You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
![]() |
---|
14 August 2024 |
|
Greetings
Hello SaxTeacher, Thanks for your amendment to Saxophone. I wonder if you would care to take a look at Big Band to see if Ive got all my facts straight on saxes?--Light current 01:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
New Trier article
Hello SaxTeacher. Regarding New Trier High School, while your statement that "The school serves New Trier Township" is true, parts of the high school district (Sunset Ridge School District [which includes more than half of Northfield and a few streets in Northbrook] and the Wilmette Golf Course area) are actually in Northfield Township. Take a look at the high school district map [1] and the township map [2] to see the differences. The township line is also shown on the high school district map. It would be better to revert to the original sentence. -- unsigned
Saxophone article and Eugene Rousseau (saxophonist)
Hello SaxTeacher. Thanks from France for your edits. That's a good surprise and an enjoyment to see your interest for the saxophone. For Eugene Rousseau, I gave the right title of his book ("Marcel Mule : sa vie et le saxophone". As you know, I suppose, it was a american book but written and published in french language. I gave too the other book about this master (so essential, as you know too, for saxophonists and music lovers). I think the page is quite serious, with good informations.Best regards. -- User XXXXX 131
Saxophone embouchure
Hello SaxTeacher. The world needs more like you. May you spread the word of Saxophone across the nations of the world!
Anyway, I've just added a paragraph to the "embouchure" section of the saxophone article on the effects of an embouchure in which the pressure is applied primarily with the lower teeth, as opposed to the chin muscles. I wrote this based on information in Larry Teal's "Art of Saxophone Playing," as well as my own experience on the alto. After seven years of playing, I'm still nursing a sizeable callus.
I was just hoping that you could check the paragraph for completion and accuracy, as you are in fact an actual bona fide saxophone teacher. Thanks. --Mixolydian 5.25.06
Carillons
I'm afraid we were editing the article at the same time. I assume most of your edits came into place, except your major input: The description of 'similar instruments' fits mostly into the already existing article Campanology; you might like to take your latest edits from Carillon's history, and incorporate some of it in either Campanology or Carillon (as far as still needed). See also the newly introduced definition references in Carillon (largely borrowed from the talk page). The List of carillons still needs some clear reference to the definition, I think that list should be split in a chapter for traditional carillons, and one for other true carillons. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-04 18:50 (UTC)
User 150.199.193.10
Hello. You've left vandalism warnings on this user's talk page and reported them to WP:AIV, but they haven't edited Wikipedia since November 7. I believe that there was a mistake and you went after the wrong IP. Also, I should recommend that you refrain from using {{test4im}} unless in the presence of extreme vandalism. Regards.--Húsönd 01:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that sometimes vandals flock and stack. You better watch out for both anon IPs and redlinked user names in article history. Your well-meaning edit masked a previous hoax. `'mikkanarxi 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comment but I don't understand the terms you are using. I am interested to learn what "flocking and stacking" means, and how an edit I made could have "masked" a hoax, so that I can better understand these things and how to recognize them/avoid them. Could you leave me a note (either here or on my talk page) explaining these terms? Thank you. —SaxTeacher 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for abuse of language.
- If you see a really suspicious edit (nonsense, corrupted text, obviously wrong format), as opposed to, e.g., typos or bad grammar, before editing please look into the article history and see who was editing. If the last editor was an anonymous IP address, like, 71.146.69.139, or whose user name is a red link (meaning a new account most probably), then chances are very high that it was a vandal or a well-meaning but an inexperienced user, and you better check all his edits by looking at the article revision difference, because the vandal can corrupt the text in several places. He may also move a big chunk of text from one place to another, so that the text seems OK, the problem being the lost logic of the description flow.
- "Flocking": I wanted to say that some articles may be vandalized by several vandals. This happens to two categories of articles: very visible ones, like George W. Bush or, just the opposite, some obscure topics which are edited rarely and vandalisms may sit unnoticed for long time.
- "Stacking": if you look into an artice revision history, the history entries are listed in vertical order, one atop another, i.e., "stacked", "piled".
- Therefore it is always advised to check not only the last edit in the history but all topmost "stack" of edits with suspicious user names.
- "Masking": people monitor changes in articles using watchlists. When a watchlist is very long, like mine, I check edits by all users only for articles in topics I am especially interested. All other articles are monitored by me only for vandalism. So if these articles are edited by an established user, I believe that the edit is most probably OK. Here again, it is a common sense to assume if the user name is not red, then the person bothered to write something in his user page, i.e., he is not a novice. And I also assume (possibly erroneousy) that the user before adding his edits checked whether the previous edit was not vandalism. In other words, red user names are "red flags" raised telling us to check the most recent edits more carefully. And if you put your name above theirs in the edit history, you hide this red flag from us.
- Please let me know what else left unexplained. `'mikka 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Reeds section of Saxophone article
Thanks for adding to this article. However due to the length of the article, and the varied opinions of different players around the world, we need to leave out information about which player uses which reed, or what you think the "standard" reed strength should be. I removed this and put the great link you supplied (mouthpieceheaven.com's page of the set-ups of famous players) to the "external links" section at the bottom of the article. —SaxTeacher 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am concerned that the section on reeds is incomplete, inaccurate, opinionated and is potentially damaging to students' and players' development.
- You should not have removed all the updates I made to the section on Reeds, saying that it was inappropriate to mention 'who plays what reeds' whereas you have left in an unsubstantiated opinion of yours implying it is a good thing 'to progress to numbef 5 reeds' which is very bad advice.
- The players I mention: Bob Berg, Iain Ballamy and Mark Lockheart are all well-known jazz players with exemplary sax sounds who either studied at or teach at recognized acadamies: Julliard and The Royal Academy respectively. Since I know what reeds these players use and that Joe Henderson, Johnny Griffin, Sonny Rollins all used Med-Soft or Med reeds respectively these facts should not be left out and should replace the unsubstantiated and damaging comment currently in the article about No 5 reeds.
- Perhaps you would be kind enough to write to me to explain what is your motive for having taken this action - which, as you can see has quite annoyed me.
- Is there any sense in which you 'own' the information in the Saxophones entry? Trismegister 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry if you were annoyed, but as I explained above, your additions to the article did not seem to be appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't have any more ownership of the saxophone article than you do, but I check additions to articles for content, and if they appear to be material that doesn't merit inclusion, I remove them.
- I explained in my comments on this topic (on the saxophone talk page) that a discussion of which player uses what type of reed doesn't belong in the saxophone article. It belongs on your personal web page, or blog, or a forum about saxophone players, of which there are many on various web sites. The article is about the instrument itself, not about specific players or your opinion on the optimal reed strength. Thanks again for contributing the link to mouthpiece heaven's page of "famous player setups." I referenced it in the links section at the bottom of the article. We can continue this discussion on the saxophone talk page —SaxTeacher 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Admin coaching, etc.
Are you ready to get started?
The waiting time over at Admin coaching is long (some people have been waiting in line since July). I'm an admin coach with the project, and for my students I set up a group discussion page so that we could all learn from each other. The scope of this concept has expanded into the Virtual classroom, which is an open forum for the teaching and learning of advanced Wikipedia skills.
Anyone and everyone is welcome to participate, as a student, as a coach, or both. Every week or two a new major topic of discussion or classroom assignment is introduced, usually with a guest writer who presents his or her expertise on the current subject and who remains on hand to answer questions. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussions, such as sharing your expertise, asking and answering questions, etc.
The current topic of discussion is vandalism, and our guest writer is Budgiekiller.
All discussions are open-ended, so all previous discussion topics and classroom assignments are still there for viewing and further participation. There are also sections for posting miscellaneous topics and questions, requesting coaching assistance, etc.
In addition to inviting those who would like to learn, I routinely invite experts from all over Wikipedia to come and contribute for the benefit of all. The VC is rapidly turning into a clearing house of the best resources, methods, and techniques known for working on Wikipedia.
You are cordially invited to participate. Here's an announcement box which you can place on your userpage or at the top of your talk page for keeping up to date with classroom assignments.
I hope to see you there. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Clarinet - flats/sharps
Thanks for your additions to Clarinet. One minor point you probably want to be aware of; Wikipedia's Manual of Style has a sub-manual on music (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)) which says to not use lower-case 'b' to mean 'flat'. There is a flat symbol and a sharp symbol available. I've made the change in your last couple of edits to Clarinet. Again, thanks for the good work. - Special-T 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
CapWiki
No offense, but I feel you are mistaken about the necessity of consensus in articles. Normally, a consensus is necessary to add links to the page, not when removing them for valid reasons. CapWiki does not meet notability standards, and its inclusion smacks of advertising. It has only just been created; does not currently provide a useful amount of information; and as it is a wiki, is not considered a "primary document" type of site (an important distinction for external links). Beyond that, see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #12, which immediately rules out the site. For these reasons, I am once again removing it from the page. If you so strongly feel that it needs to be included, please speak to an administrator regarding this issue, and have them speak to me as well for clarification. Thanks. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The section on reed storage and care, which you have re-inserted, is entirely composed of original research (unreferenced information and/or opinion) and "how-to" instructions on reed care. Both of these types of information are specifically mentioned in Wikipedia policy documents as not being appropriate for inclusion. As I stated on the talk page, that is why I removed this section. I have no desire to get into an edit war or anything, but you might want to check out the policy documents regarding these issues. - Special-T 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Admin coaching
Hi Sax Teacher. Was wondering if you're still interested in admin coaching. My student just became an admin, so I'm open. Let me know, Fang Aili talk 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, that one was on my to-do list and got neglected for far too long. The leaving in that comment was simply an oversight... however, if you wanted to take up that major rewrite... ;-) 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why the hell are you screwing around with my "talk" page?
It's not appreciated. I undid your edits there. What was even the point of that? Your edit message said something about "typo fixes", but I couldn't see what they were. Besides, it's my damn talk page, and I'll take care of my own typo fixing, thank you very much. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Dear ILike2BeAnonymous, I appreciate your concern. Let me explain: using an automated typo fixer, I am searching Wikipedia for instances of the misspelling "saxaphone" and changing them to "saxophone". One of the misspellings I corrected was on your talk page. Sorry if my edit alarmed you - but please don't forget to assume good faith.
- I should point out that while one's user page is generally considered off limits for editing by others, the user talk page is by contrast an area where a user welcomes contributions from other editors. Per Wikipedia:User page, Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others. —SaxTeacher 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave my (and others') "talk" pages alone, and confine your typo-fixing to "article space". +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
AWB suggestion
I took a look at your recent contributions using AutoWikiBrowser. Some of them were just insignificant minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space with edit summary "Typo fixing". You can avoid this by using "Skip article when no typo fixed" option. As for your questions about regular expressions at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser I thought that some examples may be helpful. Happy editing :-) Jogers (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, when making a list of articles to work on you can use "Filter out non mainspace" option in the "List" menu to avoid comments like the one above in the future. Regards, Jogers (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, sorry to chime in on this one too but this edit which claimed to be typo fixing in the edit summary was actually wikilink adding (which is fine), but it was also adding an asterisk to the field names in the album infobox which, as a consequence, mucked up the formatting somewhat. Just something to look out for in future. Sorry to bring it up, but it may help in future. :) Bubba hotep 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. That was me not realizing that " * " is treated as a wildcard instead of a text character. I realized the problem earlier today and fixed it. I have redone the edit, correctly this time. —SaxTeacher (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, not a problem. At least you're using AWB. I've had it for a month now and haven't got round to doing anything useful (other than making lists) yet! Bubba hotep 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Clarinet
Thank you for noting the vandalism to the article and reverting it. However, the user had made two separate bad edits, and you reverted only the second one. I think this is known as "flocking and stacking"... when you go to revert, take care to be sure you are reverting back to the last unvandalized version. Best, —SaxTeacher (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I get for trying to work fast I guess :) Thank you for noticing and fixing my mistake. theroachmanTC 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Decade links
Hi, if you're going to be wikilinking decades, you might as well direct those wikilinks toward music-specific decade articles, such as Timeline of trends in music (1930-1939). Badagnani 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to figure out how to use AWB to change the decade links to music-specific decade links in music articles only. I will see if I can find a way. It would help if the names of the music-specific decade articles weren't so incredibly long (tedious to type). Thanks —SaxTeacher 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I don't know either. Of course, if the phrase regarding the decade doesn't refer to a musical thing, then you wouldn't necessarily want to link to the musical decade link. But if they're sax-related articles, I'd say probably most of them would be. Badagnani 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- You could probably use CONTROL-C and CONTROL-V to copy and paste those long article titles, to save time. Badagnani 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
My glider registration is in half-inch high letters on the fin just below the tailplane and complies with British requirements. JMcC 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Did you update the article to provide more accurate information? or should I? —SaxTeacher 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- You modification is fine. I originally deleted it because it seemed hard to make a generalised statement. JMcC 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet another teacher
Hi SaxTeacher
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))
Leonard Bernstein
your edits were quite good. my apologies for reverting the text changes you made...i didn't see them until now. but you inadvertently broke the template's date rendering by placing brackets on the dates within the citation. check out WP:CITET for more information on those templates. --emerson7 | Talk 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your aircraft q's
I hope I've answered your question well enough at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/FAQ. I hope you don't mind but I've reworked the page as a Q and A, in case people have the same questions in the future. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've restored this for now while we discuss it. It will be good to get an alternate viewpoint as what I thought was a good idea might not be. If you look at Nunavut#Demographics you see we have 3 regions. The Nunavut territorial government has their own names for the regions. The Canadian government has different (older) names for the same regions which they use as census divisions. At the time I made the three census regions I thought it was a good idea to help explain the differences. Now I am having second thoughts. Next month the government will release certain 2006 census data and may change to using the Nunvaut names for the census regions. Even if they don't I am starting to think that the 3 census regions, Baffin Region, Nunavut and Keewatin Region, Nunavut might be better merged into the current names as used by the Nunavut government. Let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
RfA/Chacor
Hi. I removed your oppose vote from the RfA as Chacor had already withdrawn. See this. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments in the Saxophone Discussion section. I would like to hear your thoughts about my concerns. JTalcott 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Concerns about Saxophone embouchure article
SaxTeacher, Please see my comments at Talk:Saxophone#Embouchure_Description_Concerns. I would like to hear your response to my concerns. JTalcott 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about this article. I had a look at it and responded at the Talk:Saxophone and Talk:Saxophone embouchure pages. I also made edits to the article to try and improve it.
- While it is certainly a good idea to discuss the article with other editors, keep in mind that the person who first added the article is not its "author" and doesn't "own" the article, so you can go ahead and make edits/corrections to articles concurrent with your discussion on the talk pages. Best —SaxTeacher (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Revert
Hi. I reverted this edit of yours. Disambig pages are special. See the Manual of Style for info on how they are formatted. In particular, links on these special pages are not generally piped. That means that if you don't like the name of the article Laser (dinghy), you have to follow the procedure to get it renamed. You can't just pipe the link on the dab page. Actually, if the article name is not appropriate, it should be renamed anyway.--Srleffler 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, you got it right second time, that's a good example of a dab page entry :) Fourohfour 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)