the continent-wide folder "American styles", as every other country ought to be shelved under its continent. This seems obvious - what is not so obvious is your reason for reversion. A "by region" folder should only contain a set of regional categories. Redheylin (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I sort of, kind of, thought that was your intent: that's why I'm asking. Your edit was not clear. When I looked at Category:Musical genres by region which you removed, I saw For more information on regional music see Category:Music by nationality. I know that Category:Canadian music is already linked up to this nationality cat. I'm aware of a North American category out there. The "top level" Category:Canadian music is linked to it. Is there not a "North American styles"? The "American styles" is "obvious" as you point out a U.S.A category not a continent-wide folder.

I did not mean any offence by my revert. I came across your edit right in the middle of setting up Category:Canadian rock music. I was flabbergasted that we (in the Canadian music group sense) did not have one. There was quite a lot of work that I had to do in setting it up. Again, your edit didn't seem correct after looking in to it (above). Regards, Argolin (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few USA editors act as though America = USA. Perhaps a few act like USA is the whole world! If you find that is the case, that is what needs to be fixed. Not that you leave the thing like that, wrong, and put Canada isolated in some no-man's-land just to make it clear that "Canada is not USA"! I have made a few new "USA" categories in order to fix this problem - if you find some more are needed, please make them or call me for help. Please do not put your energy into reinforcing and formalising thoughtless categorising by geographically-challenged USA eds. But please note that "Canadian styles" should not include, say, "Tango in Canada", since this is still not a Canadian style as such. Redheylin (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be going off topic. My points:

1. My revert of your edit 284816122 done on 15:14, 19 April 2009 was correct to do (see number 4 below). I am giving you the courteousy of telling you about it so that your other edits involved may also be corrected.
2. I don't know enough about such upper level categories. A category something like Category:North American genres of music as a aub category of Category:Musical genres by region would seem resonable to me. You should ask at the Portal:Music.
3. You moved many other national styles of music categories to Category:American styles of music. They have to be investigated and either reverted or moved to a new cat (as above).
4. Category:American styles of music is linked to article Music of the United States. I am a member of Portal:Music of Canada not of any other. The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music decide what what is best for Canadian articles and categories. If you want to change Canadian cats maybe you should join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music and talk about it first.
5. You quote wikipedia policy and refer to categories but don't provide links to anything?

Thank you. Argolin (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American styles of music is linked to article Music of the United States. Yes, that's what I mean: there's what does not make sense. To say Canada is in the continent of America does make sense - it does not need a vote. I can quite see why you feel the situation needs sorting out and I'd be happy to help, but I do not think we need to discuss whether Canada is part of America, but rather why someone else has assumed that America = USA. I have made a few such changes but not all, as you have discovered. In fact, I just looked at the cat page and found that "American music" is a member of "North American music"! This is crazy, obviously it really does need sorting out. Redheylin (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'll post something to Portal:Music. Conversation finished.

This Category:American music has to be moved to Category:Music of the Americas....I will leave it to one of you..if not i will do this soon..I have gotten a few complaints about how this cat is set up and named... You two ok with Category:Music of the Americas? or is there a better title!....Moxy (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think I can; don't know enough. Until now, I have been dealing with items under Category:Canadian music only linking to other "international" cats as needed. Bottom line: no, not me sorry. Argolin (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that distinction has been used and I don't object but an application must be made to change a category name. As things stand, anyhow, "American" is the only valid adjective meaning "of the Americas" and has to be used as the top level continental cat at present but may perhaps cause problems, inconsistencies, permanent surveillance etc. Will support your application if you make it and let me know. Thanks for input. Redheylin (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what? "American is the only valid adjective meaning "of the Americas" ..That is completely wrong. American means the people of the United states..I think you mean to say America pls see American and Americas...anyways i will ask to get it moved soon ...i have to talk about it to a few others first see if that naming is ok before i submit it... We will use the normal term like Category:History of the Americas and Category:Archaeology of the Americas etc.....Moxy (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary for "America" gave "of the Americas" first and "of the USA" second - the entry for "AmericaN" gives the reverse. Hence the confusion, which neither of us has made. Both can be taken to mean both. However, "American" remains the only adjective of "the Americas" and is used in music as such, as in "Latin-American", which obviously is not "of the USA". But I see the confusion so, as I said, I'll support the change of name if you submit it, particularly if you say that's what has been generally done elsewhere. It's odd nobody has asked for "the Australias"! Redheylin (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep i guess your right - not all see the same meaning,, kind of like Indians vs Native vs First Nations vs Indigenous or Aboriginals...all the same meaning somewhat, but people have great reservations on what should be used for who.. Moxy (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. "people have great reservations" - what, the Indians/Native/First Nation/Indigenous/ Aboriginals? But yes. Redheylin (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on MTR Professional Audio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the discussion and the page at the link above. Looking at the article at the time of deletion I'm not sure that I see an assertion of notability. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was userfied as per the link in the header of this section, see here. The point that you linked to is a guideline and not a policy. From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles #A7 "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." and from the hang-on template "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria,...". And yes it appears that the section you noted in the notability guidelines and the CSD policy are in conflict. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair I live in the Arctic and it's still below freezing. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An adminmin, Henry? No, Min, not an adminmin, Min. I didn't say "an adminminmin", Henry, I said....

One way around it is to create them in your user space then move them to article space. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read my response to your proposed redirection of Metempsychosis. I intend to fight for this, and I suggest you educate yourself if you are interested. 'I know Latin and Greek - do you?' LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a forum for your views to be upheld until someone challenges them with references. you are a hypocrite, operating in a mode akin to policies you denounce. if i myself cannot due to time constraints supply relevant links you must apply a 'citation needed' tag to points in question rather than delete them wholesale. that your "knowledge" (laughable as it is - "i know latin - do you?" (which will forever bring a smile to my face)) is the basis for the non-existence of the metempsychosis page, when many philosophical dictionaries make room for the term, is far too insufficient for the definitive change you wish to effect. we can duke it out. smarter (if not cooler) heads will prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiki music, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you taking entries in Category:Filter theory out of alphabetical order? I cannot fathom what you are trying to achieve. I can kind of see the point of highlighting one or two key articles (but even then, it would be better to link them in the lede of the category page) taking out a large tranche of them is not helpful. Certainly, the one I just reverted, Mechanical filter is not a key article for filter theory. If you are working to some kind of formatting master plan, you really ought to get some consensus for the plan before making widespread changes. SpinningSpark 11:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have problems with a lot of the other recategorisation you have done to these articles, but I won't revert any more until I hear from you. Taking m-derived filter as an example: why have you removed it from category:linear filters when it clearly is a linear filter; why remove it from category:filter theory when it forms part of image parameter theory; why does an article which discusses electronic designs not belong in category:electronic design; why remove it from category:electronics terms when, obviously, it is a term? SpinningSpark 12:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for your note. I'll answer your questions:

1) Why are you taking entries in Category:Filter theory out of alphabetical order? I can kind of see the point of highlighting one or two key articles

It seems to me there are around a dozen, some of which overlap severely: at least one major article seems a POV split duplication. I'd like to discuss these cases soon; anything unnecessary can be put back, I will not leave the town trashed, but at the moment it is hard to navigate the subject. I began over at Category:Sound technology and found there was no category there for the various audio filters used in amplification - some of which are name products, some generic terms. Especially sound synthesis articles must be able to access info on filter transfer function classes (band forms), cut-off freq, impedance and famous topological applications like the Moog capacitor ladder.

So I created the Cat Category:Tone, EQ and filter - you will see that Filter theory has been a member of that for months, which is illogical but I could find no obvious ways to link audio with filter electronics, because, although electronics filters are commonly classified by topology, linear function class, technology (eg analogue, digital) and application (eg audio domain), there is no such categorisation at present and so no way to link through to these relevant subjects or to review the articles available while avoiding wrongly categorising articles on, say, radio-freq antenna filters or digital bitstream filters under "Sound". Rather, many formal logical inconsistencies are visible, such as that Linear filter appeared as Filter theory but Nonlinear filter did not. Similarly, articles on elementary topology are not consistently classified. Internal links and refs are few. Please bear in mind these evident facts and the desirability of some work.

I'd like to class articles according to topology, application, technology and math function in order to give meaningful entry and overview to readers entering from those contiguous domains. These categories will, obviously, themselves be members of higher classes such as Filter design. Otherwise, there is no way for me to say "I have looked at everything on wiki to do with audio filters in sound technology" without reading absolutely bloody everything on all filters whatsoever - which I am prepared to do, but only so that nobody else has to.

I cannot follow this, despite rereading several times. The reason for non-alpha sort still escapes me. The creation of Category:Tone, EQ and filter is fine, but the relationship to the sorting issue is not obvious. I am suspicious of the idea that all filter categories must be a tree with "filter design" at the top, this may not work out in every case. Categorisation is designed so that it does not have to be a tree structure. There is overlap with "history" and "applications" for instance. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the one I just reverted, Mechanical filter is not a key article for filter theory.

I find it important in the short term to be able to see all filter technologies articles, though this should really be highlighted under "design". This means I can ensure all such technologies are linked/mentioned in the appropriate articles and can even consider a "filter technology" category. As a distinct technology, mechanical is important - and it is also of some historical significance, which is another important vector of entry to the subject. But the real place things seem to have come unstuck in the past is "is digital electronic?" To me, analogue, digital and electromechanical are subsets of electronic, which are subsets of "signal" filtering, which is a subset of filtering per se. You ask;

I am particularly concerned with the Mechanical filter article because it is being prepared for FAC. This is a sister article of Distributed element filter which had an enormously difficult FAC but eventually got on the front page. The last thing that is needed is an ongoing dispute about categories, but also, a categorisation scheme that is not intelligble to reviewers is not acceptable if it leads to questions that cannot be easily answered. I agree with you that mechanical is an important technology and there is a problem with the articles based on technology. The article Electronic filter was originally intended (according to some of its authors) to be the "discrete component" technology. However, it slowly accumalated lots of other stuff including filter theory transfer functions. I have started to address this with the creation of mechanical filter and distributed element filter but you are right to point to digital filter and, I think, there is also an issue with crystal and acoustic wave filters. To my mind, it was better to create infrastructure with badly covered areas first before attacking existing articles.

I do not consider the top level article to be filter design, but rather filter (signal processing) where the various ways of categorising filters are explained and lead the reader to the articles they may be interested in. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working to some kind of formatting master plan, you really ought to get some consensus for the plan before making widespread changes.

Well, this is the outline of the plan, above, and, since you have obviously done lots of work and do not want it to turn out wrong, you can say how you think it should be and bring in anybody you think you ought to - I have already created "Category:Electronic filter topology" and so may as well populate it - it can link all over the place. And I need to create "Category: Electronic filter applications" so that I can make my little "Tone EQ and Filter" category a member of it and make the page Audio filter (see, I finally found it!) its main article. Finally, general linear function terms such as "high pass", "order", "cut-off freq" should perhaps be collected separately from those polynomial mathematical functions, such as Butterworth's, that already have, not their own category but at least their own sidebar. Perhaps that's the way to go with the more general articles I mentioned - the ones that most sound engineers will look up first - though subcats can still be used too. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that - subcats and templates to give ease of access to filter theory for someone who wants to understand the virtual parametric EQs and sweeping 24Db per Oct resonant bandpasses on their virtual instruments, guitars, preamps....***((SEE BELOW!) Meanwhile, I hope it will be unexeptionable to populate these two subcats, for the moment, of the "filter theory" cat while awaiting consensus on my audacious stunt.

You want to make "Category:Electronic filter topology" and "Category: Electronic filter applications" both members of "filter theory"? Maybe "topology" but "applications" does not really fit. Why not have a top level category of "signal processing filter" to fit with the top level article? As I said above, I think you ought to be opening a discussion on this at a Wikiproject (Electronics, or Telecommunications, or somewhere and advertise it on appropriate pages) as what you are doing is quite far reaching. A relational diagram of what you are proposing would really help. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking m-derived filter as an example: why have you removed it from category:linear filters when it clearly is a linear filter;

It's a member of a subset of linear filters, and categorisation policy says avoid nesting - which really helps, when you're trying to find out what is actually there, but the same articles are everywhere. Plus, it's a medium-complexity linear filter topology and, now that category of article has its own category, it can be listed in any convenient way you like while making more general articles such as "image parameter theory" even easier to find in a higher-level category. In the same way the new category is already a subset of "filter design", etc. so that individual topologies do not need to be - this is policy but it makes sense, it helps, I support it. So, unless you want to go to "categories for deletion", I'd better populate those I started, and you tell me what you think and what you do not think, and I'll do the work. Regards Redheylin (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had not realised there was a nesting issue. Thanks for pointing it out. An appropriate edit summary would help avoid problems in the future. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I found your "Bandform" template, so I hope I can take it you agree this is a good idea and shall add the template to the bandform pages. I also created a category "wireless tuning and filtering" uner "applications", since there's also a load under telecommunications that did not link to general theory. Redheylin (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wireless" is a bit obsolete. Simpler and more succint would be "radio filtering". SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found that they use the term on wiki to comprehend, radio, TV, microwave etc, whereas "radio" tends to be the braodcasting medium, so I went along with it. It's like "Tone, EQ and Filter" - it looks a bit comic-book from this side of the curtain, but it tells the person at the other end what to expect, and stops me getting grief that "TV is not radio"! I am creating categories that span two linguistic domains. Otherwise I'd have done what you'd have done. Redheylin (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken of "TV", but "wireless" is still a horribly bad choice. "RF filters" is better. SpinningSpark 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The reason for non-alpha sort still escapes me." - if it still bothers you in 7 days, I'll put everything where you say it should be, OK? I am just trying to understand the issue of technologies, where the divisions are.

"Categorisation is designed so that it does not have to be a tree structure. There is overlap with "history" and "applications" for instance." Agreed - the subject in itself has roots both in experiment and in maths. Parts of the theoretical content branch off rapidly into the former, discussing coils and crystals, while others, like the concept of roll-off and filter order, go immediately to differential equations. Experiment was different in different domains. I am keen on history of science - did some work on developmental biologists - and would like to see a smooth transition from that direction too. I'm looking from bottom up, outside in and do not have any G.U.T. on the basis of which to impose a heirarchy. However, clearly, some aspects of filter theory, like the pure maths, have a certain general validity across technologies and applications, whereas others, like topology, only inhabit the subset of analogue electronics.

Why not have a top level category of "signal processing filter" to fit with the top level article? I completely agree - as I said, the "theory" category was simply the only place available. It seems a no-brainer to me. Redheylin (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you are proceeding at such a rate of knots that it going to be difficult to later unpick and I can see some disagreement on this. Why not seek a consensus? SpinningSpark 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has sorted out these problems for years, thousands of category edits have made me bold, nobody seems to care but you, you obviously know your stuff and I am thinking what you are thinking - so! Redheylin (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe others haven't noticed - or are too busy. If you are thinking what I'm thinking, why am I reverting so many of your edits? SpinningSpark 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am particularly concerned with the Mechanical filter article because it is being prepared for FAC....The last thing that is needed is an ongoing dispute about categories" - Sorry to have caused you anxiety. "I think, there is also an issue with crystal and acoustic wave filters." - Yes - there's no classification by technology. But for that matter, should all analogue and electromechanical devices be classed linear? Take the case of a spring reverb in which an analogue signal is passed through an electromechanical device - this imposes a mechanical formant filtering upon the signal, which seems non-linear to me. Synthesiser filters are made to self-oscillate, creating nonlinearity. Actually I came back to this because I am seeking a circuit to filter low odd harmonics from a signal, which made me consider a mechanical device in inverted phase - can you point me anywhere more, erm, conventional? Redheylin (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the spring reverb is linear. In what sense do you think it is non-linear? But you are right, not all analog is linear, all passive analog is though. The phase cancelling filter is called a transversal filter, this is usually digital, but an analog delay line works just fine. The idea is that the signal is tapped off the delay line at the point where the frequency to be rejected is in antiphase and then added back in to the output. Several different taps can be added to obtain the desired response. This is ideal if all you want to do is kill specific harmonics. Of course, analog delay lines are expensive and bulky which is why DSPs are so popular. SpinningSpark 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense do you think it is non-linear? Because the formant is not a linear function of the input signal - you have modulation that cannot be expressed in a simple transfer function. But anyway - this delay line would have to adjust its delay time to the incoming frequency to achieve phase cancellation, no? Redheylin (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a rational function of the input signal (because of the transmission-line-like nature of the innards), so the transfer function cannot be expressed in polynomials, but it is still a mathematically linear function. It must be, because the spring reverb is entirely passive linear components, basically Hooke's law. You are right, that a changing input frequency will require changing the tap-offs of the delay if you want the harmonic relationship to remain constant. This requires detecting the value of the fundamental, which is still possible, but again a lot easier to do in DSPs than in analogue. You also need to consider what you mean by "third harmonic" in a complex signal. This is straightforward for a monotonic instrument but for harmonies needs some thought. A two part harmony singing an interval of a fifth apart, for instance, will have the higher voice second harmonic right on top of the lower voice third harmonic. If all you are trying to do is remove some soft-clipping (which is what odd harmonics suggests to me), it would probably be more productive to try improving the linearity of your source. SpinningSpark 19:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your explanation - I had assumed that the input amp of the spring (which needs a big signal) was driving the imposition of the "foreign" harmonics but what you say makes sense - most likely my maths is not good enough to understand the linearity. As for the rest, I am working with a single, monophonic fundamental over about two octaves. I have considered introducing soft clipping into the negative side but I am afraid it will increase with frequency, whereas what I need is control over the 3,5,7,9 in that order of amplitude and let the upper partials pass or, at least, for the effect to roll off. So I am currently looking at harmonic synthesis, though I hear great things have been achieved with finely-tuned diode ladders. Redheylin (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your professional input on Kourosh Zolani's article. This discussion really needed an expert opinion. Thank you again, Thomasshane (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The same user who was highly involved in Kourosh Zolani’s AfD discussion and deleted a huge part of the comments from the opponent side on August 15 and Agust16, has nominated almost every Iranian musicians articles for deletion or speedy deletion today. Here are links to two pages of names: (page 1) and (page 2). The user is proposing to delete almost all the history of Iranian classical music from WP. This act sounds totally racial and discrimination to me. Is there any policy in Wikipedia to stop this user’s suspicious act? Thank you, Thomasshane (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed you did not take the opportunity to remove off-topic comments on other editors you made during this AfD. I was further disappointed that you chose to suggest I was using " bullying language and unfounded allegations" in your reply. If you genuinely feel that my comments were in anyway "bullying" or unjustified you're free to take the matter to WP:ANI or, indeed, to initiate a WP:RECALL. My comment stands however: in AfDs limit your comments to the merits of keeping or deleting the article under discussion. TFOWR 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey!

• User:Starmouse I don't (currently) have a problem with: it looks like it could be a user creating a new article in their userspace (should be in a sandbox, but at least it's tagged as a userpage). I'd like to see if the subject exists before doing anything - if this is made up, I suppose there could still be an argument made that the user was simply practicing article writing. They haven't edited since creating the userpage, however.
• User:Shmannytranny, User:DramaMaAMaM and User:Julenisse50 don't seem appropriate at all, and I'm considering WP:MFD.

Thanks for flagging these. Incidentally, I'm just an en.wiki admin - nothing on meta. TFOWR 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RedHeylin, thanks for the edit on logos in neoplatonism. It is better this way. --Faust (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for getting the details right. I played with the man a few times back in the day; I'll miss him. --JN466 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have repeatedly removed references to Dr. P V Vartak who is famous in western India for his supposed ability to perform astral travel to outer space. Regardless of whether he is notable enough or not, a section deliberately devoted to noted practioners of astral projection should include all possible additions that Wikipedians come up with, unless it grows to unmanageable proportions, which is obviously not the case here. What has been your motive in making those negative edits?

Akshay.peshwe (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggernaut (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silsila from Silsilah - why? where? is there some proof that the usage is better than another? In the area of my fieldwork Silsilah was the common usage - I think a cut and paste like that in the old days would have you blocked possibly - or your move reverted - and a resolution to require a proposed move tag and some discussion first - what puts this move outside of normal proecedure here on wikipedia? SatuSuro 12:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usage is only "better" in that it means Wikipedia uses a single convention of transliteration, at least in Sufi pages, which means that you get to be able to guess where to look. Up to now many different conventions were followed according to the preference of the person who started the page. This even meant that there were duplicate articles. All the previous spellings remain as redirects. What was the "area of your fieldwork", then? Redheylin (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say: good work with cleaning up the categories on poetic form, etc. :-) I've been seeing your edits on a few articles I watch, and I appreciate what you're trying to do. Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Category:Music, mind and body, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; do you have any connection to the User:Qwazzerman account? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry matey, new to me. This is my only account. Redheylin (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks; it seemed strange to me that User:Qwazzerman would comment at this discussion out of the blue—having performed only two edits ever. How did the user know about this discussion? Why did he comment in that one discussion but none of the others? Why is he the only other user who has agreed with your position in the discussion? Can you see why one starts to wonder about these things? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think editors who are concerned with music will tend to agree with me about this simple thing, that there are studies of psychology, medicine and so on in the field of music and that these form a useful category of the study of music. With the advantage of having thought in depth about the classification of musical articles, rather than Oprah Winfrey, I think it's a waste of time discussing, and it does not at all surprise me that anybody aside from the usual categories delete cowboys will see that, without some such category, such studies of music will no longer be classified under Category:Music. Why someone should take a name just to say this thing is another matter. Start his user talk page. Redheylin (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Bitter much? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just categorising, getting a useful job done. Still no reason that music articles classifiable under categories "Mind" and "Body" should, alone of all music articles, not be gathered together. And that means that other articles appear from other corners, because there was no place to put it - like Eye movement in music reading. There are also probably articles about music and drugs. Useful. But just now I am on Category:Western medieval lyric forms and Category:Arabic and Central Asian poetics, categories also recently devised by me. Redheylin (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and agree that it's useful work; I just don't think it's always a good idea to imply that unlike you, other users haven't thought in depth about the categorization of certain articles. We never know what goes through other users' heads or what their backgrounds are. It's also not terribly conducive to good relations to label others as "the usual categories delete cowboys". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of performing arts articles is a little insulated - for example the category of music had little interface with the physics of sound or the physiology of the ear. Most notably, clearing some 300 articles from the head category, a residue of categories and articles - "Music therapy", "Musical memes" and others - concerned aspects of psychology and physiology yet did not interface well with those disciplines. Similarly there are articles on poetry and psychology, dance and fitness, just because these are to some extent disciplines of mind and body. Just this week it was reported; a study shows newborn babies nod their heads to voices. Everyone has learned to read and count and do movements with songs - like Music and movement. At present some of the steps I took to gather together material on the arts, human development and therapy are a little crude and they may be superseded. Still, the material should be gathered, reviewed - sometimes precisely BECAUSE it is so hare-brained. Redheylin (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today I found a triplicate article! Redheylin (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I've tracked back through the edits on Other to find who started up the brilliant diambiguation and think it's you - really made me laugh last night :) Also I've only just noticed the otters pic was you too - thank you for giving me more puntacular laughs! 87.194.30.190 (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! Thanks 82.138.204.128 (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute over levels of formatting documented here and I will be adding information to the article discussion page. I am not sure there is a deadlock because Chatul has not given anyone any chance to comment. If there is a deadlock then I request you revert the article to a "Two levels of formating" version since that is the original version and in such case I believe it is policy to return to the original version. Tom94022 (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor initiated a dialog and essentially blew away^[1] my response, reverting the article rather than rebutting the contents of my response. I take that as a sign that there is a deadlock and that 3rd party comments are appropriate.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer for help. The respective section was linked in the request, however, as discussion died down and the other user meanwhile retired, I think we can regard this moot. Thank you again, Skäpperöd (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Mental representation, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Damirgraffiti (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've read here your statements about the scientific status of biophotonics. I am interested in the subject since we have to deal in the spanish wiki with similar articles [3]. Do you know any reliable source to elucidate the issue (preferably an standard textbook or a paper in a high-quality journal)? Thank you in advance kismalac 09:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Please see your talk page. Redheylin (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see the first paragraph of Antisemitism; specifically "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then." Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this paragraph, and noticed here and elsewhere a selective quotation of sources - when sources are actually used, that is. Perhaps I shall introduce balancing quotes - from the same articles mainly.Redheylin (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you would like to deepen your conception of Stuffism, see Neutral monism and http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/win2010/entries/neutral-monism/. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 20:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have any source data for this photo of William McDougall, especially the source. I would like to get it moved to Commons if we can, otherwise update its data here, and anything that you can add would be great. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long time - I got it from the web but could not find if it was out of copyright. Could have been absoluteastronomy.com but can't be sure - hence the fair use tag. Redheylin (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well put @ Wiki Guides. Self-Appointed Policemen = S.A.P. A 'sap' is a small palm-sized leather billy club used by some law-enfocement personnel as an added incentive to convince a reluctant citizen to obey instructions.Buster Seven Talk 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on Talk:Sharia#Removal_of_Large_amount_of_text. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not too familiar with how category add/removal scripts work here and I believe I may have mistakenly reverted you yesterday. By "subject properly categorised in subcategory of "psychology"" do you mean that since Race and intelligence is in a subcategory of psychology, it should not be in the main psychology category? Thanks, and sorry for any misunderstanding.Boothello (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, thanks for the note. I am spending some time moving articles from head-categories like "Psychology" into whatever appropriate subcategories I can find. This is because many articles get thrown into head-categories when there are better places for them. It often turns out that there are other related articles, even duplicates - this does not get noticed because sometimes there can be hundreds of unsorted articles in the top category. However, this article does pretty much have its own home category, though unfortunately it says "controversy" rather than just "race and intelligence" or something - anyhow, I am not saying there are no other places the category and the article can be categorised - it may be worth having a look, and I shall help if I can, but things like "intelligence testing" do appear under the category "Psychology". Please get back to me if I can help you make sure this subject is properly categorised and linked. Redheylin (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That clears things up, thanks for your reponse. :)Boothello (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about expanding the article Chera dynasty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.73.77 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I see you dumped a lot of instruments out of categories I created, such as "Ugandan musical instruments", etc. Where was this matter discussed? I was never contacted regarding seeking any consensus on this issue. Please clue me in as to where this was agreed upon by other folks specialising in the topic, or is this just a personal call? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about this, as well (and why you didn't remove Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Omani etc. from Tanbūra). It also seems you are doing the opposite of what you've described earlier on this page ("This is because many articles get thrown into head-categories when there are better places for them"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any explanation whatsoever, or evidence of having consulted with any WikiProject, I'm reverting the lot of them. There is some argument to be made that "nation state" classifications of cultural issues have many flaws, but if we remove them entirely there's no way to get from "Burundi" to "this musical instrument used in Burundi". And for some items, like all those in Category:Malagasy musical instruments, these instruments are inarguably inherent to, and largely unique to, Madagascar, so it seems impractical to suddenly define them as "African" vice Malagasy. So reverting all. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some argument to be made that "nation state" classifications of cultural issues have many flaws There certainly is. You write; "if we remove them entirely there's no way to get from "Burundi" to "this musical instrument used in Burundi"". There is - wikilinks and added text. I am sorry for leaving this job half-done for the night. But the converse is also true; if the instrument is used in Rwanda as well as Burundi, then what? If an identical instrument is used by a different language group in the same country with a different name, then what? African instruments simply do not follow national boundaries, the categories are absurdly small and articles not fully or uniformly categorised, many articles are duplicates and one-line unreffd stubs, many dedicated to instruments that simply have a different NAME in that region. Gyro, in answer to your question, I am not touching anything that goes outside sub-saharan Africa, and it is not my intention to leave everything in the head category but to create new categories, "Stringed instruments of Africa", "African lamellophones" etc. and to merge articles in order to achieve something like a comparative study of instrumentation. At present WP:NOTDIC applies to most of these articles, and I am looking in vain for any attempt by anybody to improve these articles in years, so WP:BOLD is the way. I would welcome your help and discussion, though, as Sub-Saharan African music traditions and Rhythm in Sub-Saharan Africa are very demanding pages (that nobody except me has touched in years). To revert without taking the time to look at what you are doing or to improve these categories was a retrograde step - things have simply been made worse again. For example, you have ignored the existence of Category:African drums. You did not check if the categorisation tallied with the lede - instruments classified only under "Kenya" that say "used by such-and-such tribe of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania". And have you counted how many articles there are on the Mbira? There may be a case for Madagascar, as you say, but remember there's a page Music of Madagascar - these exist for all modern African nation states - but these are also massively misleading as peoples, not frontiers, define African musical styles and instrumentation. There is no attempt yet to cover the Indonesian and European input to Malagasy instrumentation, nor to present an overview of all the Indian Ocean islands. I shall just carry on - please get involved if you want to, otherwise just leave me to it - do not expect me to do a week's work in a night. It has taken weeks to master all the different ethnic groups and language families. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI and FWIW, I've left a {{pls}} at the Musical Instruments, Ethiopia, and Somalia WikiProjects. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly an argument to be made, but my initial concern is that I didn't see this actually discussed with anybody. It'd be one thing to BEBOLD and merge some stubs, etc., it's quite another to dump 50-some articles into a parent cat without any notice to anyone. Not to take it too personally as the person who created the cats, but I initially made them since there were tons of instruments filed under "String instruments" or "free-reed instruments" that had some (semi)-clear relationship to a given nation/area, but were not filed geographically in any way. For example, if the kabosy is filed only as "String instruments", it has no category connection to Madagascar. Yes, recognise that there are wikilinks, but if category is unimportant, why dump them in to the parent cat, and if category is important, why remove the category tree connections between Burundi and an instrument which is played in Burundi?

I have a bunch more ideas along these lines (including ways to, for example, have some ligature of category tree to bring together Indian Ocean musical cultures), but don't want to dump too much into here at one shot. In the short term, can we hold off on re-categorisation until we get some consensus? I have no objections to adding categories, fleshing/merging stubs, etc., but just don't want to remove a huge chunk of a category tree without discussion. Would you mind us moving this whole discussion to WP:WikiProject Musical Instruments to centralise it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK, please start a thread. Conversely, I understand you using a non-perfect but improving strategy, but things can be further improved (did you ASK if you could start those national categories?!!) Gyro I am using Merriam's musicological categories, which see the Horn of Africa as non-Subsaharan (North Africa) - but improved links are needed across this area because there's no firm line. I'd really appreciate some Hornbostel Sachs classifications.... Redheylin (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error This edit to Category:Somalian musical instruments recategorizes it from East African to North African, but the articles on those respective territories consider Somalia East African. Am I missing something? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Please see the Merriam ethnomusicological map on Music of Africa and elsewhere, which differs somewhat from geo-political divisions - the music of Cushitic peoples is far closer to Egyptian and Semite traditions than to Sub-Saharan. It would, though, be perfectly OK to start a new Category:Musical instruments of the Horn of Africa if you want. I am on the other side of the divide just now, making sure the SubSaharan music entries all sing the same tune, so to speak. Redheylin (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure It might be the case that in ethnomusicology, it is common to consider Somalia North African—I certainly couldn't speak to that. That having been said, it is at the very least inconsistent and might be odd to see X number of "Somalian foo" categories under "North African foo" and then one that is under "East African foo". For what it's worth, I'm usually inclined to err on the side of consistency, but you may have a compelling reason here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumental Asylum. I am doing some smash and grab articles on some EPs and there are a lot of details (such as how to write a good sentence) that slip past me. I appreciate your help. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in 1966 (?) I did not pick up a copy of Instrumental Assassinations so will not be doing it. I did, however get 3 Hollies EPS which are next on my list. But first, a heavy dose of real life for a while. Carptrash (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CoverInstAssManfredMann.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my idiotic reverting of you at Imperial cult (ancient Rome). I had two versions open at once, or something, and got confused between your deletion of the OR material, and the material itself. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your edit, I'm not sure why you removed cited material as WP:OR and I've therefore restored it. Could you clarify your concerns at the article talk-page? Haploidavey (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in November, you made this edit to Sama (Sufism). My guess is that it was inadvertent, but you truncated a sentence in the first paragraph that had previously read These rituals often includes singing, playing instruments, dancing, recitation of poetry and prayers, wearing symbolic attire, and other rituals to Sama symbolic attire and other rituals. I just want to make sure that I corrected it properly here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking that up - I must have mis-selected without noticing. Redheylin (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you added a "Dangers" section to Child marriage but left off the content. I've just removed the empty section. Feel free to add the section you meant to add there. — Smjg (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tonyreeves.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:McDougall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[4]]. McKinseies (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Ruth St. Denis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delibes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anthropomorph.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Sub-Saharan African music traditions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entrainment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the image would benefit from the addition of clefs? Hyacinth (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that removing the clef, while simpler, makes it harder to understand. The comparison I would make is with printed speech: removing the punctuation may make it simpler, but not easier to read and understand. For someone who reads music, I would argue that the absence of a clef is more distracting than its presence. And for someone who doesn't read (music or English) it is a moot point.

However, as I am currently unable to copy an excellent feature of your image, the vertical alignment of the notes between the parts, I won't be creating a new version. Thus I leave it up to you. Hyacinth (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know what "art-genres" you think are in a walled garden - Landscape painting say? Or do you perhaps mean topics in iconography? Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complex matter - not restricted to visual arts. Redheylin (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean musical genres you shouldn't call them "art genres", but "genres in the arts" or something. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Redheylin (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at James Randi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Consensus does not favor your addition of these tags. Please do not reinsert them again. Heiro 18:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion without discussion - no possibility of consensus. Answer me on the talk page. I am not edit-warring. Redheylin (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Harrison.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this, Still needs sourcing Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hsburr.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - But unsourced Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images tagged do not have a current rationale as {{historic fur}} was seemingly deprecated, this means that the reason (which seems to be 'Infobox identification of biographical subject') needs to be stated explicitly using {{[[Template:Non-free use rationale|Non-free use rationale]]}} or related templates. I'm currently excluding images with this tag from future searches for unrationaled images.

If you think the images are older than 1920 that should be indicated in the file information, as it means that may in fact be Public domain, and thus suitable for Commons.

Also In adding the rationales, I note that one of the images appeared to be technically un-sourced, and it would be appreciated if you could check that your uploads have an explicit source on them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but why are you not replacing the deprecated template with another when all the info is given? Or, if specific info is missing, why not cite that missing info? Otherwise valuable images may be lost for no reason. Redheylin (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check back, In the SPECFIC instances you mention, I have now replaced the templates concerned. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's constructive. Redheylin (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider updating other rationales with {{Non-free use rational biog}} , check the existing uses

for how to use it :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brough Superior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brough

Tea and Symphony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tony Cox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a GA review of an article to which you have recently contributed. Any help in addressing the concerns raised in the review are welcome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I welcome and support your assessment. I believe the article Scientific skepticism is itself loaded, an ordinary phrase having been given a special meaning in a restricted circle, a meaning shown but not upheld by Google searches, of "spirituality debunker". The article fails to note the general usage, and another special usage in the "global warming" debate. This requires review of all articles about skeptic philosophy but meanwhile the article functions to excuse the claim of scientific skepticism in the Randi bio, the ordinary meaning of which seems to me to be that Randi approaches spiritual claims as a trained scientist, which he is not. Redheylin (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Historical basis for King Arthur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ossetian

Padarn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marnes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it would be good for you to give some explanation for your depopulation of Category:Cornish saints please. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the female saints have been re-categorised to Category:Children of Brychan, which can be re-included in "Cornish Saints" if desired, but is presently side-by-side with it in "Southwestern Brythonic saints". The List of Cornish saints can also be updated. There are two difficulties: categories of "Medieval" Welsh, Breton etc. saints have not been used uniformly and saints are categorised indifferently according to their dedications, reputed place of birth, death etc. This is in addition to the usual problem of needless nested categories. Many Cornish saints are "outsiders" - one other possibility is to have a category of "Saints with dedications in Cornwall". Redheylin (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Maël (saint) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cadfan

Paul Aurelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saint Paulinus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You was correct. Thanks for being nice about it! JetBlast (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than fully protecting the page I don't think there is much I can do. As far as I can see nobody has gone over the 1RR listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. There is a discussion going on at the talk page, which doesn't seem to have descended into insults yet. Also I really don't know enough about the subject matter to be able to say one way or another which is the better, or more correct, version. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that I can do. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Roger Kynaston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kynaston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was annoyed to find the page full-protected (oddly, though I'm a fairly experienced editor, it's the first time I've encountered that when wanting to make an edit!) and looking into the matter see it happened after editors were reverting some changes you made. I'm trying to encourage reasoned response to the points you made on the talk page. Dsp13 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redheylin (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bookends, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossfade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Introspection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiritual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Music of Mali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lyric, Fula, Kora and Songhai

Demographics of Togo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mossi

Music of Togo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mossi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Music of Liberia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kissi and Kpelle

Sub-Saharan African music traditions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Songhai

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Harrison.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Harrison.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music of Niger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zarma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Meera.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ashgabat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parthian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Music of Guinea-Bissau may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Country''"), composed by Xiao He with words by [[Amílcar Cabral]], is the [[national anthem]] [[Guinea-Bissau, as it was of [[Cape Verde]] until 1996.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Music of Guinea-Bissau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jola

Music of Senegal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kora

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pygmy music may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '[[Pygmy]] music'' includes the [[Sub-Saharan African music traditions of a broad group of people who live in [[Central Africa]],
• Gabon)|Baka]], the [[Aka people|Aka]], the [[Twa peoples]] and the [[Efé people|Efé]]. The Mbenga ([[Aka people|Aka/Benzele]] and Baka peoples in the west and the [[Mbuti]] (Efé) in the east are

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pygmy music may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''[[Pygmy]] music'' includes the [[Sub-Saharan African music traditions of a broad group of people who live in [[Central Africa]],
• The Mbenga ([[Aka people|Aka/Benzele]] and Baka peoples in the west and the [[Mbuti]] (Efé) in the east are

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Croftpyramidcb.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DavidBoadella.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latihan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entrainment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ray Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I'm Your Man. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in learning about craniometry and was surprised to find that the article had been redirected to Anthropometry by you in Aug. 2011, then to History of anthropometry in July 2013, then to Cephalometry in August 2014.

I didn't find any explanation for this redirection on this discussion page. I found the latest version of the un-redirected craniometry article quite informative and well balanced. Shoudn't it article be restored?--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemporary music, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kashmir (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedal (music). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert's edit summary: "opinions may be quoted, but history of science must be respected".

Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, the article Vitalism contains accounts of celebrated scientists such as Louis Pasteur and others. Until about 1950, vitalism was a respected viewpoint, and it has not even now entirely ceased to be so, due to the Hard problem of consciousness. Naturally I object to the categorisation of Pasteur as a pseudo-scientist. It's as wrong as labelling any article that mentions Newton or Faraday "pseudoscience" on the grounds of their obsolete or unfashionable views. If someone were to produce some faux-scientific paper today to give spurious authority to some "life-force" hypothesis, that would be pseudo-science, but obsolete science is not, religious ideas are not, far-out psychological hypotheses are not. Please aid the understanding of scientific progress by respecting both sides of every debate of the past, or which remains to be resolved in the future, and do not seek to make the history of science the playground of your personal crusades - for there will certainly be people in the future laughing at some of the views we hold today. Redheylin (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that at the moment consensus stands against your change! Thx. Redheylin (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the Pasteur/Newton/Faraday red herring has to do with this, so let's leave that out of this discussion. We follow the RS, and the article contains several mentions of the long since abandoned vitalistic theories which are foundational in many pseudoscientific practices. "Mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time."

The criticism section details the modern understanding, and, to put it bluntly, only pseudoscientists and defenders of pseudoscience defend it anymore, so you may wish to reconsider which side of history you are on.

I don't know what "consensus" you're referring to. There hasn't been any recent discussion. The category has been on that article for some time, and only one misguided editor tried to remove it (the other day in a massive number of edits to many articles where he got several clearly wrong by only focusing on one word, without considering context), and I restored it to its stable version. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the science section contains these quotes:

Vitalism is no longer philosophically and scientifically viable, and is sometimes used as a pejorative epithet.^[1] Ernst Mayr, co-founder of the modern evolutionary synthesis and a critic of vitalism, wrote:

It would be ahistorical to ridicule vitalists. When one reads the writings of one of the leading vitalists like Driesch one is forced to agree with him that many of the basic problems of biology simply cannot be solved by a philosophy as that of Descartes, in which the organism is simply considered a machine... The logic of the critique of the vitalists was impeccable.^[2]

Vitalism has become so disreputable a belief in the last fifty years that no biologist alive today would want to be classified as a vitalist. Still, the remnants of vitalist thinking can be found in the work of Alistair Hardy, Sewall Wright, and Charles Birch, who seem to believe in some sort of nonmaterial principle in organisms.^[3]

We of course describe the historical aspects about vitalism, but in relation to present day knowledge it is rejected and continued reliance on it is considered pseudoscientific. If this article had been written 150 years ago, with the sources of that day, it would not have been in the pseudoscience category, but we are using current knowledge and sources, so now it belongs in the category. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWO misguided editors have removed it. Consensus. Redheylin (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine; "I'm not sure what the Pasteur/Newton/Faraday red herring has to do with this, so let's leave that out of this discussion."

So what if "none of what you say makes sense to me, so I leave YOU out of the discussion"? You write; "the article contains several mentions of the long since abandoned vitalistic theories" - that is right, and I have taken the point already. Pasteur, Hardy, Driesch are not pseudoscientists and are not to be classed as such, even if consensus is against them today. You gain nothing by doing so. If you want to start a category of "Science and philosophy that many people think of as disreputable today" or just "Abandoned scientific theories" then go ahead, and avoid edit warring. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short; you write "in relation to present day knowledge it is rejected and continued reliance on it is considered pseudoscientific." And if the article were called "continued reliance on vitalism", that would be fine, but it is not. The article defines pseudo-science as "a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method", and this does not apply to obsolete science (under which the article is correctly classified) except in speficic instances, which may be described as such in the text if there is authority for it. Redheylin (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Vitalism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not engaged in an edit war. I have reverted the addition of the category "Pseudoscience" by one editor, and afterwards by his proxy. Canvassing of proxies is edit-warring, my action is not. The matter is quite clearly stated above: Vitalism is an obsolete theory, categorised as such. Some modern proponents may be pseudo-scientific, but the view has been held by many distinguished scientists, and it is is inappropriate to label Pasteur and Faraday et al "pseudo" anything. If you disagree with this understanding you may respond. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is edit-warring, when somebody's dog barks nonsense because he has no answer except mere rudeness Redheylin (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. I've restored the page to its good version. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're just respecting its historic and current status by including it in both categories, something which the sources confirm. Your disdain for James Randi is noted, which does place you in the pseudoscientific camp. Thanks for making that even more clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My disdain is for non-scientist followers of a non-scientist whose editing is based upon personal outlook, not wiki rules and policy, as is amply demonstrated by your methods of personal remarks, abusiveness, multiplication of the location of debate, tag-teaming and utter absence of valid arguments, not to mention valid, neutral sources for your opinions. You say "the sources" - I have supplied five on the talk page - where are yours? Redheylin (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion involving yourself has been opened at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I've reviewed this report to see if it is ready to close. It appears that you have removed the category Pseudoscience from Vitalism four times since 18 February. This appears to meet the definition of edit warring, though others have not been blameless. In my opinion, this report might be closed with no block if you will agree not to remove the category again until a talk page consensus to do so has been reached. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stand!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Passepied, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Contradanza

added links pointing to Cha cha cha and Mambo

Country dance

added links pointing to Cha cha cha and Mambo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gavotte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lully. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mmm

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Benefit (album) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Krautrock may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• originally a humorous one coined in the early 1970s by the UK music newspaper ''[[Melody Maker]]''), in which experimental German bands found an early and enthusiastic underground following, and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw some of your contributions. I appreciate it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:21, 24 November 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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belatucadros, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Celtic and Netherby. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in editors trying to add the material you did before, and I can tell you with some certainty that there is no third-party coverage by reliable sources of Starostin's "music criticism". The sources you added don't come close to meeting the threshold of reliability expected for a living-person biographical article; tvropes.org is an open wiki (WP:USERGENERATED) while sfloman.com is another self-published source. Please don't reintroduce the statement you are trying to add again without discussing it at the article's talk page first (WP:BRD). Also, I see you've had this account since 2008. I don't understand how source reliability hasn't been explained to you yet. Dan56 (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56 I have noticed that you edit primarily album pages and that you are not a linguist. I therefore am sure that you know yourself that GS is in fact a web music reviewer and I conclude that you watch his page only to remove statements that you know to be true under the pretext of the "reliability" of their sources. However, I would like some explanation of why you are removing statements that you know to be true and verifiable. Redheylin (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious?? It is a fact he self-publishes his opinions on music as a hobby, yes, so if you can find a reliable third-party source to prove it's notable enough to warrant mention in a Wikipedia article, you're free to do so. There's a reason WP has standards for sources, especially BLP (like wtf, are those guidelines that hard to understand??) Till then, your bold edit and was reverted, and my references to WP basic policies were valid. The burden is on you still. Ask any experienced editor or administrator. Or would you like me to? To get others involved because you don't wanna bother understanding how an encyclopedia works? Because that's the impression I'm getting, and to get reverted AGAIN after showing the courtesy of explaining this to you at that length is frustratingly annoying :/ Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)
• Wikipedia is "not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation." (WP:3PARTY)
• "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (WP:BLPSPS) and what they published is "about themselves" (Starostin does not say he's a music reviewer on his blog) Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly serious. It is quite normal to add hobbies and interests of living people, and, as you confirm, you are fully aware that this is George's hobby. You are, therefore,not challenging the statement but removing it because you, and you alone, consider yourself qualified to state that all the sources are inadequate to you alone and not to other editors. And you have never REQUESTED citations - you have always deleted the information. You have posted that "Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important" - this includes you! So I will ask you again - what has caused you consistently to remove the information that GS reviews music online? Why is it so important to you that you watch his page only to do so? Why not, say, suppress the information that Paul McCartney collects paintings of Magritte? Redheylin (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Georgiy Starostin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. There is currently a request-for-comment open at the article's talk page; please resume your interactions with this topic there. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Georgiy Starostin. Dan56 (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties are *advised* not to add or remove the disputed material again until consensus is reached in the RfC at Talk:Georgiy Starostin. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Driesch.jpg, which you've attributed to Russian Wiki. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rhythm and dance. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Dance. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dance – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 42nd Street (musical), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lullaby of Broadway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sociological genres of music, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Rhythm and dance—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. WannaBeEditor (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lloyd-Morgan.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) 18:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ross Granville Harrison.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) 03:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:CaroloftheDrummusic.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sheet music cover not sufficiently supported by critical commentary. May fail WP:NFCC#8

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CaroloftheDrummusic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western classical music styles has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Dances of Australasia, Oceania and south-east Asia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Christian Ernst Stahl.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) 17:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]