User talk:Classicalfan2

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


Hello, Classicalfan2, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Greetings -- just noticed your talk page was a redlink. Thank you for all that work you are putting in to lists of composers. I'm the nut that wrote most of the Renaissance music stuff on Wikipedia, but I haven't been very active in that area recently. Let me know if you need any help or questions answered. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Age of Enlightenment[edit]

Hi there. I have taken the liberty of moving your question on this page to the reference desk. The talk pages of articles are mainly for the discussion related to improvement of the article, general questions about the subject are better placed at the ref desk (and also more likely to be answered). Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

English vs. British[edit]

Would you kindly explain to someone not familiar with such differences? Who perhaps not even understands what "nationality" means in the composers list? I simply copied "British" from the father to the son, in the Waterhouse case. I'll watch here for an answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. You had an edit summary that seemed a little confusing to me (and perhaps others). First of all, England is currently a sub-nation, which means that English is a nationality. Second of all, "English" technically describes a lot more of a person's nationality than would "British". I hope this helps. Classicalfan2 (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger L. Jackson[edit]

Information.svg Hi. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, your recent edit to Roger L. Jackson has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, but admonishing others by saying, "What's the big idea with changing the wording?! Don't do that!" is not civil. Remember, all editors are encouraged to be bold, and that edit you reversed was in keeping with that spirit, even if you disagreed with it. If you must revert, then please just politely explain your rationale in your edit summary. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying, "What's the big idea with changing the wording?! Don't do that!" is not very civil. It's also inappropriate to order another editor not to edit an article without citing a specific policy or principle of good writing. The edit you reverted does not appear to have been abusive (though I don't have a preference for his/her wording over yours), and is consistent with the Be Bold policy. When reverting, it's good to briefly explain why you're reverting, and/or what policy you're adhering to. Ordering another editor not to change a passage's wording because it's not to your aesthetic liking is not within the authority of any one editor. Nightscream (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The Powerpuff Girls, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Glenn L (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


"(For the love of God, please check out their genres in the infobox before removing "pop" from the lead.)" I truly thank you for this. :)) It made me laugh, and brightened my day! Thanks again. My God, is humour not appreciated here? Don't answer that... :))--andreasegde (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Beatles" versus "the Beatles"[edit]

There is currently a vote taking place and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

PPG archenemy[edit]

I don't know why you are trying to argue against Mojo Jojo being the archenemy of The Powerpuff Girls. Mojo Jojo is the most frequent villian in the entire series., and wreaks far more havoc on the Girls than Him does. Claiming that Him was their archenemy would be going against the majority of sources that confirm Mojo Jojo being their archenemy. ANDROS1337TALK 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also read WP:OWN. ANDROS1337TALK 01:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankie Valli[edit]

Regarding your edits: 1. The reason I placed The 4 Seasons first is that, in context, the group had hit recordings first followed by Valli solo hit recordings second. The group used the moniker Frankie Valli and The 4 Seasons later in their career. 2. The play "Jersey Boys" focuses on the four original members of the group (with a nod to Nick Massi's replacement Joe Long). The word "original" is appropriate as, later in their career, the group title was retained even though the members had changed. 3. I don't believe anything is permanent, no matter what marketing strategy is used. Eventually, "Jersey Boys" will disappear from Las Vegas. Maybe another word could be used or "permanent" removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrownlie (talkcontribs) 04:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice your recent edit removed TV appearances by Frankie Valli. In your change description you used the word "you". I hope you were referring to a general "you" because I have no idea who entered this information. I am puzzled though why an entertainer's filmography or TV appearances wouldn't be relevant even if his major career course was as a musician. I wouldn't refer to it as "useless"; it seems unnecessary to make anyone feel small. I know you left some room for it to be added back in, but why is removing it so important versus this issue of sources. Is there no room at all for known information in cases like this? What is an acceptable source in this case that may help others who find their info removed? I have no plans to add it back myself, but I feel for the person or persons who added it in the first place. As regards trivia, especially that which is biographical in nature, trivia makes up much of this type of knowledge that may mean something to a segment of an audience versus the wider general public. It may be a pointless arguement as Wikipedia has its rules and they are known and should be known, but it seems sometimes like this bulldozer treatment that I see in some of the history of the articles I read (I haven't participated in too many articles as a writer) is as harmful as some of the incorrect information I also find.Bbrownlie (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)