User talk:EddieHugh

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

Jazz pianists[edit]

Hi, very pleased to see a quality editor interested in jazz topics with some great goals of achievement on here. I'm a keen jazz guitarist and (learning) jazz pianist myself! I've been building the List of jazz standards and created entries on the years in jazz a while back but I haven't got around to expanding most of them yet. I think it would be good if you could add 10 or 20 jazz standards to your lists to aim to get up to GA, they're really diabolical generally on here, even some of the very popular ones! I'd be happy to work with you on a few of them. I'd be very interested in taking somebody like Bill Evans to FA, Oscar and Art also I really think should be brought up to FA status. I would also like to get Joe Pass up to GA, but I don't think there's much bio info generally on him. BTW, thanks for your excellent comments at the FAC, can you clarify if that's a support?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: The goals are largely personal ones; I haven't decided if the GA and FA ones should be for the jazz project instead, but I haven't had to, as no-one else has produced one! The motivation is for the pianists for now and the goals are a long way off, so I'm not considering adding in other things at the moment (although I have created a few jazz standard articles). They'd need to go beyond jazzstandards.com to be worthwhile.
At a glance, the Evans article looks not bad, the Peterson one is a mess and Tatum's is excessively about technique/style and comments on it. The last is of greatest interest to me, especially as far less has been written about his life (still only one biography?). Pass shouldn't be particularly hard, although that's a comment made without checking.
I changed the FAC from Comments to No objections as, from memory, I've supported only once and that went wrong when the article got hit with a plagiarism charge and failed. I think that you have enough supports to get through, but I can have a go at checking all of the criteria (rather than the prose and bits of the refs) if you wish. EddieHugh (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
So you're worried that if you support they'll do a spotcheck and show up problems and you'll feel sheepish again? I understand, but someday is going to come when you have an article at FAC and you'll be grateful for the support, if everybody worried about that then not much would be promoted! It's up to you, I do have a lot of support, but I do feel a little disappointed after spending so much time addressing all of your points you're still not willing to support it hehe! It is much easier to oppose an article than to support though, I agree. Don't worry about it now, thanks for the time you put into reviewing it anyway! On the jazz front, yes, one editor a yer or two back began giving Bill Evans a sizable expansion, I don't think they finished it though and only got up to the mid 60s - coverage from 1965 to 1980 is rather poor. There's still a lot of gaps but might be one to look at and get to GA, I might look into it later this week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Kind of, kind of! It's more that I find that people post Support or 'Support on prose' seemingly without having checked through all of the criteria; that instance stressed the point for me. It might be a few days, as there's far too much going on in the world of oxygen right now, but I'll try to look through it again. EddieHugh (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that, the thing is you're super thorough so literally want everything to be checked before you're 100% convinced! I've asked Crisco to do a spotcheck anyway. Admittedly I was put off for several years from contributing to FAs as I found the climate at FAC too hostile, people seemed to oppose for the sake of it in the old days on here. This has improved in recent years with peer reviews and collaboration I think. I agree that FAs should be of the highest standard and thorough reviews are an essential part of it but a line has to be drawn, there's no such thing as perfection. My concern is that some editors are put off from FAC because they find it impossible to deal with. Some of the people who helped write the Bramshill article feel that way about FA. We want to encourage more and more people to go for FA rather than scare them off by making them feel as though it has to be perfect. Finding a balance is difficult though! And if you also consider how much difficulty we get on TFA day with complaints and that, makes it difficult to convince editors that it's worth the trouble! Currently listening to this two of my favourites Joe Pass and Oscar together! On the List of jazz standards I was thinking about revising to a table format with columns for composer, year of release, original key and a summary. What do you think? Perhaps the time for now would be better spent getting a standard like Satin Doll or Body and Soul up to GA? I mean look at how poor Satin Doll is, one of the most popular standards is still pretty much a stub!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
After a check of some things, now supported. I've listened to the first Pass-OP track, which is a ridiculously strong start. The list – that sounds like a lot of work and largely duplicating what's on the individual pages; there'd need to be a lot of notes on the composers (some were gambled away by the original composer, for instance, so the named, legal composer is just a starting point). Better to concentrate on converting the redlinks and targeting a GA or two (Body and Soul? 'Round Midnight (song)?). I haven't collaborated with a target (e.g. GA), so welcome suggestions on pointing the way forward. EddieHugh (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes, I think it's better to just work on the standards and red links. I've already started a fair few. Round Midnight, Stella By Starlight, Autumn Leaves, any of the most popular ones would be good. Perhaps you could add getting the top 10 standards on the standards website up to GA status on your goals? Check out this performance of Round Midnight [1] .♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll add it mentally – not even at 50% of any of the pianist goals yet! Petrucciani is another one to expand... EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I got you an image for Wynton Kelly. Perhaps in the article you could add something about the Wynton Kelly Trio or am I missing something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that – it's easy to find pictures, but not easy to find ones with the required permission / status and I'm far from expert in that area. The Kelly trio is the topic of the penultimate para of the 1959–71 section. I'll move the group photo down there. EddieHugh (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Good job on Pickens, I've requested some photos on flickr, hopefully somebody will kindly donate one image. Any others you wanted images for? BTW, do you have access to Newspapers.com, that's usually a tremendous source on American subjects. If not strongly recommend you apply WP:Newspapers.com, Sadads deals with all that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I do; it's been patchily useful. Photos for GAs: Eddie Costa (I contemplated contacting his family, but didn't); Jaki Byard; the Tommy Flanagan and Mulgrew Miller ones aren't very good. Thanks, EddieHugh (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We hope can you be of any assistance to Mr. Hugh here? Bramshill House passed FAC BTW so your support didn't backfire this time :-). Thanks again for your terrific review of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

OK-the recent check of Eddie Costa and Jaki Byard turned up nothing free. However, that doesn't mean that free-use photos might not be found in future. I'll have a look for Tommy Flanagan and Mulgrew Miller to see if we can get something going here. We hope (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to say that there's nothing free at present for Tommy Flanagan or Mulgrew Miller. :// 02:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. EddieHugh (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tower House[edit]

Bramshill House passed FAC, thankyou for your input. I've opened a peer review for William Burges's The Tower House. Comments will be most welcome. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input into the peer review. The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in[edit]

Hello EddieHugh,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump Religion[edit]

Hi there, you said that to be a Presbyterian implies Protestantism? Do the two not differ enough to warrant mention? Thanks. 108.169.237.171 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, just as adding "Christian" wouldn't convey anything extra either. Even the source has "I am a Presbyterian within the Protestant group". EddieHugh (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, the sentence as quoted in the article itself says: 'In an April 2011 interview, on the 700 Club, Trump said, "I'm a Protestant, I'm a Presbyterian.", not a Presbyterian within the Protestant group.' Though that could just be Trump not understanding one supersedes the other. My question is whether Protestant is truly a sub group or under the umbrella of Presbyterian. I thought there were differences that, while not as stark as the differences between a catholic and Episcopalian set of beliefs, were sufficient to distinguish the two because while both may stem from Christianity, they are not the same, and one does not imply inclusivity to the other or vice versa. That is to say, the tautology you implied of the form A = B, B, therefore A, isn't necessarily accurate. However you would be right about adding Christian since Christianity is the root from which the various stems and leafs split. For eg: where Y is the power set of Christianity and X is Christianity itself, then you could say for all sets z in Y: A = X, (A = z, if and only if [Y: z == Y{z}]). Pardon the lack of Universal (for all) and limited scope (for each) notation, I can't be bothered to look up the symbols and they're not easily accessed on my keyboard. Essentially: A is Christian but only if the denomination A claims to be part of is one of the denominations which is a legitimate subset of Christianity. Obviously the inverse would not be correct as it would claim you are Christian therefore you are the specific subset of Christianity that applied above. In other words, anyone who is any sub set of Christian is obviously a Christian but anyone who is Christian is not necessarily the same sub set of Christian belief. Anyways, sorry for the vast over explanation I just want to make sure there's no confusion. Can you be both Presbyterian and Protestant? And if so, which implies which? The reason I originally made the edit was because he had said himself he was a Protestant, then said a Presbyterian and in the speech and another interview he seemed to say he was one, then he said he was the other, then settled on both. I don't know if they are mutually exclusive or not, but it seems odd none-the-less. Thanks.

108.169.237.171 (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That quote is definitely in the source. Although Presbyterian refers, strictly, to a church structure, outside specialist circles it refers to a form of the Protestant religion. Thus: all Presbyterians are Protestants and all Protestants are Christians. I don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that I'm correct. See Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Presbyterianism for some relevant background. EddieHugh (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
No I don't mind at all, I have no interest or dog in an ego fight. I was just under the impression that (and this is based solely on about 10 minutes of quick research that showed various structural and administrative differences between the two) they differed enough that the fact that he mentioned being a "protestant and a Presbyterian" warranted mentioning. Though if as you say (and I'll gladly give benefit of the doubt here) all Presbyterian's are protestant, I can only assume Trump mentioned both because he doesn't know any better. Sort of like someone saying "ATM Machine", in which case your original statement would be correct, and the wordplay is a tautology. Thanks for your time. 108.169.237.171 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Quid pro quo at GAN?[edit]

Hi Eddie. I've noticed you've got a couple musician articles nominated for good article status. I have one as well: DJ AM. Just making you an offer, if you start reviewing my nomination i'll review one of yours. No worries if you're not interested, but if you are, either reply and let me know which one you'd like to trade, or just start reviewing mine and i'll pick one of yours. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I just don't think I have time to launch into a full review at the moment, unfortunately. EddieHugh (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems ethically dubious... I read it as an offer of good review for good review. 68.180.28.140 (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't my reading. Perhaps you should check your understanding of "quid pro quo" and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. EddieHugh (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the meaning... it just came off as "I'll rub your back if you rub mine" I assume good faith, my comment was directed towards the user who made the offer, not to you. That's just how the offer reads though. It didn't read as a "we're both reviewing, so to simplify the process, you do one of mine and vice versa?" Again, just my pov and how it read. In fact quid pro quo specifically implies favorable outcome, service, etc in return for another. Sort of like "You hook me up with this and I'll do the same for you". Perhaps you could give me your interpretation of quid pro quo to clear it up? In many circumstances, quid pro quo is illegal, especially with regards to subjects like politics, job promotions, and so on. And the reason for that is because, again, quid pro quo carries an implicit bias to favorable results exchanged by the individual's. So like I said, perhaps you should check your understanding, or define it for me? Even the wiki definition of it generally leans towards two people exchanging favors with beneficial results to each other irrespective of objectivity... 68.180.28.140 (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed the IPs comments here. I'm sorry that's how you interpreted my offer. I looked into whether or not arrangements like this are allowed some time ago and while there is no rule against it, it's true some people do frown upon it for the reasons you mention. However I can assure you I wouldn't be comfortable with such an arrangement where we both give each other favourable reviews without actually reviewing the article. My goal is to make 'my' articles as good as possible - i've previously thanked editors for opposing my nominations with constructive criticism, as this gives me a lot of material to help improve the article before I renominate it. I don't know how else to convince you that i'm telling the truth, other than my reputation as an editor. The reality is most review processes on wikipedia are quite backlogged, and GAN is no exception, so the way I see it a review exchange between two honest editors is a win-win-win situation. Freikorp (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh btw as of today my offer is still open haha, as nobody has started reviewing my nomination yet. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lennie Tristano[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lennie Tristano you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Craig Taborn[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Craig Taborn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Craig Taborn[edit]

The article Craig Taborn you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Craig Taborn for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Craig Taborn[edit]

The article Craig Taborn you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Craig Taborn for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jimi Hendrix[edit]

Hi! Would you care to comment at this RfC regarding the article Jimi Hendrix? It is about whether "acid rock" belongs in the infobox or not. Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really one for categorizing. Maybe if I knew what "acid rock" was... EddieHugh (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Craig Taborn[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Craig Taborn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Captain Assassin! «TCG» 12:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lennie Tristano[edit]

The article Lennie Tristano you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lennie Tristano for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Craig Taborn[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lennie Tristano[edit]

The article Lennie Tristano you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Lennie Tristano for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Meeting[edit]

Hi! I want to know you. Where are you from ? Shut_up 04:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTaax (talkcontribs)

Jazz.com[edit]

Thanks for diving straight in at Keith Jarrett. Can you tell me, please, whether jazz.com is considered a reliable source at Wikipedia? If not, is there another online source which I can use to verify biographical details? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's borderline: look at their explanation of their sourcing. I've used it to find some information, but then generally found another source for that info, if it's biographical. For someone as well known as Jarrett, using google books and picking out some good publications from there is the easiest way in. JazzTimes is fine as well and is accessible online. Beyond that, there are lots of other routes and tricks, but it depends on exactly what you need and where it might be. Just ask if you'd like further detail. EddieHugh (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, see the jazz project page, giving more sugestions. EddieHugh (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a great start. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)