User talk:DTinAZ

Welcome!

Hello, DTinAZ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak emi 18:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choirs

I have no idea why I ever opened the site about Choirs.

I will try to answer your questions. Though I am fluent in Romanian, I live in America and have no way of getting first hand information about Romanian choirs.

The sites I was able to find are:

Pro Musica Chamber Choir [1]

Madigral Chamber Music Choir is presented in [2] but they do not indicate any site of their own.

Sound Choir – exists but does not appear to have a site.

I found no information about the Simbol Choir. There is a Symbol Choir in Bucharest, but it is a different Choir.

Other choirs I was able to find are:

Corala camerala mixta "I.C. Danielescu" – “I. C. Danielescu chamber music choir (Ploiesti) -

Corala barbateasca ortodoxa "Te Deum Laudamus" – Orthodox men’s choir “Te Deum Laudamus”

Callatis Children’s Choir (Mangalia)

Corul Colegiului National "Petru Rares" (Suceava)

Corul Armatei Române – Romanian Army Choir (Bucharest)

Corul Patriarhiei Române – Choir of the Romanian Patriarchy (Bucharest)

Unfortunately, most Choirs in Romania don't bother to have their own sites. Therefore, while you might find them quoted for their recordings or concerts, they rarely, practically never indicate any sites.

Regards Afil (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of choirs

In response to your comments at Talk:List of choirs, this is not about, in your words, "Rules is rules". Rather, this is about preserving the sense of the discussion. With the word that offends you removed, the other editor's comment has hir questioning why an obviously legitimate choir is included. Yes, the additon of the word to the ARTICLE's text was vandalism. That is what the editor was questioning (not noting that the vandalism had occurred).

You are upset that this word occurs on the article's talk page? Sorry to hear that. Wikipedia has material on it that you will certainly find more offensive. Familiar with "six degrees of separation"? List of choirs links to Mormon Tabernacle Choir links to President of the United States links to Bill Clinton links to Monica Lewinsky links to the fully illustrated article Oral sex (which then links to numerous articles with photos and video clips of every sexual act you can think of (and a whole lot more). If you are that bothered by that one word, I honestly can't begin to help you. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, but in this response, you're demonstrating that you just "don't get it" when it comes to my objections. It wasn't simply the mere existence of the f-word on that talk page of the rather lame and perhaps unnecessary List of Choirs, although that was indeed core to the issue. It was initially the unnecessary rudeness that it represents in an already much-too-rude and vulgar world. Then, once I dug up the whole story, it was the silly and slavish adherence to arbitrary and nonsensical rules/policies/whatever. The "Cantamus f***ing Girls Choir" phrase wasn't limited to that page, due to Google and other spidering. That made it more than just a localized annoyance. I don't care about anything that's obscurely linked through various "degrees of separation," but I do care when the vulgarity is right there for all to see. Anyone interested in the whys and wherefores of the List of Choirs page, who then decided to open the Talk page, might be similarly "bothered" in the same manner as I was, which is why I went into "attack mode" on the issue in the first place. And, as I've said elsewhere, life is simply too short to play these silly WP games. DTinAZ (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message at Talk:The Phoenix Declaration

I appreciate it, but let's do as much as we can to keep talk pages to discussion of articles, not users. The last couple of edits to the article and talk page have been problematic but not tendentious - ie. Lionelt hasn't been edit-warring to keep it as a redirect, for example - so we should let it lie unless it really becomes a problem at that article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. I altered my comment on the talk page, taking out the reference to any specific user, but I'm leaving the general comment there because I'm growing weary of your "WikiStalkers" crapping on the page. DTinAZ (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on The Phoenix Declaration. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Posting it on the talk page is a failure to assume good faith. I recommend that you removed it entirely. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to write "I recommend that you remove it entirely," so yes, at your request, but against my better judgement, and in the face of "obvious evidence to the contrary" (about the supposed "good faith" of those involved), I have removed my opinion from the Talk page in question. I do hope that all those involved take their battles elsewhere, because they are obviously following each other around and tweaking pages touched by those who they don't get along with. The page in question has been the innocent victim of that several times now, and I tire of the behavior. DTinAZ (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]