User talk:Saxophilist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Saxophilist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

WheresTristan (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical saxophonists?[edit]

Thank you for the kind words! I've just been adding a few names now and then when I hear, or hear of, a saxist and wonder whether he's included in the List of saxophonists. Often, he is not. I listen to a lot of jazz and many of the names I've added are obvious ones. The classical radio stations I listen to don't usually play any sax music, so I haven't been inspired to look for somebody.

So when I got your message, I thought I'd see who I could find who isn't listed. I searched for "classical saxophonist" in Wikipedia and found a few. I just added Horch, Lin and Rix. There are more. I'll see if I can find some more players tomorrow. Please feel free to suggest somebody.

DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll let you know if I think of anyone. Saxophilist (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at New American Standard Bible. 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 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. Your additions across a number of articles are being reverted - please start discussions on talk pages (as you did for the New Living Translation) rather than re-inserting the material. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to remove denominations from the discussion of Bibles. The reason that New Jerusalem and other translations and versions of Bibles have Catholic is not because it has been imposed on the articles by outsiders, but rather as a mark of distinction placed on them by Catholics. Please revert the term Protestant from the few translations you've added them to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to revert my edits. It's absolutely ridiculous. If the Catholic translations say "Catholic", then the Protestant translations need to say "Protestant". What don't you understand about this? Saxophilist (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Remove "Catholic" from those editions if you'd rather as it's not needed there either. It doesn't seem that you read what I wrote. Is there any sense in trying to discuss this with you or are you going to grind your WP:AX over this?
As for the King James version, the original version contained the Apocrypha, and all pressings for the first fifty years did so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I read what you wrote. I was just responding to StAnselm. About what you said, I think it would be best to have "Catholic" and "Protestant" where appropriate, so that readers will know whether it is a Protestant or Catholic translation. Oh, and if something is marked "Apocrypha", it is definitely Protestant. Saxophilist (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're feeling insulted. It was not my intention to insult, but rather to provoke you to respond to one of the two editors who was trying to communicate with you. You refused to address my suggestion to remove Roman Catholic from the "Catholic" translations instead you simply restated your point, essentially, what's good for the Catholics is good for the Protestants. You ignored my evidence that it was Catholics who created the articles that way, at least you didn't respond to it. So I got tired of your baiting and yes, trolling. The other editor asked you to offer any references. You didn't address that either. I offered some evidence. granted, you responded to that. The "Catholic" translation articles have evidence to support the use of that term. In short, seemed that you were just looking for a fight, so I gave you one.

Rather than throw opinions and personal experience back at you, I'll offer some facts about Bible readership, not ownership, in Catholic homes and we'll leave my cousin, my son's close friend, and my co-workers out of the discussion (read: yes I know Roman Catholics, several): [1] [2][3] [4]. I tried to use Roman Catholic sources where possible, but I couldn't find any sources to support Bible ownership, but readership is lagging far behind other denominations.

I am not watching your talk page, so if you expect me to respond here please 1) make a coherent response to my points and 2) leave a talkback template on my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I actually did address your suggestion to remove "Catholic" from the Catholic translations. I said it would be better to leave the Catholic Bibles saying "Catholic" and to make Protestant Bibles say "Protestant", because I felt that knowing what kind of Bible translation a particular Bible is was important.
I'm not entirely sure why the NABRE article was created that way. Perhaps to differentiate it from the many Protestant translations that don't state their Protestant affiliation.
The reason I didn't offer a reference was because I thought it was ridiculous to have to prove that the NASB is Protestant, when it's Protestantism is obvious. However, I did post some proof that the translation team was all Protestant. That should have sufficed.
I have heard that Bible readership of Catholics is lower than some of the Protestant denominations. Maybe because the Catholic Church is not "Sola Scriptura" and Catholics rely on Church teaching as well as Scripture. Also, I should note that most of the Bible is read at Mass during the three-year cycle. Saxophilist (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to explain why the "Catholic" bibles are listed that way: it's because they're approved for Roman Catholics to read. No "protestant" bible is approved for protestants to read. They may decide for themselves which may be read. The exception is that at one time, Authorized Version (King James Version) was approved to be read in Church of England parishes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

saxophone video[edit]

Just curious, why did you remove the saxophone warming up video? If there is no reason, I might add it back. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You can add it back if you want. Saxophilist (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a proposal![edit]

Hi there,

I have a proposal which I am thinking you might agree with. As you remember, one of my concerns about your choice of image was that I felt it didn't add much to the page until it was enlarged. As I recall, the point you wanted to make with your image was the differences in instrumentation between the orchestra and the concert band (particularly where wind instruments are concerned). I have found an image on Flickr without copyright issues (and taken from the same concert band!) that I believe would work well on the classical music page.

What do you think?

Or perhaps this one?

A suitable caption might be "Wind instruments play a key part in the concert band", or something like that. The advantage here is that the differences between a concert band and an orchestra can be spelled out for the layman (both visually and in written form).

Lan berger (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that finding another picture of a concert band may work. However, I think the picture should show the whole concert band instead of just a section. For example, in that second flickr image, it could just be mistaken as the low reed section of an orchestra, as you cannot see the whole ensemble, and the first flickr image could be mistaken as the brass section of an orchestra (although there's more brass in that image than a typical orchestra has). Saxophilist (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I found these images on's "free to share and use" search option. The second one reminds me of your baroque ensemble image. I personally prefer the first one of these. Subtitle could be: "A concert band is comprised of wind and percussion instruments." Subtitle could be: "Members of a concert band."
Saxophilist (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I like your first suggestion, but how about this one? (Also free to share and use).
Lan berger (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That one doesn't look as professional as my two. The setup of the ensemble isn't a standard setup, and I think I see a tenor horn in there, which isn't a standard concert band instrument. Saxophilist (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay fine, go with your first suggestion, you have my blessing. :P
Lan berger (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Saxophilist (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

More possibilities![edit]

Hmm, it appears your first suggestion had copyright issues. How about these?

Or perhaps:

(Though I do like the first one better, I would be happy with either if you would be)

What do you think?

Lan berger (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bing said my first image was free to share and use. Anyways, I found some pictures from the same album as the ones you just posted that I like more:
I prefer the second of these. Do you approve? Saxophilist (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that one is ideal. What caption do you think would work best? If you are happy, I will get that one ( uploaded and posted onto the page.
Lan berger (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about a caption. Perhaps the "Concert bands are comprised of wind and percussion instruments", but you can't see the percussion section in that picture. Saxophilist (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Then perhaps something describing the photo itself, such as "A performing concert band", with a link to 'concert band'?
Lan berger (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
That works. Saxophilist (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brass instrument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical (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) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)