User talk:Deskford/Archives/2011/February

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.

Re: fiber to the x

I took care of it. I Reverted my edits. Everything should be back up. Sorry for the inconvenience.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Morgan Academy

{{helpme}} Can someone with rollback capability please restore Morgan Academy to the 14 July 2009 version by FluffyWhiteCat? Since then the page has been hijacked to promote a clothing brand with a similar name, then only partally restored by an anonymous IP user. --Deskford (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Deskford, you can do it yourself!

Go to the history of the article [1], click on the date of the version you wish to restore (here 05:48, 14 July 2009), click on edit this page. You're then editing the old version of FluffyWhiteCat. Provide a meaningful Edit summary to explain why you revert and submit: that's it!

Calimo (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done No need of rollback for that! You can do it yourself as Calimo said but I have done it already instead. --Srin ivas 14:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! --Deskford (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

+thx (Aberdeenshire Templates)

Hiya there! Just a quick "thank you" note for those recent updates and any other linking and/or article expansion to follow. (I really need to get back around the county again, some day... :/ ) Best wishes & Keep up the good work, David. Harami2000 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. These templates seem a good aid to navigation around the Shire, even if the area boundaries often seem a bit arbitrary. And who at Aberdeenshire Council thought it would be sensible to call one area "Buchan" and another area "Banff and Buchan", I wonder.... Sometimes it's not easy to work out which area a particular settlement comes under, since Aberdeenshire Council doesn't seem to provide maps showing the area boundaries. The best technique I have found is to look at recent planning applications on the council website and see which area committee discussed them. The division of the templates into "Primary Settlements" and "Other Settlements" is bound to result in some borderline cases that may or may not be primary. And I noticed you removed my addition of "Bullers of Buchan" to the "Other Settlements" list on the "Buchan" template because it is also on the "Places of Interest" list. My thinking was that because the article documents a village and a coastal feature with the same name it should be on both. There are other articles linked as settlements and places of interest — Peterhead (for Maritime Heritage Museum), Memsie (for Memsie Cairn), Balmedie (for Balmedie Country Park) for example. Well, I didn't really intend to get drawn into so much editing — after all there are other things I should be doing with my life — but the general poor state of repair of much of the coverage of Aberdeenshire seemed to call for a little tidying. I've been trying to make sure there is at least a little bit of relevant information for each place. I keep finding references to "Catto Long Barrow" on articles on places many miles from this cairn, usually associated with a user called Hadrianheugh — I haven't removed any of these because in many cases that would leave an almost empty article, but it would be good to have information on prehistoric sites closer and more relevant to the places covered — after all there is no shortage of such sites in Aberdeenshire! I have also (so far) avoided doing much with the big towns, even though the Peterhead and Fraserburgh pages seem particularly messy and prone to vandalism. Someone has altered the Peterhead population figure from the GRO estimate to a higher figure three times (actually to three different higher figures) without providing references. I have reverted these changes, but I really don't want to get dragged into an edit war. (I assume the changes have been made by the same person — they used three different IP addresses, but all registered to Opal Telecom, I think.) Thanks again for your comments — it's good to know someone else out there is taking an interest in coverage of Aberdeenshire. --Deskford (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Flore et Zéphire

Hello, Deskford. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Updated WP Contemporary music picture...

...with the smiley face (but further cropped). Thoughs? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

CTM coordinator

Please see here. I'm hoping to get a consensus one way or the other on this. Thanks. --Klein zach 13:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please see here and let me know if you think anything needs changing before we run this. --Klein zach 05:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK. Says what it needs to, without any unnecessary complication. --Deskford (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hope you have a great new year too! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Election notice

WikiProject Contemporary music

Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator.

P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

Thank you...

...for this. I was just taking a deep breath before doing that myself. It's really a WP:DUCK situation, but it will be helpful to have the official result, particularly to root out any others he may have made. Antandrus (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope I've done it properly. I've never submitted one of these before. --Deskford (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither have I (although I did back when it was "Requests for Checkuser"). I think there's a template for informing the parties that there is a new request -- I'll see if I can find it. Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on 'Greenpath' and the others. Looks like he's been at this for even longer than was first apparent. Antandrus (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

help with Michael Rosenzweig (composer)

Hi, I'd like to bring this page up to snuff, but most media references are hard to obtain and/or expensive. While I'm gathering them, is it a good idea to post the references cited in the discussion to the references section of the page itself? Also, I'm interested in notable aspects of this composer's style. There are some comments about this in the media references. Any tips on how to approach this in the text of the article? Thank you. Johnabdl (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you working on improving this article. What we really need are references that can back up statements made in the main text of the article. Some of these statements are tagged "citation needed", but many others could do with verification too. Independent third party reviews of the concerts he has conducted, for example, would help. The references given for the Moravian Philharmonic, the Sudety Philharmonic and the State Philharmonic of Iaşi don't actually mention Rosenzweig, as far as I can see. It would be good to have some information about the String Quartet No. 2; as a BBC commission for the Arditti Quartet this ought to be a good indicator of notability, but it seems to be surrounded in mystery. When I dated it 2008 I was mistakenly assuming that as a first broadcast it was a new work. I think you changed the date to 1986, then an anonymous editor changed it to 1989. We must avoid speculation about why the broadcast was delayed, but some straightforward facts would be worth including if they can be verified.

I don't have access to JSTOR, or some of the newspaper references you have added, so I can't comment on those, but I see in some cases you have cited the same source more than once. I'll have a go at combining these into single citations.

Good luck in your search for more references. They're not easy to find. I know, because I've been looking! --Deskford (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edouard Potjes

Ok, no problem with the tag. In fact the French article was also created by me, based on a 1901 biographies book currently in PD. The link to it is in the References section, so I didn't see the need to cite the French article as the source. Regards, Capmo (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhythmology

Hi. You PRODded this article (but you did not notify the author) and it was deleted. He has now asked for it to be restored, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have undeleted it, and given him some advice on his talk page. I am notifying you in case you wish to take the article to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put an apology on his talk page and taken the article to AfD. I'm not sure what further advice to offer him, given that he appears to be the creator and subject of the article, but the links you have given him should be a good start. Thanks. --Deskford (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Toshio Hosokawa

Thank you for your explanation on leaving a "dead link" mark that I understand in general. When I saw that specific "dead link" on Toshio Hosokawa I could't help a feeling of "questionably credibility" though, that I would like to change, so that the valid info in the other links gets attention. I would vote differently if the dead link was the only one. Thanks for your attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I wrote this, believe it or nor, I found all Schott search functions failing, so supplied other biographies, at least for the moment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Relief, Schott working again. I'll leave the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

John Mayer (composer)

Note copyvio added here. Now duly blanked and reported. Hope your back to work here soon, BTW? I feel a bit lonely...! :) --Jubilee♫clipman 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm! And added by Mayer141 (talk · contribs), who appears to be Jonathan Mayer, John Mayer's son. Perhaps we should revert to the pre-copyvio version...? I'm still going to be on severely reduced editing capacity until the end of February, but will be dipping in from time to time. You seem to be doing a great job on processing the list, and half-way through the alphabet now! --Deskford (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave the copyvio issue to an admin. I noticed the name, BTW, and undoubtedly so will the admin... I've changed tack again: I will only add uBLPs, possible CSDs and other critical issues to my list along with clearly-notable-composer articles that are sourced but have glaring sourcing issues. I think that makes nost sense in the present climate. No prob with semi-WikiBreak: RL takes precedence, obviously! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

CTM scope review

Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:

We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:

It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Víctor Varela and CTM

I think they copied us. The IP edits are a little suspiciuos though... I've commented on the talk page. BTW, I have decided to ask CTM to decide how to handle Infoboxes. Based on what you said, and how I feel, I've suggested we make no commitment beyond a simple "avoid policy violation and use common sense" statement. I'll contact the other active members tomorrow. However, now that Klein has left, you and I seem to be the only ones that comment regularly there! Peter Cohen and Jerome Kohl participate occassionally, though, so hopefully they will have some thoughts. Antandrus really ought to be involved too since he was one of the three "originals", as it were. Ihave no idea at all what he feels as he seems to have given the entire battle a wide berth over the entire 4 years it has been raging (sensibly...) Sorry I tried twist your arm to comment on he RfC over at the CTM talk page: that was not good... I'm standing well back now. Indeed I have recieved mail advising precisely that. I think it can be wound up quickly, though, if everyone at Composers agrees to redraft their guidelines to explain why they are opposed to Infoboxes. I think that's the problem: they have just dogmatically said "no infoboxes" and pointed people to reams of debate. Better to say "we object because a)... b)... c)..." and leave others to agree or disagree. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't flag or report Varela as a copyvio because it wasn't clear which came first, but I thought I'd better at least put a note on the talk page.

I don't think the apparent canvassing should be a major issue. It might have been different if I was a known militant anti-infobox fundamentalist! Good to see things seem to be moving in a positive direction over at WP:Composers. As far as a specific WP:CTM position on infoboxes goes, I would suggest we follow the flow at WP:Composers unless there is good reason to do otherwise. If we end up with different guidelines to the Composers project that really would be confusing. The major difference is perhaps that we are more likely to have to deal with figures who work in both classical and non-classical fields, so we will have to be judiciously pragmatic and tolerant of the preferences of the non-classical editors.

--Deskford (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (all above). I suspect a dialogue surrounding our stance on infoboxes would be useful, however, even if we say "do as composers does" or some such. I'm past caring now, really! Let's get the Composers thing settled once and for all and move on. (I wish I had looked at this before my mass-mailing but ho-hum.) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes

In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you. (This is just a courtesy message: I have now contacted all the other members listed in the "active" section) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheena Blackhall (Poet) Bio Improvement

Hi, I'd like to improve my article/bio on Sheena Blackhall. Going by the advice, One or two of the external links might help? If I ref the main Bio to her personal Blog (1st of External links) and maybe the Bio on the Scottish Book Trust? (External Link second from bottom)

Or am I off the point with these? Sorry I'd just like to do it right 1st time rather than appear to be meddling.

Any other advice/help would be appreciated.

Cheers, Vinny

Vinnyabdn (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think using some of the external links as references is a good idea where they back up specific statements in the text. Probably best to avoid using her personal blog, as references should be independent third-party sources (see WP:VERIFY and WP:THIRDPARTY). The Scottish Book Trust and National Library of Scotland sources would be good though. You could also perhaps use Word and Wordfringe if there are mentions of performances she has done there. Great to see this article coming along! --Deskford (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Really appreciate the help and advice.

Will see if I can improve with these,

If this is done should I await the templtes being removed or can I remove them myself?

Vinnyabdn (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's probably OK to remove the templates yourself when the issues have been addressed. --Deskford (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just before you vanish off the radar...

I hope the problem is resolved soon. I will get back over to CMT very shortly, after I have finished my audit of the music MOS's. There are a lot of issues outstanding and without you I am pretty much reduced to being the sole member of the project! I will perhaps have to start a recruitment drive: I have several ideas that I would like to try out but need feedback. Hope all is going well is Sunny Scotland? I will be up there soon, visiting my dad. I'll keep an eye out for you (!) --Jubilee ♫clipman 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm back online for a while but won't have a lot of time for editing, though being busy in real life means there's a chance the mortgage gets paid! --Deskford (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there's an irony... I'm offline from tommorow! Can I borrow your {{No-Internet}} banner for a while...? I'm moving to my mum's pro tem to get organised before moving to live with my dad in Inverness (no need to link that, I guess...). I am going to be his carer as he is not a well man. Neither have a reliable service (mum's literally in the middle-of-nowhere) and obviously I need to concentrate on my dad. Hopefully a month tops but... Good luck with RL and the mortgage and don't worry about WP overmuch (I don't) --Jubilee ♫clipman 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope all goes well with the Inverness mission. WP:CTM can wait! --Deskford (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: WP:NODEADLINE... --Jubilee ♫clipman 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I like this one also: WP:CHILL --Jubilee ♫clipman 16:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:No angry mastodons... Never seen that one before! --Jubilee ♫clipman 16:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn I saw some mastodons lurking around the infobox debate, and they looked pretty angry to me.... --Deskford (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No comment. OTOH, I take it you've seen the latest TfD...? Interesting reading if nothing else --Jubilee ♫clipman 17:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that. Some mastodons just won't lie down to rest. I remain mystified as to why this issue generates such heated antagonism, but I plan to stay well clear. I honestly believe there are more important things to worry about. --Deskford (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I have blown myself out in attempting to explain precisely that point while recognising and responding to the arguments that highly intelligent and informed editors have put forward on both sides of the debate. OTOH, "intelligent and informed" implies common sense, doesn't it...? No, don't answer that!

I have said my piece and I hope peace reigns, now: two-and-a-half months of debate should be enough to ensure that, surely...? That said.... --Jubilee ♫clipman 17:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clola page

I've done a couple of further changes to the Clola page. I do still have a couple of other bits and pieces to add which I hope to update in the next few days. Sagaciousphil (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yaakob Arad

It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad - he's changed the name to circumvent a WP:SALT on Kobi Arad. --Deskford (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing comments on talk pages

Hi - thanks for the advice. However, I had written the comment on the talk page that I deleted - surely this is legit? Mogsmar6 (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment was attributed to an anonymous editor — was that you? Even if it was, it's generally regarded as best practice to leave comments in place. See WP:REDACT for the Wikipedia guideline on this. You could add a comment below the original one saying that it has been dealt with or is no longer relevant. Hope this helps! --Deskford (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Deborah Leslie

Thanks, I've opened the AfD discussion. Vinithehat (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ferness

Thanks Deskford for that Ferness link. I had a bit of trouble finding it. It's just big enough to make notability at 12 houses. Usually if it's under 10 house, it fails notability. But is an excellent, solid wee village. I'll spin up a page for it. I see you created the page. Coolio.

scope_creep (talk) 21:39, 16 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Replied...

...at my talk page. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Li Ying-Wu

She might not be considered a "significant" composer in your Scottish village, but she is well-known in Greater China, Sweden and Denmark. Elementalkarl (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

For a composer to be mentioned in a general article such as 21st-century classical music we would expect them at least to have a well-established and referenced article in their own right on Wikipedia. At present, Li-Ying Wu does not have such an article. In addition, though, the section of the article to which you added her is based on a specific magazine article, and she is not mentioned in that article. If you think she is notable, you should create a separate article on her, making sure it is fully referenced to reliable sources so as to verify her notability. --Deskford (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Elementalkarl (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Schnittke edits

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits in article about Schnittke. Sorry I didn't explain my edits. As you could see they are minimal. Will try to explain some of them. First I thought the beginning, the introduction was a bit messy with some matherial which was repeated later in the Music section of the article. Also Schnittke was never a Soviet composer as Soviet means specifically to be a servant of the Soviet government and ideology. It's like you wouldn't write that Arthur Conan Doyle was a British Imperial writer, you would probably simply write that he was a Scottish writer (also he was probably more in tune with the British than Scnittke with the Soviets). Same with Schnittke. Also the facts that his music wasn't performed on major Russian classical music stages until 1986 was the fact. Firs performanse of his music in Moscow Conservatorie was in 1986. And the reason was exactly because he never composed any rubbish music for the party conferences or celebrations, not once. He only composed the things he thought were to live in history. Also of caurse doing that he was quietly fighting the totalitarian sistem. Also the fact that he was half Jewish half German living in Russia wasn't helping. It's like beeing Russian doesn't help living in the UK in our days, beleive me, I know)) Anyway, I just thought that being the musician who spent half of his life in Russia, knowing Schnittke personally (beein this lucky) I could contribute a little. Will not take more off your time. If you think my reasons are relevant I'll appreciate if you confirm my edits to the article. Sorry for my spelling, I know it's owful, by the way I'll appreciate if you'll brush up my English where you think is necessary. Thanks a lot. Igor Tikhonov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.2.212 (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Please remember to add an edit summary for each change you make in Wikipedia so that other editors can understand what you are doing and why. Otherwise there is a danger that your edits will be mistaken for vandalism. I reverted your edit because it had removed information without explaining why — I hadn't noticed that the same information is already in the article later on. You have a valid point about the matter of describing him as a "Soviet" composer — I would suggest you raise this for discussion on Talk:Alfred Schnittke and see what other editors think. The other main problem I had with your edit was the phrase "...recognised as one of the most important developments in serious classical music..." — as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia much retain a neutral point of view, and if you mention opinions like this you must say whose opinion it is and provide a reference. The Alfred Schnittke article is rather lacking in references at the moment and still needs quite a lot of work — I hope you will be able to help in this. Thanks again for your interest. --Deskford (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)