User talk:WilliamSommerwerck

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

Welcome!

Hello, WilliamSommerwerck, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Rklawton 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...[edit]

...where did you get the impression that the talk page of articles is meant for voicing complaints about the subject matter? I looked at your contributions and it seems you devote all your time to posting on talk pages. Johnnyfog (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Walt Whitman[edit]

Please see my response at Talk:Walt Whitman. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you have responded to old discussions at Talk:Citizen Kane and Talk:The Searchers (film). I was wondering if you noticed this because it is unlikely that any previous commentators will respond to you and likely that the article has changed since the discussion took place. I encourage you to comment on more recent discussions and to contact previous commentators directly on the talk page for their response. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lilo & Stitch[edit]

I've responded there to your intent to relate your personal observations about the film's similarity to "The Iron Giant." It doesn't seem from your contributions to talk pages (and observations of other users here) that you completely understand how Wikipedia works. It's about facts, not personal observations. Those facts need to be verifiable and referenced. If you can find documented discussions of such similarities and would like to include them, please do so. But talk pages for articles (as is noted at the top of many), are for discussing the articles themselves, not for discussing the articles' subjects. Please refrain from weighing in whenever the mood strikes. In particular, we truly don't need to know when you first engaged in sexual activityPacificBoy 08:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010[edit]

I've undone your post at Talk:John Hillerman as a BLP violation. Your bare opinions have no place on talkpages, and you've been warned about this above. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:There Will Be Blood for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Frank Oz. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Information.svg Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of recurring characters in Futurama. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Themes versus songs[edit]

Hi WilliamSommerwerck

You replaced "theme song's" with "theme's in the sentence "The distinctive opening notes of the theme song’s bass line, performed by studio musician Jim Hughart" in the Barney Miller article, with the edit summary "A theme is not, per se, a song."

However, a "theme" doesn't have a bass line, as a theme can be transposed, raised or lowered an octave, etc. and still be the same theme. The bass line is a characteristic of the piece of music, not the theme. So I am reverting your change.

Likewise, the variations (presumably, given the previous statement—I haven't independently verified) were changes not to the theme, but to the arrangement, etc.—that is, to the song.

Regards, Bongomatic 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

You are confusing two usages of the word "theme". The theme music for "Barney Miller" is not a song.

This is a point that's griped me quite badly for the last decade. The average listener has come to believe that any piece of music is a song. To them, a wordless jazz composition, or the movement of a Beethoven piano sonata, would be a "song". Mendelssohn notwithstanding, a song has to have lyrics. This major redefinition is apparently due to the selling of individual tracks from albums, which are commonly called "songs".

Another example... The theme music for Alfred Hitchcock Presents is Gounod's Funeral March of a Marionette. It has no lyrics and is not a song.

Your point seems to be that arranging/orchestrating a theme (which can be a simple musical idea) converts it into a song. I disagree. As a logophile, I'm continually disturbed at the generally meaningless and confusing redefinition of words, which weakens English and makes it more difficult to express precise thoughts. A kind of low-level Newspeak, if you like. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the OED (at least one old edition) gives an early (if somewhat circular) definition as "A musical setting or composition adapted for singing or suggestive of a song." Logophile or not, you are clinging to a prescriptive notion of semantics that is just wrong. In any event, as you acknowledge, the word "theme" is at best ambiguous (the same edition of the OED gives the only musical definition as "The principal melody, plainsong, or canto fermo in a contrapuntal piece; hence, any one of the principal melodies or motives in a sonata, symphony, etc.; a subject; also, a simple tune on which variations are constructed."). Interestingly, the OED gives several uses of "theme song" as having a meaning distinct from the concatenation of the meanings of "theme" and "song", including Orwell (not generally renown for sloppy usage) referring to a "tune" as being (not being used used for) "theme-song".
In any event, if you wish to expunge what you elect to view as incorrect usage of the word song, figuring out a better way than to overload the word "theme" unnecessarily may result in fewer reversions. Bongomatic 15:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how someone who enjoys the OED as much as I do doesn't understand what I'm getting at. Unlike the French, I don't object to adding words to English. But redefining (and even changing the pronunciation of) words weakens the language by wiping out differences among words. It's growing worse. For example, people in the armed forces have decided that "cache" should be pronounced "cachet". Though the words have the same root, their meanings are distinctly different -- at least, they used to be. (And don't get me started on the near-universal mispronunciation of "clique".) English doesn't need more homonyms.
One final attempt... Bernard Herrmann's title music for The Twilight Zone is a theme (in the sense of "a piece of music identified with something" -- this is not an overloading of its meaning, as that meaning was around long before either of us was born). It has no lyrics, has not been arranged to be singable, and is in fact pretty much un-singable (unless, perhaps, you're Cathy Berberian). II IS NOT A "SONG" OR A "THEME SONG", and should not be called one, any more than a pelican should be called a pine tree. Period. Case closed, end of argument. If you wish to discuss this further, please contact me at my e-mail address. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Front Runner revised[edit]

In case you're still interested, I revised the article on the novel The Front Runner, rewriting the dreadful synopsis you complained about on its talk page and adding an infobox and an image of the front cover.--Jim10701 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--John (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Presently vs currently[edit]

I noticed you changed presently to currently in the article Neodymium, stating in your edit summary:

"Presently" and "currently" DO NOT mean the same thing. They are roughly complementary.

I checked my Oxford dictionary, and it says the following:

presently:
1. after a short time; soon
2. at the present time; now
currently:
at the present time

On this basis, the two words can mean the same thing.

Ben (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WilliamSommerwerck. You have new messages at Benjah-bmm27's talk page.
Message added 15:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reger quote[edit]

Thanks for the Reger quote. Only, it's much more subtle in German, with the double meaning of "werde sie hinter mir haben" - "will be over it". Regards from a singer of the Reger-Chor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Polarized 3D glasses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polaroid (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) 10:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Sidney Blackmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outer Limits (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) 10:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited FM broadcasting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulation index (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) 19:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Boxcar Bertha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Powell (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) 10:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited AIBO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fraser (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) 18:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

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.

Horse-ripping (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Virginian
John Fiedler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Milquetoast

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Paul Dano. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Madeleine (cake)[edit]

Please do not continue to add the "popular culture" reference to Madeleine (cake). That section has no relationship to the cake that is the subject of the article. If you want to use that reference, add it to Madeleine. Thanks. •••Life of Riley (TC) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your unhelpful behaviour[edit]

You seem to be systematically adding disinformation to Wikipedia articles in an apparent attempt to discredit the project and waste the time of editors. Please contribute constructively or find somewhere else to entertain yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be attacking contributors who know more than you do. If you're referring to the edit of the P. D. Q. Bach article, you are way out of line. I've been listening to Peter Schickele's parodies for close to 45 years, and I know very well his techniques. Did it ever occur to you to ask someone familiar with classical music whether or not my statement was correct? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I overreacted, and you were not adding disinformation specifically to the P. D. Q. Bach article. However, the information I reverted on the Fulton Fish Market article was trivial and unsourced. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I have better things to do than vandalize Wikipedia articles. I depend on Wikipedia as a research tool. I edit articles for Electronic Design and often come here for technical information. (Many science and technology articles are poorly written -- which is another issue.) And just yesterday, I needed information on Josiah Willard Gibbs for a screenplay I'm working on. I would never knowingly insert anything I knew to be wrong, let alone "disinformation" (a pejorative term). Why should I foul the water I swim in?
I agree with you, in this respect... When it comes to poetry, music, art, etc, some observations are "obvious", but there aren't sources to support them. You're left with what I call "the sky is blue" facts, which might not be obvious to others. In the case of Schickele's parodies, it's obvious to most listeners they're not primarily based on quoting specific works. But this fact comes from subjective observation -- a kind of OR. So... what's the best way to handle this? What would you recommend?
I've watched Jeopardy! since Art James was host, and the "quality" of the contestants has noticeably declined. (The producers admit as much.) I'm amazed at how often people miss a high-value question that, to me -- a well-educated 65-year-old with a 99th-percentile IQ -- has a familiar answer. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it's a treasure-trove of facts of all kinds, which will be of importance to researchers 50 years hence -- and of inestimable value in a century. I therefore stick in all sorts of information to make sure it's readily available and won't be lost.
Thank you for the apology. I now have to find a solid reference for madeleine/Madeleine... WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

People have said time and time again that Wikipedia is an idiocracy. that guy above just proves it. That is why no legitimate scholar bothers with this nonsense when any uninformed moron can drive by and tear your stuff up. it has long been said that the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything. It is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.9.2 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lilith Sternin[edit]

Ping, you have replies. --George Ho (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks[edit]

I do urge you to check out your wikilinks before saving edits. In your edit to Axolotl, neither the Daffodils link nor the MAD link led to the intended page. If you are going to invite your reader to follow links, make it easy for them. The MAD disambiguation page in particular has a huge number of options. I am using Firefox on a PC; I check by right-clicking on each link and selecting "Open Link in New Tab". Surely, your browser has some equivalent facility. Peter Brown (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The reason I didn't post a link was because it appears the MAD parody retains its copyright -- and I didn't know whether it's acceptable to link to copyrighted material. If it's okay, then I will add the link. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Whoa. My note above related solely to internal links, encouraging you to make sure they will be useful to readers. On external links, the Wikipedia guideline reads:
Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.
I am aware of sites that show the poem but do not display the copyright notice. Don't link to them. Peter Brown (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Hallelujah Trail[edit]

I actually saw The Hallelujah Trail in New York City during its original release and three projectors were definitely used to exhibit the film. It's the only Cinerama film I've ever seen in a theatre so I'm not mixing it up with something else, it absolutely was shown that way and made a tremendous impact on me as a result. I'm responding because this has bothered me for some years since whenever I happen to look the film up somewhere, there is no mention of this, almost as though I'm a character from a Jack Finney time travel novel who briefly inhabited a parallel universe. Trust me (and I know that actually having seen the movie myself would probably qualify as "original research" under Wikipedia rules), it was exhibited with three projectors whose beams crossed, one for the left third of the screen, one for the middle third, and one for the right third of the screen. Cinerama Comment (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how direct experience comprises "original research" (other than the potential subjectivity of direct experience).
What you say is interesting -- and confusing. THT was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70, a large-format anamorphic system developed, in part, to replace Cinerama. Although the film could have been optically split into three panels and projected with three projectors, what would have been the point? According to the Wikipedia article, it was "also originally projected using the single-projector Cinerama system". I suspect you saw the film in a Cinerama theater with three projectors, but only the central projector was used.
On the other hand... the Cinerama screen is deeply curved, and the image from a single projector would be badly out of focus at the sides. So, perhaps, a three-panel print was made to accommodate projection in theaters where the original Cinerama screen was still in use.
Regardless, three-panel Cinerama films are easily spotted, simply because the join lines are all-too apparent. Do you remember whether you saw join lines? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Crowd (1928 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wind (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) 11:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad. (I should know better.) I'll fix this over the weekend, then remove this message. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Precedence effect. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-revert[edit]

Can you explain your self-revert edit? Or is that a mistake? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit isn't a mistake, but some error occurred. I will double-check it later today. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)