User talk:Skzt

Links

I like what you do with infoboxes in classical music! (Did you choose your name because you knew that's a hornet's nest?) Why would you not link the key and the term "Op." which may be unfamiliar to readers who will see it in the infobox first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to link "Op." to "Op." Thank you for the wonderful suggestion! (Also, my user name refers to a particular jet I like, which is where the username comes from. Thanks for asking)The f18hornet (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed the Bach compositions to the dedicated template (which came first ...). The image of Bach is useful only for his few late works, - and the only one of a young Bach is questionable. Can you comment here from a composer's point of view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the articles. I will say though, that it is a bit too minimalistic and doesn't give me all the information I need to know from it. An Infobox should give you all the information you need to know just from it, yet not too complicated.

I'll use this example (again), to show what a good infobox does looks like.
As you can see, if I knew nothing about music, I could easily learn everything I need to know about this piece just by looking at the infobox. After all, the article isn't just for Music theorists.
Yet even if it is too complicated, I can easily learn what an opus number is just by clicking on it.
This should be the purpose of an infobox, to describe the complicated, simply, and even if it be complicated, it should be easy to learn what you need to know

Cheers,
The f18hornet (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

For your amusement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I found your old name more amusing ;) - fly gently, please, study the discussion on Jean Sibelius (and that one was civil) ;) - You will meet the chorus of "redundant!" who may say that it's redundant that a violon concerto is a concerto and scored for violin and orchestra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Amused about your Sibelius strike ;) - I said "study"! - You probably don't know - and it certainly doesn't show in that discussion - that we are all urged to never speak generally about infoboxes but precisely about a specific one for a certain article, with Support, Oppose or Comment for that one. Linked to divisi yesterday, did you know? I think where Divisi (music) goes is nonsense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

please use indenting for formatting, not html code, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry Señor, I'm not doing persons right now, so you can sleep in peace knowing I won't add a beautiful userbox to Jean Sibelius. Since I don't see an infobox necessary for him, I won't give him one. I'm more focused building the articles that need it, rather than the articles that don't. I'm also more focused the works themselves right now, and the works that need it. (P.S. As far as studying it goes, I looked at it a little bit, but didn't read it all because it was as long as a college thesis statement, but only about a wikipedia feature.) The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the move. That was truly kind of you.

Kind? No, I linked first to the other and then found yours ;) - Thanks for not adding an ibox to Sibelius (or any other classical composer) without first seeking permission consensus on the talk. They are so special ;) - An area where infoboxes are welcome now, and few exist, is opera, - if you are prepared to be eventually reverted you can add almost blindly. {{infobox opera}} is short and has a cute last example (created by a friend as a self portrait). Violin concertos seem also fine. Composers with anniversaries coming soon are Ferruccio Busoni (April) and Max Reger (May), - any help to expand the latter is welcome! I try to have his Requiem as Featured article on his day of death, - has an infobox, of course ;) - more for other compositions welcome. - If you are interested in a bit of history: infobox opera was created in 2013, there was strong opposition first, and we had an arbitration case restricting said friend and me (the arbitrators didn't look at the operas but at old stories dating back to 2005). My restriction expired, but I still tread carefully - it's a hornet's nest ;) - If you think Sibelius was long, don't look at Laurence Olivier ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

ps: often it's best to Ignore Ignore Ignore (said a friend) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your helpful comment

Thank you for your comment and fix which helped to improve Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 to FA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Your favourite"

... concerto is on the Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions Regarding Early Presidential Primaries (1940 and Back)

I've been working collecting data on the results for the Democratic Presidential caucuses or state conventions that were held in earlier years, 1940 being the starting point given I was interested at the time in the Anti-Third Term movement that had sprung up then, and while I can't access all the data in question anyway (I'm using the New York Times as a source, but I'm not a subscriber and so can't look at the articles in detail), I've provided them in the talk pages. Having gotten down to 1928 now, however, I'm not certain how best to display the information given, and I'm not sure if there really is a precedent(s) for it given the operational differences between the Modern Primary and the more Archaic Primary of yesteryear. For example;

1. In 1928 Al Smith clearly won the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary in Ohio over Senator Atlee Pomerene, but the latter was awarded the entirety of the delegation. The situation in question is in an article I provided on the talk page for the '28 Democratic Primaries, but when you have delegates not being bound or awarded based on the results of a Primary, should that be counted as a separate contest? How should we display that on a map? Should one be given preference?
2. Depending on the year in question you either end up with a handful, none, or a whole slew of favorite-son candidates ready to represent State delegations, and these candidates technically have "won" delegates. However in some cases, like those I identified for the 1968 Republican nomination race, are far more than the infobox could possibly handle when combined with the actual candidates (even if we are just talking about candidates and favorite sons that won delegates, that would make 17). Should we give preference based on delegates won? On actual candidates vs. Favorite Sons? What about if they've withdrawn and endorsed a candidate? Should Favorite Sons be combined somehow (for map and infobox purposes) and explained separately in another section?
3. In a number of the Presidential Primaries and even Caucuses I have encountered language that the delegates in question are officially unpledged or uninstructed, but have a strong preference or are generally understood for being for a certain candidate. Under those conditions, should those delegations be considered Unpledged, or should they be considered as being for the candidate? Should the votes of those delegations be included in a candidate's vote total?

These are the major questions at the moment. I'll also be asking a few others Presidential Elections Wikiproject as well to chime in, so if you have any ideas on how best I should proceed, I'd ask that the responses be put into Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1932. Thanks ahead of time. --Ariostos (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks so much for stopping by. You've done a lot of great research; I applaud you for that. I'd recommend you present them in the same way Nevada (2016) is presented. Perhaps it'd be best also to have a separate primary page, and an election page, where, you have the complexities on the separate page, but the simple rundown on the election page itself. (I'll also respond on that page as well).The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Skzt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Accidental Rollback

Hello! I am so sorry for accidentally rollbacking your edit! I meant to click another button on my watchlist and somehow it clicked the wrong button. Thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries! It happens, and you're fine. Thanks for all your good work on the Cincy article!! Skzt (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Skzt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Single Source-inline

Template:Single Source-inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –xeno^talk 12:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to re-join WP:cleanup

Hey there! At some point, you signed up at WP:cleanup/Members, and at some later point you were moved to the "Inactive members" section because you hadn't been active on Wikipedia for 6 months or more. I see you've been active recently, so I thought I'd make you aware of this. Feel free to move yourself back to "Active members", maybe freshen up your signature... Perhaps we'll see you around on the main project page, where you can always be of help. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)