User talk:Iadmc/Archive 12

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

---

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		You deserve a barnstar from me, so here's one! Good luck in RL. Brambleclawx 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks Cat! I appreciate it --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate it I'm grateful for the nice note you put on my talk and still more than a little put out by that ridiculous block. Wikipedia is not worth real life stress, and kind words defray tension. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

• Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia

• News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news

• In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured sounds on the main page

It's been discussed at least twice on the main page talk archives. Durova⁴¹² 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova. I'll check the archives --Jubilee♫clipman 21:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A little something

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For all you hard work reviewing WP:MoS I want to personally thank you and more specifically your work with WP:record charts and WP:USCHARTS. Its been such pleasent and informative experience working with you. If it wasn't for your involvement the transclusion and merging of the proposals would have taken a much longer time. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. A long way to go yet, though, with the MoS, especially all the Music stuff. We'll get there in the end, though, I guess --Jubilee♫clipman 15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Im happy to help contribute other music MoS work where possible now that i have a good grasp and understanding of editing practises in music related articles.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Great! "Steady as she goes..." is the best phrase I can think of here, though. No rush, basically: let's get it right --Jubilee♫clipman 16:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Defo... steady and thorough produces the best results. Time is needed to conider all of the options thoroughly anyway.=) Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Thinking caps on then. I have one or two ideas already (obviously) but I need to think about things more. My appraisals of the Music Mos's (see here) need revisiting, for instance --Jubilee♫clipman 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And another one ...

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Now that the dust has settled I wanted to recognise the sterling work you and others did on the infoboxes RfC in order to work out a compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! I need to build on that experience: some of my recent forays into RfC-land etc haven't been quite so well thought out, perhaps (though I do genuinely feel the Photo Credit RfC is a dead horse...) --Jubilee♫clipman 16:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1812 Overture

In the article, near the bottom, there are 2 recordings. One is a recording via Musopen, another, an organ arrangement. Is it necessary to have 2 recordings, or would it be better to just keep the Musopen one? Brambleclawx 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think there is anything inherently wrong with having more than one sound file of the same piece in an article, indeed listeners can hear different interpretations that way. The exception I would make is where one is simply a MIDI or some such (perhaps put together because no other version was legally available at the time of upload) while the other is a performance on real instruments (thus making the MIDI or whatever obsolete). OTOH, I would also tend towards ruling out arrangements of a piece unless there is a strong reason for retaining that arrangement. The article does not seem to make it clear why that organ arrangement is included. However, the piece is quite often played by organists as a showpiece which fact might thus explain why that Perschbacher performance is included, though given that the organ version just predates the orchestral version, my suspiction is that the organ version was meant as a "sample" (i.e. like a MIDI, in fact) in lieu of a "proper" version appearing—especially looking at the edit summarys ("added sound sample" vs "add audio of the whole thing"). I'll have to look at it more tomorrow (going to bed now) and I hope my ramblings haven't confused you too much! However, my thought is that the organ one can probably go. I'll talk to you on the article's talkpage when I have looked at all more fully. (And when I am more fully awake!) Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Brambleclawx 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked about this on the article's talkpage. I now strongly feel that the organ version is just an artefact that hasn't been noticed till now and that could be removed with impunity --Jubilee♫clipman 16:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB moɳo 23:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A message awaits

Look here, and tell me what you think. Hi878 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Again. Hi878 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And again. I would recommend just checking back every few minutes. Hi878 (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Music Notability

Hello, I'm opening a discussion about the refinement and clarification of notability criteria. your opinion here would be appreciated. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done but this is only the start... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

• From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted

• Commons deletions: Porn madness

• Book review: Dan O'Sullivan's Wikipedia: a new community of practice?

• Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide

• News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All

• In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PED

Re. [1] - the trouble is, as it reads now, it seems like you always block - even in the non-clear cases; because it says, In all cases, administrators should use a neutral block summary.  Chzz  ►  23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I got reverted anyway! I'll have a think about it a little more (!) and get back to you --Jubilee♫clipman 23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, fair enough. On the one hand, I think it needs to make the two possible cases ultra-clear - ie if it is clear-cut, block immediately; if not, ask arb. At least, that is my understanding of things.

OTOH though, I'm not sure any of that is relevent - it's more like 'instructions for admins' than policy. Perhaps it should just declare what will happen, rather than how - ie what any user should do if they find such stuff. In other such policy documents, that's how it is written. So, directing to ANI for clear-cut, and functionaries email for other, I would think?

My other concern would be the definition of paedophile, which may need clarification, to prevent problems. I can imagine cases where a user might jokingly add a comment on a pic of a slightly young girl saying "I'd hit it", and the possibility of others jumping upon that. Unfortunately, somewhat like 'porn' itself, it's going to be damn hard to define.  Chzz  ►  23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I say here, I think Equazcion made the right choice in reverting me. Regarding the rest of what you said... have you read the talkpage?!? And it is a !Policy at the moment not a Policy (the ! is important...) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read the talk; I'll try to discuss things there, when I get time. I know it's just an essay at present, but I imagine it is heading for policy. Anyway - the talk is the right place; I'll take a note, and hopefully make comments there.  Chzz  ►  00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll see you over there sometime --Jubilee♫clipman 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cabal

First, I just want to say that I am sorry for what it was that I was doing. Second, in regards to your things on the MfD page: Yes, I agree completely that I took it too seriously, I feel bad about that. Second, It was a bit of an afterhought, however, the reason that I didn't do too terribly much vandal-fighting was because I was focusing on getting that to a point where I was happy with it, which I definitely tried too hard to do. Read my post at the bottom of the MfD page, I have realized the error of my ways. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Don't take my comments personally, BTW, I was simply observing and drawing conclusions. The fact that you are serious and singleminded is a good thing, in fact: you just needed to focus your seriousness and singlemindedness on vandal-fighting or something! Fight the good fight and you'll be amazing! Fight vandals with the serious singlemindedness you used in that cabal and they'll have no chance! --Jubilee♫clipman 12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) That means a lot to me. Hi878 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. See you around, no doubt --Jubilee♫clipman 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a good chance that I'll end up reverting you if we fight vandals at the same time. :) Igloo Still isn't quite perfect. Hi878 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't even got rollback, actually.... I use Twinkle and Friendly for most jobs like vandal-fighting and plain editing for the others. I might request rollback soon though as TW and FR are not exactly perfect either --Jubilee♫clipman 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Get Igloo when you get rollback. It's still in alpha testing, but it is still great. Hi878 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I just added WikEd and got the fright of my life when I came to edit this page, BTW! Had to toggle back to Classic View rather than WikEd View: that will take some getting used to... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried it for a very, very long time, but I just gave up on it a week ago, because there were certain bugs that made editing unbelievably difficult. So use it only if you want an adventure. :) Hi878 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up: not sure I do want an adventure but I'll give it a go, anyway --Jubilee♫clipman 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, good luck. :) Hi878 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... I think! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (music)

My reversion of the change to WP:MUSIC (which you have put back) was because it completely changes the meaning for Mixtapes. I'm not sure, reading the debate about demos, that consensus had been reached for any change at all - but the change to mixtapes had certainly been certainly inappropriate. I have not changed it back again yet but something certainly needs to be done, and IMO the original text is preferable. I42 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about mixtapes but I am beginning to think we are looking at this issue in the wrong way altogether. I am starting to formulate a way out of the mess but am not yet able to fully explain it. See the WP:MUSIC talkpage for my thoughts so far --Jubilee♫clipman 14:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Iadmc. You have new messages at Torritorri's talk page.
Message added 20:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Combined arch pgs

Hi-I was combining the archive pgs down to four at WT:Article size, and I forgot to put an edit summary (I've fixed 'my prefs' now). Sorry about the confusion, and have a good weekend, anyways! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hey! We made the same mistake! Brambleclawx 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I was writing the below as you posted! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It rolled by on Recent Changes and I wondered what was going on! By pure coincidence, an editor I work closely with, Brambleclawx, caught one of the other pages and I saw your comments over there just before you posted to me. I also saw the Speedys as I was investigating the other pages. The reduction makes sense but won't earlier messages that link to those archives be affected? E.g. "see Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 7..." or whatever. Just a thought --Jubilee♫clipman 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about rattling the cage, but I was just trying to combine archive pages that were only 34kBs, so that we don't have a run-on list of archive pages, and I did check "what links here" to see if anything really important needed to be updated. :-} --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. "As you were!" --Jubilee♫clipman 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I never said you could mess with my talkpage. moɳo 03:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)