User talk:Laser brain

You cannot escape me. ConSiDeR YouRSelF wArNeD!

• I see you have disabled your email. BWAHAHAHAHA! I have catapulted over your feeble attempts to evade me. ConSiDeR YouRSelF wArNeD!

Hello, Laser brain, welcome to Wikipedia! As you begin editing, you become a part of an online community. Your contributions help to provide readers across the world free access to knowledge in their own language, through a high quality, web-based, collaborative encyclopedia project. Wikipedia's Online Ambassadors, a project designed to support professors and students who use Wikipedia to accomplish classroom goals, are looking forward to working with you. A few useful links are below. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking (if shown). Happy editing! • Ling.Nut 14:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

|}

Ah, I like it! Email enabled, BTW—didn't remember that I had done that. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral

Hi! Well, its a public monument, as can be found anywhere around the globe, such as the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. The monument itself was made by Rodolpho Bernardelli (1852-1931), dead for quite some time (Source: [1]). The second picture was made by the request of editor... Laser brain (Yourself!) in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Pedro Álvares Cabral routes. Well, aren't they ok, then? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh the map is fine. I was just mentioning that it was licensed other than public domain. I will add some information to the statue image so we know it's out of copyright. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Chain Saw FAC

Hi, thanks for your comments. I was wondering if you could take a look at the critical response and cultural impact sections to see if they're OK now.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive3

Please review I have made several changes to Illinois (album) per your comments--from the cosmetic to the substantial. Please post there if you think that further improvement is needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I would more than happy to. Sometimes you nominators surprise me with your speed and efficiency. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fed up Three nominations and a peer review have me at the end of my rope. (Not that I'm mad at you or anything--you're just trying to make the article better.) I really don't want to have to go back again and work on this article substantially. I'll happily fix it during this process but neither I nor the co-nominator are excited at the prospect of doing this all over again. By all means, be honest about what you think, but please consider whether or not this is a truly unsalvageable nomination. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I get that, I really do. Let's see if we can get it promoted. I'm going through it right now—I am also doing a few library database searches to see if anything is missing that could be included. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I do indeed feel the same way as Justin, and that I greatly appreciate your honest review and helpfulness since. I've responded to your latest comment; let us know if there is anything else we can do to make this happen. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 05:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hey there, just dropped by to see if you've taken another look at the article yet. Thanks! Jujutacular ^talk 17:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  Hi, I will hopefully be able to look again soon—some other things have been taxing my time. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Question for you... Would a person who uses electronics like a computer be clasified as a composer or musician. This seems to not be clearly stated in any articles I searched, maybe I'm splitting hairs but I'm not conviced that a person using a computer is a musician. Your thoughts please. Deluxebros (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm afraid that debate isn't going to be readily solved, even using the academic sources I have access to. The most common method of classifying musical instruments is called Sachs-Hornbostel. In 1940, Sachs added a category to that scheme named "electrophones" to account for instruments that produce music electronically. Whether he would consider a computer to be an "electrophone", we'll never know because he's dead. Well, if you consider a computer a musical instrument, and someone is manipulating it to produce music, does that make them a musician? For every scholar who would say yes, you'll find one that will say no. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I being naive or missing something here? Computers can't produce music, all they can do is to control a sound source. Or are we talking about composing music, which any donkey can do? Not necessarily good music, I agree, but still music. Or are we talking about programming a computer to control a sound source? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If I have a computer program where I can click through a grand staff and specify all the notes I want, and then I click Play, am I a musician or simply a composer? I've made music, after all. Does the computer become the "instrument"? That is the basic question. Academics do bicker about this constantly. I'm assuming the person above is writing a paper on the subject or trying to settle a debate but it's horrendously messy. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to me it isn't; who decided what note to play and when? You or the computer? Who decided how to play those notes, and on what device? You or the computer? Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Assume I've specified which notes to play, to the extent that I've produced an actual piece of sheet music, all on the computer screen—just by clicking. I tell the computer that it should play it back to me using a "piano" sound. I click Play and out it comes, over the computer speakers. I can even print out the sheet music and carry it over to a real piano. I've presumably exercised some degree of skill in the composition process, at least insofar as I've worked out basics like time and key signature. However, the only skill I've exercised in the production of the music is knowing how to control the software. Is that any different from knowing how to control a flute? --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather astonished at your argument, so let me paraphrase it for you. "I wrote a musical score specifying which notes to play by which instruments at which times, but I used a computer to help me play it and lay it out". Does that really make sense to you? Perhaps Beethoven might have found such musical scribes equally useful. Just to be clear, I'm a great fan of electronic music, but not of the type I once saw in the '70s, when a couple of bearded guys walked onto the stage, switched on a bank of tape recorders, and then walked off. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making an argument that that person is a musician—I'm just laying out that side of the debate. Strictly semantically, OED defines "musician" as "A person talented in the art of music." or "A person who performs music, esp. on a musical instrument; a professional performer of music." It also notes that one shouldn't confuse a musician with a composer, of whom we almost certainly have laid out a definition above. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The OED, like all dictionaries, reflects usage, it doesn't constrain it. The distinction between composers and performers verges on the meaningless where electronic music is concerned, but the OED is yet to catch up. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daydream (Mariah Carey album)/archive1

Hi Andy, I left some comments for you at the FAC page, I think the issue can be easily resolved. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

More comments for you.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your quick responses. I have to run now but will be back on later. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect thank you :) Yup I'm in it to win it :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, so I think we are getting close to solving this lol. Check back please :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Email

You has it. Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC) (With apologies to DirectTV)

Care to look at a pop-culture article?

Heya Laser brain! It has been a long time. I plan to bring an article about a Malaysian cartoon series, Kampung Boy (TV series), to FAC and would like some opinions if it reaches that level (to be judged there) yet or if some more improvements are needed. I would appreciate it if you look through the article and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to. Thanks for the opportunity to read about it! --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Looking forward to your review. Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Have you observed what I did at my talk page immediately after using RevDel? Moreover, I marvel that my refusal to restore the other edit summary is of greater concern to you than someone else telling me that I lack integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I continue to see the edit in question as edit summary vandalism, and removal is our policy for vandalism. I am aware that my opinion is rejected by others, so I will not again delete it, but I will not restore a thoroughly inappropriate comment. I am under no responsibility to act in any way: I am not an employee of anyone here, and thus only edit or perform other actions when I choose. I marvel because no good reason exists to object to an action that is immediately reverted by the one who performed it: as it had no effect on any other individuals (contrary to blocking and quickly unblocking), I caused no harm. Finally, you will observe that it is not I who chose to revisit this subject today after many days of quiet; if you wish for peace, you can contribute by ceasing to beat a dead horse. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I refer to my non-employee status exclusively for the purpose of indicating that I am not responsible to perform any action: you censure me for failing to restore the edit summary, but I am under no responsibility to be the one who actively enforces consensus in this particular incident. I read the policy immediately before removing this summary; it is my view that edit summary vandalism in this context is extraordinary, for it was performed by an experienced editor with the sole purpose of attacking another editor. Furthermore, I fail to see why you censure me for an action on my own talk page that I so quickly reverted: one who undoes one's own action quickly without input from others has clearly seen that the action should not have been performed. Because it was not on another user's talk page, it had no impact on other users while it was deleted; because it was not on a talk page or project page, it had no impact on the community at large while it was deleted; and because it was not on a page that appears in mainspace, it had no impact on the encyclopedia proper while it was deleted. Finally, I direct you to the fact that an insincere apology will have no practical effect: others (I presume) have undone my deletion of the edit summary, and before today I had already chosen not to engage in such an action in the future. My beliefs about the proper interpretation of policy are not subject to any other person's opinion, and if I have plans not to perform actions based on an interpretation of policy with which others disagree, my actions will not be objectionable to others. Kindly cease from characterising my attitude. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)