User talk:Cielomobile/Archive3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
E-flat minor
Hi, Cielomobile,
I wanted to consult you before removing "Tu se' morta" from the list of pieces in E flat minor. I'm no expert on Baroque music, but I do have a score of L'Orfeo, and in my edition that particular recitative (not an aria, again unless my score is wrong) starts with a signature of one flat and then moves to no sharps or flats; indeed, in my score the only key signature used in the entire opera is one flat. Does yours differ? I've always thought Monteverdi predated functional harmony.
Thanks!
Pizzazzle 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! You're right; the piece starts on a G minor chord and ends on D minor. I'll go ahead and edit both pages. Thanks! Pizzazzle 00:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
...in the United States
I am distressed to see that in changing the names of articles to the "...in the United States" form, you have not changed even the most obvious links. For example, the article Liberalism still refers to an article titled American liberalism, rather than the current title. I thought you understood when you undertook this task the necessity of using the "What links here" button to avoid redirects.
"I will gladly make the changes to the other articles and change the wikilinks. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)"
Rick Norwood 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I have very little time for Wikipedia right now. I have theatre rehearsals every day for hours, in addition to school and other commitments. When I have the time, I'll go through and fix some of the wikilinks, but I'm just swamped right now. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I do understand. The show must go on. But why did you start this mess when you knew you wouldn't have time to follow up on it? Liberalism in the United States still has this sentence at the head: "For the ideology normally identified in the United States today as "liberalism", see Modern American liberalism." Rick Norwood 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't really anticipate this; it wasn't a well thought-out decision. This weekend, I will try to commit an hour or so to changing the links, but it's not the hugest priority (redirects are fine, and bots automatically fix double redirects. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Happy Edit Day!
|
Happy First Edit Day, Cielomobile/Archive3, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
I'm not sure what it means, but your name was on the calendar :) •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
| HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! | from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE | |
|---|---|---|
  Wishing Cielomobile/Archive3 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee | ||
American
Note that Liberalism in the United States still contains many subheads such as:
Modern American liberalism Main article: Modern American liberalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry. I just figured out how to use the talk page. Please don't report me. Typicalhyjink101
Reversions
You have wasted my work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew Powell (talk • contribs) 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Confirming vote on Commons
I certify that I am Cielomobile on commons. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Kiarostami
Hi Abbas Kiarostami has been nominated for a Good Article -had a great deal of work in two weeks. Please can you read it and make any improvements you feel necessary. Why is the disucssion page for GA candidates? I have seen the nomination page but where is the support/oppose discussion for GA's that results in a decision? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject banners
How would you feel about an option like this one: User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14? -- Ned Scott 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Gershwin's "abilities"
Why was Gershwin unable to orchestrate Rhapsody in Blue, if not due to his lack of ability? Please keep in mind that not only was the piece orchestrated by Grofe three times, but the 1941 version by him, is the one currently played when the piece is performed. No POV in my statement, perhaps the fact is unpleasant to hear or read? Dr. Dan 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The statement is unsourced and likely not supported by any secondary source. It's your interpretation that he did not have the ability to orchestrate the piece; perhaps he did, but Grofe could do it better. Either way, unless you have a source to back up the statement, it shouldn't be included, especially since it deprecates Gershwin. Moreover, what could it possibly add to the article? Let readers interpret that for themselves. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since the "statement is unsourced", I agree with you, we can let the readers decide for themselves. I have re-edited my remarks and have made them, "less harsh". BTW, do you know of any orchestrations by Gershwin, that show his ability to competently do so? Dr. Dan 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know of any, but I'm not all that familiar with Gershwin in the first place. Even if he didn't orchestrate many of his works, you still need a reliable source to make statement like that. Anyway, your new change, in my opinion, didn't add new information and just made the phrasing awkward, so I reverted it. If you want to discuss it further, I suggest we continue on the talk page. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since the "statement is unsourced", I agree with you, we can let the readers decide for themselves. I have re-edited my remarks and have made them, "less harsh". BTW, do you know of any orchestrations by Gershwin, that show his ability to competently do so? Dr. Dan 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page
Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to mention...
The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Admin coaching
Hi Cielomobile, I saw your request for an admin coach, and I'd be happy to assist. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or send me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! -Mysekurity 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well let me start off by saying it's nice to see a fellow thespian and musician here (I just finished with hell week...phew!). In any event, I think the best place to get started would be to answer a few of your most burning questions. So please, feel free to ask! -Mysekurity 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The best way to get content added to an article on a subject which you are not an expert on is to get someone who is. I would try to find someone who knows about the topic to either add information themselves or explain it to you, so you can add it. As for adminship: I wouldn't really say it's a "program", it's more just an extra set of tools with which you can do cool stuff. I feel that sometimes they're a bit over-exaggerated in their importance (after all, everything I do can be undone), and a bit over-revered, but that might be a good thing as well. I'm happy with the ability to influence things here, and it means that there are certain things that you can do that you just couldn't before--you don't have to wait for an admin's approval. It also kinda takes the fun away from "being good"--a lot of people I see regard adminship as the "boss" (in the sense of a video game), that once you've accomplished that, there's really not much else to do. It's like playing Grand Theft Auto--once you complete the storyline, and have completed all the missions, you can't really do much interesting stuff, it's just driving around performing vigilante missions (wikifairying, doing things that only you can do because others who don't have the tools need you to do them). It's kind of annoying, but kind of satisfying at the same time. Plus, it gives you access to the cabal, which is always good. Whups, did I just type that? WP:TINC..... shhh.... -Mysekurity 06:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the major problem is that people forget that we admins are just regular editors with tools. We don't want to go through the backlogs any more than you do, and that's a bit of an issue. As for vandal fighting tools, you can always try the list. I like AmiDaniel's VandalProof, and CryptoDerk's (now Henna's) VandalFighter. If you have IRC, you should go in one of the chats and ask people about them, or you can e-mail me (my username @gmail), and I'll walk you through it. For simple reversions, I'd go with popups, or, if you don't like popups, e-mail me and I'll let you in on a secret that was bestowed upon me by (the now disgraced) Essjay. In any event, good luck with your article, and let me know if I can help with anything. -Mysekurity 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The best way to get content added to an article on a subject which you are not an expert on is to get someone who is. I would try to find someone who knows about the topic to either add information themselves or explain it to you, so you can add it. As for adminship: I wouldn't really say it's a "program", it's more just an extra set of tools with which you can do cool stuff. I feel that sometimes they're a bit over-exaggerated in their importance (after all, everything I do can be undone), and a bit over-revered, but that might be a good thing as well. I'm happy with the ability to influence things here, and it means that there are certain things that you can do that you just couldn't before--you don't have to wait for an admin's approval. It also kinda takes the fun away from "being good"--a lot of people I see regard adminship as the "boss" (in the sense of a video game), that once you've accomplished that, there's really not much else to do. It's like playing Grand Theft Auto--once you complete the storyline, and have completed all the missions, you can't really do much interesting stuff, it's just driving around performing vigilante missions (wikifairying, doing things that only you can do because others who don't have the tools need you to do them). It's kind of annoying, but kind of satisfying at the same time. Plus, it gives you access to the cabal, which is always good. Whups, did I just type that? WP:TINC..... shhh.... -Mysekurity 06:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been off Wikipedia for sometime as I have been moving. but I discovered this page today. Are you aware of it I wonder and if so are you still involved? Basically Andrew Powell was covering several different works on the page and I split them up because that is the way that the opera project covers operas. Anyway thanks for any information you can give me about this. Best. Kleinzach 08:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I am wondering whether we really need to respond. What do you think? Kleinzach 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just watching the madness
I left a message for User:RJASE1, but thought you'd be interested also. Regarding User:Shifty Shell Shock Guy - see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy. The more I find here, the more I'm amazed. Creates users, who create users, some do questionable edits, and later 'may' mark them as sock-puppets himself? I've gotten so bad, I stop editing and just watch the madness ... Shenme 06:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. Pretty insane...I at least somewhat understand people's desire to vandalize, but this is just at a different level. What a waste of time! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You reverted a reversion I did to the article "Oral Sex" If you look at the text that actually was changed, I was eliminating what was vandalism of the page. Your reversion put the vandalism back.
I didn't do a reversion again, but I'd suggest you look at the text and come to your own conclusions.
---71.201.39.222
Hi Cielomobile,
You removed all the changes I just made to the page for Michigan Flyer, the bus service between Lansing and DTW airport, tagging them as vandalism. I did not sign up for account on this website because I did not think it was necessary. I am the webmaster for the Michigan Flyer site and as such am authorized to use text from that site. I was trying to clean up the content as instructed by your Clean Up tag. Can you tell me how to get my changes back? The schedule is listed wrong on the wikipedia site and it is not good for business or our reputation to let those incorrect schedule times remain. Please let me know on this site or at info@michiganflyer.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.97.81 (talk)
you don't have to sound so mean
Dear Cielomobile
I was the one who added the list of luffy's attack's to the monkey.D.luffy page. I am aware that your just makeing sure that all infomation on wikipedia is true and I'm very happy about that but you don't have to be so mean, I mean this is my 1st time editing a page on wikipedia and I didn't know. Also what am I going to do for references I just watched one pices and when I started seeing all of luffy's attacks I started writing them down. And then when I finaly finished my list I put it on wikipedia were it will never be lost, so unless for references I can put down "one piecs tv show" I don't know what to put.
Anyway I know your just doing your part for wikipedia put it was a honest mistake and you didn't have to sound mean.
thank you for reading —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.112.169 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Greetings
This is regarding my recent changes to the United States-Mexican barrier article. I must say this is the first time I've ever been accused of vandalizing an article and violating the NPOV rule. I have edited many articles before, always adding both sides of the debate on any given topic.
For example, to the National Council of La Raza article, I added La Raza's response to critics. Nobody accused me of vandalism. To the Spanish version of the United States-Mexican barrier article, I added a section quoting those who supported the barrier. This was in response to the article's blatant lopsidedness, having only a section quoting people who opposed the barrier. Again, I wasn't accused of vandalism.
So why you have accused me of vandalism is puzzling. I was merely adding Mexico's criticism of the barrier and the United States' response to such criticism. How this constitutes a violation of the NPOV rule is, frankly, beyond me.
Regards, Edgar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rostromojado (talk • contribs) 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
- Hello Cielomobile. I have to say that I also belive that the edits made recently to the United States-Mexico barrier page were not vandalism. I understand that the topic of the border can be polemic, but I don't think that User:68.2.242.165 was vandalizing the page. Maybe you could use the talk page Talk:United States–Mexico barrier to lay out your objections to those edits without deleting them entirely. I think they were good-faith efforts to improve the article, and that is also one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia, to Assume Good Faith. It might help though, if the author of those edits were to register with Wikipedia so the edits won't appear merely with an IP address. --Eric Bekins 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Nick Young
Ok, I dont mind. Thanks for telling me. Kaizenyorii
Crimsonland
Since when is a Video_game not noteworthy? I found it appalling that the Crimsonland is marked for deletion for being unnoteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkeod (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Okay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games
"If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion"
Pkeod 05:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry About That, No Hard Fellings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drummer06 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Who cares if I'm banned from editing? *Blows a raspberry at your big stinky head* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.79.245 (talk)
Stupid Head!
Who cares whether I'm banned from editing!?!? *Blows a raspberry* Stupid dorkwad! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.79.245 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Re: Homophony
Shall I email you Grove Music Online's article on homophony? Our article is actually longer and probably better but Grove goes into the classical music stuff in more depth, I think.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia emails can't have attachments, and for the Grove email procedure to work I need your address anyway. If this is alright with you, I'll send you an email saying zilch, you'll need to reply so that I've got your email address, and then I can send the Grove article. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 16:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey!
Thanks for putting on the warning for that IP address. I was wondering whether I should, since what I saw was a first offense. I don't get why people vandalize so randomly like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Satisfaction riff.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Satisfaction riff.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Stormy Monday Intro.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stormy Monday Intro.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Blues scale jpg.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Blues scale jpg.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my images
Hey, thanks for converting those images I uploaded into .PNG format. 'tis much appreciated! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It's nice to know my work is appreciated. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
CSD listing
Please be a little less trigger happy when listing pages for CSD (for example: [1] [2]). --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm here to mention Paul Smith (music industry). A7 is for articles which don't assert notability. Paul Smith (music industry) is so far from A7 it's almost unbelievable that you would nominate it. He's the founder of a notable record label and there's a BBC source provided. This article should have been {{prod}}'d, sent to WP:AFD, or merely left alone.
The message left on the user's talk page wasn't too pleasant either. You did see, of course, that he created the article on 15 December 2004? You gave him what looked like a vandalism warning, over 2 years later?! --kingboyk 11:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I made a mistake. I'm sorry. I was running into a lot of music-related articles that definitely were not notable, and there was a lapse in my judgement. I still think that he's not notable and should be redirected to his record label, so I still support its deletion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. --kingboyk 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Please do not use edit summaries such as "that's absurd" [3] as they can be interpreted as hostile. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 18:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait, not vandalism!
True story. Check the link. Chcek the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.21.226 (talk)
In fact, no. I had the opportunity to examine this collection, and know of
others who were actual professionals and knew something or other of
what was there. It was a phenomenal loss.
Whatever, you seem to be on top of things and I can see how that's not exactly what one would want in an encyclopeadia entry and I'm just a bunch of numbers and you're an established member so I defer to you...
Still, the loss of the Mayall collection is something we might want ot document somewhere or another.
Thanks, 000.000.000.000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.21.226 (talk)
Reverted vandalism to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force minor characters
I reverted your revert to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force minor characters. It was actually a valid contribution and good-faith edit (though not a well-written one grammar-wise). I have removed the warning from User talk:68.5.183.43 as well. :: ZJH (T C E) 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's ok, and understandable. That's just the dark humor of ATHF. :: ZJH (T C E) 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You didn't need to tell me
I've warned numerous vandals over the past year or so, and in that case, I just had something come up. Thanks anyways. i kan reed 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)