User talk:Anythingyouwant

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


Hold on. Derogatory? Your edit repeats CISA in the same sentence. It's not derogatory to omit redundancy not found in the source.- MrX 14:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Unceremoniously deleting your talk page content in the middle of a discussion is not nice, and it's certainly not "archiving". - MrX 14:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You posted virtually the same material at the article talk page. Don't make me repeat myself in two places. Go there. And I'll archive this talk age whenever I damn well feel like it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Victoria, a modicum of effort on your part would reveal to you that your welcome is over a decade late. Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yogi Bear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Household name (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) 11:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Schmücke dich[edit]

Thanks for improving Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele, BWV 180! You may have seen that I try to improve one cantata per week to GA standard, managed for the 19th Sunday after Trinity, next will be the 21st (because it was not yet on DYK and needs preparation time for that), then the one. Your help is very welcome. Compare to Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 for the changes needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Right now, I am primarily removing duplicates from The Sound List. That's why I had to figure out whether Bach was really the composer of Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele, or whether Cruger was (the Sound List credited both of them as composer). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Bach didn't write hymn tunes ;) - One of the biggest misconceptions around. When Messiah was on its way to be FA, it said something about "Bach's hymn", but Handel quoted only the melody which is by Nicolai. Makes me understand that I should point that out more: "text by, melody by". Chorale cantata (Bach) has them all nicely together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that midi files help understanding Bach's music in historic context. Please raise the question if they should be added at project classical music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will raise the question there later today. I don't usually find midi files helpful, but the ex-midi files are exceptionally good at [1]. Those are the ones you're referring to, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Commented, thanks for the invitation. Re BWV 147, arrangements of "Jesus, joy ..." have so little to do with Bach's cantata that I would prefer no sound files of it there. Perhaps we should have a separate article on that all-too-famous piece. - Generally: can we first discuss and then add more sound? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I was uncertain whether to include the files at both BWV 147 and at Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, and so I have now removed them from the former, leaving them at the latter. I was also uncertain whether to use the MIDI files at Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV_1, and we are currently having a good discussion about it which is fine with me. In cases where I am uncertain, I would be glad to try discussing-first-and-adding-later. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hawaii Five-O[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. I invite you to the latest RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for the barnstar. It means a lot coming from you.CFredkin (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeb Bush image[edit]

Hello Ferrylodge. If you weren't so quick to mindlessly revert here you would see that the image has not been considered and is clearly better.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The image is a cropped version of one that was already considered and that I uploaded. The link to previous discussion is in my edit summary. The cropped image that you support is less recent than the one you replaced, and less formal too. I don't think it's too much to ask that you get consensus for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Castriota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductor (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) 09:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson[edit]

I see you edited his profile approximately four hours ago. Did it have to do with his parents? Cocogirly (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. My recent edits didn't involve his parents. Why do you ask?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps my edit summary was too terse. The RFC close said "no consensus" -- the plurality of votes for one alternative or another is not the standard we use to resolve disagreements. You should not cite the RFC close, which did not find consensus and therefore does not support the change you made. The number of votes is not a justification for such change. Please revert yourself. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The more stable image is the one that sat atop the article longer, right? That would not be the one with the red dress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
No that's not correct. We don't do "more stable" any more than we count votes. The point is that the RFC closed "no consensus" and it was misrepresented on the basis of "more votes" for the retouched photo. It's not clear to me why we should publish a retouched photo of a living person anyway. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Your edit summary said that you were restoring the more stable version. So I then pointed out that the more stable version is actually not the red-dress image. And now you're saying to forget about stability. In addition to forgetting about which image has more support as stated in the RFC close.

So now your criterion seems to be whether a photo is retouched or not. As far as I know, this image (as uploaded on 6 July) is not retouched, and honestly I can't see any significant difference between that 6 July image and this image from 30 September. More importantly, Wikipedia uses retouched photos all the time, and that's mostly what happens at WP:Graphics Lab.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Its wikimedia page says its retouched. A retouched photo of a living person is of particular concern. I didn't say "forget stability" -- the fact is the RfC was misrepresented as the basis for the change when it was reviewed and closed as no consensus. As long as there are editors waiting to edit war it back in, there's no point in anybody trying to enforce that close, but sooner or later other editors will see what's happening and the other photo will be restored. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The RFC was closed as no consensus. I never said otherwise. The RFC close also indicated that the red-dress photo is not the one with the most support. Now, if you would like to come here again and accuse me of misrepresentation, any such further comment will be deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please re-read my comment. Nowhere did I say that you misrepresented anything. Ironic. None of this is worth nitpicking. As I said, others will chime in and do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi there. I was thinking of trying to improve the Hillary Clinton article, and I am wondering if you have any advice about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: That article does need work, and in its current state primarily presents only a POV positive to the subject. My only advice -- just be aware that you will likely run into a whole barrage of other editors bent upon sanitizing and reverting anything added that might be taken in a negative light about the subject of the article, and who are not above the sort of aggressive undoing that could be taken by some as Wikipedia:bullying tactics. --- Professor JR (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, such practices are not uncommon at Wikipedia, sometimes at the highest levels. The logic appears to be something like: "I believe the content should be a certain way, and therefore any means are acceptable to accomplish that, and if it cannot be accomplished by following the rules then we have the wonderful WP:IAR". It's not a pretty sight, nor an acceptable one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Reporter requesting to talk[edit]

Hi, my name is Zach and I'm a reporter for National Journal. I'm writing a story on political wikipedia editors and I'd love to talk to you for it. If you're interested, shoot me an email at zmontellaro(at) I'm also happy to answer any questions you have! Zach NJ (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

4 RR at Fioria[edit]

I'm not going to template you, but please step back. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I very much doubt that this edit of mine is worth a template or even a friendly warning. YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You'd prefer the template for the other 3RR? Your recent edits have been rather obstinate and that's not in the spirit of the Arbcom sanctions. Just trying to give a civil warning here. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You've given it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


There is no need for condescension, nor for silliness. You specifically said that that Kurtz quote was to balance out the "House of Horrors" reference. In direct response, I removed both references. If you disagree and want to keep the Kurtz quote in any case, fine - we can talk about it on article talk. Neutralitytalk 03:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You made this exact same comment at your talk page, and I have replied there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of moving forward, if you give me 5 minutes I'll make an edit that I think we might all agree to. Neutralitytalk 03:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
How is this look? I restored Kurtz, plus added an additional salient point. Neutralitytalk 03:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like other editors have weighed in, so perhaps the matter is moot now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you! (journalist question)[edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Hey there, My name is Jake and I'm a journalist at NBC News. I'm hoping to speak with you about a podcast and video series I'm working on. You can email me at jake.heller[at] or give me a call at 212-664-4846. Thanks!

GoLeafsGoooo (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Would you be alright with an image upload of the original sheet music by Christie's? I can scan it in and the copyright will have expired long ago. The lyrics on Christie's are different than the version referenced in the citation. Thanks! Firthpond1700 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2015‎

Jeb Bush[edit]

Where are you getting it from? Just curious. Make sure it is free-use.   Spartan7W §   20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I expect it will be coming from the Bush campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Any luck?   Spartan7W §   14:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
They sent a picture, but it's not really a portrait (i.e. looking off to a bus situated to one side).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Improving Efficient energy use[edit]

Thanks for your edits to EEU. They're small, but they make a difference. Do you think you could help me make a few more changes? I have a paid COI regarding the article, and I'm looking for collaborators to improve a couple other sections.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I was just fixing errors. It's not really an area of current interest for me. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy new year confetti.svg Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV 23:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump Redirect[edit]


I was linked to "Donald Trump and Fascism" from Google News, even though it was a redirect--I think maybe it should just be deleted altogether and not be a redirect, because people might think it's a real article or draw conclusions about Wikipedia after the redirect.

I just decided to tell you about this because I saw you were active on Donald Trump and the other talk pages are protected. I just didn't want to not mention it. (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I tagged it for deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It goes to the campaign page so that the link goes somewhere where there are a number of comparisons of his rhetoric to fascism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But it's gone so good either way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people say Obama is a fool. Shall we have a redirect to Obama and foolishness? I'm not a Trump supporter, but we do have rules here. Anyway, the matter appears moot. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the thing with the idiocy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump and Fascism. I knew putting it back wouldn't be a good idea. At least we're done until the socks find the next way to word it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for your nice work on the further reading section at Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution! Much appreciated. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't have to worry about gaining weight from this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

question from a journalist[edit]

Hi Anythingyouwant! I’m a journalist with The New York Times. I’m writing a story about the role Wikipedia plays in U.S. politics, particularly the presidential race. I’d like to talk to a couple of frequent editors on pages related to the candidates and the election -- and you seem to fit that description. I’d want to ask you about what motivates you to edit Wikipedia, how you see Wikipedia’s role in the election and how you balance your own political views (if any) with ensuring Wikipedia stays fair. Thanks! If you’d be willing to help, please let me know. I’m on email and gchat/XMPP, jeremybmerrill on Skype and +1-212-556-1262. Jeremybmerrill (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Croce-Mozart-Detail.jpg The Mozart is Art Awart
In recognition of your fine edits to The Marriage of Figaro, the Mozart Committee Local 151 hereby presents you with our appreciation and a token of magnificence, which you are entitled to display on both your user and user talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thank you very much. Yesterday I hallucinated that Mozart was speaking to me---haranguing me actually---for not fixing up that article, so of course I immediately complied.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Anythingyouwant. You have new messages at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder.
Message added 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Musdan77 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already said my piece. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agnosticism and atheism[edit]

The article doesn't suggest he's atheist or agnostic, and in fact roundly contradicts that. The current wording makes that even clearer. Stop reverting. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

An obscure source says some people speculate that he's lying about his belief in God. Crap like that does not belong in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The source says no such thing, nor does the article. Take a deep breath, count to ten, and read what's actually there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Turkey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi, not to bother you, but I really don't get the motive for removing your note in Mozart talk page, which did touch an important question, and feeling. Why isn't it the right place? Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Carlotm, no problem, thanks for visiting my humble Wikipedia abode. Honestly, I didn't mean to put that comment at article talk. Instead, I meant to put it at user talk, and that's where I put it. The reason for putting it at user talk instead of article talk, is because it seemed like a more behavioral issue than a content issue. Please feel free to link to that comment of mine, or quote it, but it seems like it's at the right place. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)