SaxTeacher (talk | contribs) →Saxophone Embouchure article: Wikipedia Editors |
SaxTeacher (talk | contribs) m →Wikipedia editors: fix my typo |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
on Wikipedia there appear to be a special category of user who monitor the content of articles and give instructions and advice to contributors and who place impartial comments at the top of articles saying things like "This article needs cleaning up" or "This article may contain a biased viewpoint". Do these people have a name? Are you ''not'' one of these? -[[User:Egrabczewski|Egrabczewski]] 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
on Wikipedia there appear to be a special category of user who monitor the content of articles and give instructions and advice to contributors and who place impartial comments at the top of articles saying things like "This article needs cleaning up" or "This article may contain a biased viewpoint". Do these people have a name? Are you ''not'' one of these? -[[User:Egrabczewski|Egrabczewski]] 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Anyone in the world can edit an article, add text, delete text, or add tags to an article such as < |
:Anyone in the world can edit an article, add text, delete text, or add tags to an article such as <nowiki>{{cleanup}} or {{POV}}</nowiki>. These tags and other similar tags produce the boxes at the top of an article that you mention. The name for anyone who adds anything to wikipedia is "editor." You are a Wikipedia editor. |
||
:There are some people who have been recognized as highly experienced users and are made [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]. I think there are about 1000 of them around the world. I have never been, or claimed to be, an administrator. —[[User:SaxTeacher|SaxTeacher]] [[User talk:SaxTeacher|<small>(talk)</small>]] 12:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
:There are some people who have been recognized as highly experienced users and are made [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]. I think there are about 1000 of them around the world. I have never been, or claimed to be, an administrator. —[[User:SaxTeacher|SaxTeacher]] [[User talk:SaxTeacher|<small>(talk)</small>]] 12:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:17, 18 March 2007
Welcome! Hello, Egrabczewski, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In reading the article that you contributed, it does not appear to have a neutral-point-of-view as required by Wikipedia policy. Can you please revisit the article and make appropriate changes? Also, it would be best if you could cite sources for the information presented in the article. Thanks! Regards, Accurizer 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the 11 May I've "neutralised" the article somewhat, but I don't think it's worth going too far at getting rid of opinions in this area, so I've added some references to back up the views too. I have yet to find an article that argues that sound is unimportant and so it will be difficult to find a "balanced" counter-argument at present. (Egrabczewski)
Dicdef
I was referring to "dicdef" as lingo for dictionary definition. These are always deleted, unless they are expanded to give more information about how it relates to other things, so that it becomes an encyclopedic article. Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see what's so wroing with a dictionary definition as a stub whilst people get time to fill in the information. We can't just put it all in there in a single day but if you delete the stub then there will be no informaton whatsoever. Doesn't Wikipedia have the concept of article evolution? (Egrabczewski)
Filmmaking
I noticed you knew a lot about filmmaking. I had started the "filmmaking paper trail" and saw that you had filled some in, even if unknowingly. Just wanted to say thanks and see if you wanted to fill in any more. Kushboy 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Regional differences
Thanks for your edits to the filmmaking articles! I gather you're probably a working professional in the industry. However, as one myself, I'd like to remind you that not all places (or even types) of filmmaking have the same procedures, and there are often several common variants in usage. Please keep this in mind in the future when possible and add alternate variants rather than deleting ones unfamiliar to you. Thanks again and look forward to your future work! Also, you may want to consider adding the more "how-to"-type articles to [1] instead of placing them on the Wikipedia, where they are at risk of being deleted and/or transwikied (see WP:NOT). Girolamo Savonarola 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I've cleaned up, merged, or redirected a lot of your recent edits. Please take care to check that a topic isn't already covered on the site, and try not to split an article into separate pages for sub-sections unless the article has gotten rather large. As an example, there's no need to create a page each for the sticks and board for the clapperboard - the existing article is more than fine to contain all text regarding the matter at the moment. Thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Movie Making Manual
I just found this over at Wikibooks. I think you'd like to take a look and contribute. Movie Making Manual Kushboy 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Roll number
the following page failed AFD. It will be posted here in case you want to expand it: Each roll of film is uniquely numbered during film production. This roll number is often written on the clapperboard slate. --Mostly Rainy 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Filmmaking
Hey, I decided to finally get together and try to start a WikiProject for Filmmaking. Currently the temporary page is User:Girolamo Savonarola/wikiproject until I have a few more editors - enough to justify making it into a proper Project. Anyhow, just wanted to invite you to participate, and of course offer any comments you may have on the project. Thanks! (PS - don't forget to sign here as well.) Girolamo Savonarola 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:SOGLogo1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SOGLogo1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Style notes
Hi. I have a few style tips which may hopefully help with your editing. First, it would be nice if you use an edit summary, so that other people understand what you changed and why. Second, it is good if you use the preview button (and save only when you are ready to save) so that there are not so many history versions. Lastly, it is good to not overlink. Links like appearance and configuration are not helpful, since they lead to disambiguation pages. You should rather visit those pages and select the actual meaning you want. Actually, those words don't need links, Wikipedia does not have articles on dictionary definitions (meaning of words), since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Contributions to Saxophone
Hello - thanks for contributing to the saxophone article. Please note the following though.
- This is an encyclopedia. It is not the right place for you to insert your opinions on what type of mouthpiece or facing is good for what type of music. Players have widely differing opinions about this sort of thing - and also, what you're writing is your opinion, not a reference-worthy fact. You need to be able to substantiate anything you add.
- If you have dozens of edits to make to the article, that's fine, but please make all your edits at once rather than making dozens of separate saves. I know you are new to Wikipedia but try to make as many edits at a time as you can - hopefully not saving an article more than once or twice a day.
- It is really important to use the edit summary box each time you save, explaining what you did. In fact, if you go into "my preferences" at the very top of the screen, you can set a preference so that you will be reminded any time you try to save without providing an edit summary. I would suggest this.
Again, welcome - appreciate your contributions! —SaxTeacher (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I'm not unaware of the points you raise and I understand your point about "opinions". I do my best not to insert my own viewpoint, and try to stick to published material. As for putting all my changes into the article in one go - yes, that would be bliss. But, alas, not the way I work. I'm always finding errors. Ever written an academic paper? It's a lot like that for me. Thanks - Egrabczewski 07:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Given that you prefer to make some changes, then adjust them, multiple times before you are finished, there is a tool in Wikipedia that I think will be very helpful to you. This is the "Show preview" button. It is located just to the right of the "Save page" button. The "Show preview" button enables you to see the edits you have made, and then continue editing! Try it out and see. It displays only the section you were editing, shown with your changes - but just below is a new edit box, so you can adjust your changes before saving.
- Personally I never used the "Show preview" button until recently, but now that I have figured out how it works, I use it all the time! I hope you will begin using it. —SaxTeacher (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:BenDavis03.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BenDavis03.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Storage model
An editor has nominated Storage model, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storage model and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
ProD deletion of Frederick Hemke (music professor)
The stub you created, Frederick Hemke (music professor), has been deleted according to the proposed deletion process. The reason is: The stub you created duplicates the full article Frederick Hemke which has been around for some time. When you wish to create a biographical article in the future, please check first to see if an article exists before creating one under a different name. This could have been avoided by a simple search of Wikipedia for the name "Frederick Hemke". Thank you. —SaxTeacher (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please use the Show preview button!
I note that several other editors have left comments for you above, asking you to use the Show preview button. I want to stress that it really does cause difficulty and inconvenience (undue server load; difficulty viewing an article's history; alarming amounts of edits on people's watchlists, etc.) when you make dozens or hundreds of edits to an article in a single sitting. The other editors of these articles would appreciate it if you could please Use the Show Preview button to view your edits before finalising them. That is, when you have made some edits, instead of clicking Save page, click Show preview instead. Then make your additional edits and keep using Show preview again until you are satisfied with your edits. By following this method, you will avoid causing bizarre edit logs such as this one, where 494 of the last 500 edits were yours, many less than a minute apart. Thank you, —SaxTeacher (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Saxophone Embouchure article
SaxTeacher, remove your offensive remark from the Saxophone Embouchure talk page at once. -Egrabczewski 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please relax, be cordial, and assume good faith in your fellow editors. It is the responsibility of any Wikipedia editor to be bold in deleting material that is questionable or non-encyclopedic. Recall the sentence that appears at the bottom of every edit screen: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Please don't take it personally when others edit material you wrote; your contributions are appreciated. Best —SaxTeacher 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do not patronise me please. And remove the offending remark in the [[Saxophone Embouchure talk page (see all my comments). You have gone a little too far this time and if this remark is not removed immediately then I assure you I will take action. -Egrabczewski 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- SaxTeacher: my comment was addressed to JTalcott who, I'm sure, can speak for himself. You still haven't yet grasped the point and you keep making assuptions that are, franky, patronising. I am fine with edits to the article. I am not fine with personal remarks about me. My good faith in Wikipedia editors was unshaken until I read your over personal comments above. You SaxTeacher, who hide behind a psudonym, take little care when you decide to implicate the real name of a fellow contributor. I had no such problems over three years of contributions until I met with your editorship. Remove your offensive comments and we shall see if my previous humour is restored. -Egrabczewski 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry to see that you've decided to ignore my request and have not removed your offensive remarks about me in the Saxophone Embouchure talk page. I will be reasonable with you and give you until the end of today to put matters right. Following that I will take this matter through Wikipedia arbitration. -Egrabczewski 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- SaxTeacher: my comment was addressed to JTalcott who, I'm sure, can speak for himself. You still haven't yet grasped the point and you keep making assuptions that are, franky, patronising. I am fine with edits to the article. I am not fine with personal remarks about me. My good faith in Wikipedia editors was unshaken until I read your over personal comments above. You SaxTeacher, who hide behind a psudonym, take little care when you decide to implicate the real name of a fellow contributor. I had no such problems over three years of contributions until I met with your editorship. Remove your offensive comments and we shall see if my previous humour is restored. -Egrabczewski 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do not patronise me please. And remove the offending remark in the [[Saxophone Embouchure talk page (see all my comments). You have gone a little too far this time and if this remark is not removed immediately then I assure you I will take action. -Egrabczewski 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Response, and three requests
Egrabczewski, I'm sorry to see that you have taken offense at the comments I made on Talk:Saxophone Embouchure. I have reviewed my comments and I feel that they were calm and factual, and not insulting. I asked a couple other experienced editors to review them and their opinions were the same. I'd therefore like to request that you:
- Assume good faith. All the users are working towards better, more balanced saxophone-related articles. No one is working against you; we are all just improving the articles based on our experience and knowledge. That means removing material we believe to be factually inaccurate.
- Please, stop leaving me commands, edicts, or threats of arbitration on my talk page and Talk:Saxophone Embouchure. If you truly feel you have been slighted, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and start with step 2.
- Please use the Show Preview button as described above.
Thanks —SaxTeacher 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Response, and six requests
Thanks for your apology and taking the trouble to check with other editors. But your comments about me still remain in the Talk page. Now I have some requests of you:
- You stop contributing to discussions in which personal remarks are made about me.
- We jointly remove all personal comments from the discussion page of Saxophone Embouchure talk page and reformat it back to how it was before you rearranged it, in order to remove any headings and comments that might be personally embarrasing.
- That you consider how you execute your roles as editor and as contributor and the effect this has on other contributors - particularly with respect to articles on the saxophone.
- That you reflect on how, as an editor, you could have managed this situation better.
- If we can't move forward, then could I have your agreement to participate in formal mediation - to better understand what has happened here and what lessons we might each learn from this experience.
- If you haven't already done so, you take a look at my other articles, to better understand the nature of my contributions
I intend to respond to some of the remarks in the discussion on Saxophone Embouchure but purely on a technical level. Thank you -Egrabczewski 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Saxophone Embouchure
You did not remove the diagram and I did not reinsert it. To the best of my knowledge it was never removed. You may have looked at the history and saw that I removed some extraneous "<--" marks around the image but the image was visible before I did so. It was precisely because it looked odd that I removed the marks. I didn't realise they were your attempt at commenting out the image - presumably you didn't check that the image was no longer visible. I did wonder at the time why you'd said you'll remove it but didn't. -Egrabczewski 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're right; I believed I had commented out the diagram where you define your term "slope", but I made the comment-out characters incorrectly. I still feel that the word "slope" should be removed from the diagram as it is WP:OR. Change the text to "place upper teeth here" or something. Or just remove the article since it is "how-to" information and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. —SaxTeacher (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors
We contributors should not have to put up with remarks like this, particuarly from an editor. -Egrabczewski 14:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- A "contributor" and an "editor" are the same thing. Everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is a "Wikipedia editor." Perhaps you read on my user page that "I am a Wikipedia editor" and assumed that term meant I had some sort of official standing. It doesn't. —SaxTeacher 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
on Wikipedia there appear to be a special category of user who monitor the content of articles and give instructions and advice to contributors and who place impartial comments at the top of articles saying things like "This article needs cleaning up" or "This article may contain a biased viewpoint". Do these people have a name? Are you not one of these? -Egrabczewski 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone in the world can edit an article, add text, delete text, or add tags to an article such as {{cleanup}} or {{POV}}. These tags and other similar tags produce the boxes at the top of an article that you mention. The name for anyone who adds anything to wikipedia is "editor." You are a Wikipedia editor.
- There are some people who have been recognized as highly experienced users and are made Administrators. I think there are about 1000 of them around the world. I have never been, or claimed to be, an administrator. —SaxTeacher (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)