User talk:Tempodivalse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please do not edit the content of this page, it is intended as a historical reference only.

Navigation

Go to active talk page
Next archive (2) --->

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Tempodivalse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Mangostar (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism on Barack Obama

Hi, I see that you had [reverted] an edit I had made on Barack Obama. Could you please tell me exactly why my edit was vandalism?

Hello, Thaths!

Sorry about my reverting your edit -- a mistake on my part. I didn't understand what <<notable joluo>> was exactly, and thought that maybe it was spam. It was only after I hit the save page button that I realised that it wasn't spam. Very sorry!

Regards, Tempodivalse (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Thaths (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is Graeme responding about the Bruce block article. I want to say PLEASE do not delete this. It can be cleaned up. I know you are trying to do the right thing but he deserves an article.

Best regards, Graeme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme32 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin pic

I'm not surprised that the Palin pic has been reverted. IP75 created the image that was reverted, and I definitely think it's a vast improvement over the previous image that was similarly cropped. However, following your revert, I have asked IP75 to use his skills to instead try upgrading the more widely cropped image (to which you reverted).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Wondering

Who elected you the censor at the Palin page?? Jimbo? --Buster7 (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem....Just a bit hot at your edit at first....but I understand completely. It didn't belong at Sara Palin but these are the editors I have come to know, and respect (for the most part). Nevermind my foolishness. I think it (racial undertones) is very important in THIS election. Shake?--Buster7 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how my comment is not admissible at Sara Palin but, please, tell me why it is not allowed at McCain. It directly pertains to the destinct possibility that McCain may be prejudiced. He ranted about "gooks" way back when. Now, he chooses to use jargon that conveys a real threat to a person of color. My guess is that you are not black and you are younger than 50. That would explain why it's not insulting...to you. Propriety is one thing...censorship is a whole different bag. Why not let others decide in a consensus creating discussion rather than taking it upon yourself to be the judge and jury. 50 years ago, Obama would have to give up his seat on the bus to McCain. That is the America that he grew up in.Respectfully, --Buster7 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tempo...I really appreciate your contacting me. I created a real hornest's nest when I started to "blame" another editor and he didn't know what the heck I was talking about...lol...:>)...but, cooler heads prevailed which is why Wikipedia works when editors communicate.--Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

,,,

Barnstar!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thanks for wikifying a million of the articles I pasted from public domain sources!!!!! They look excellent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC) (The same user as Mangostar)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS

You should make a userpage! See WP:USERPAGE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article suggestions

Ideas of other interesting articles that need wikifying (thanks in advance if you end up taking these on!):

I'll add to this as I come across more and create more! Thanks again! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Thanks for the note, but both spellings are okay.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I have been disambiguating the environment link on the foreign relations articles to the environment (biophysical) page. Links should generally not go to a disambiguation page. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete?

How does this meet speedy delete criteria? Are you refering specifically to the first reason, because it does not seem to be "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content.". Thanks. Emeseee (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you considered the page I created, Angel Balzarino, for deletion. He really exists, and the information I have provided is true (you can search "Angel Balzarino" on google for proof). I am sorry that I don't know anything else about him, which is why I could only write one sentence about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwu1197 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Tempodivalse. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. -t BMW c- 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking?

Hi. FYI, in case you aren't familiar with this, it recommends to avoid "linking of common words used in the common way, for which the reader can be expected to understand the word's full meaning in context, without any hyperlink help." Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and great work, generally speaking. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Michael Ziehrer dance music articles

Hi. I see you are producing a series of stubs on Ziehrer dances. Are you intending to turn them into articles? Best regards. --Klein zach 02:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to put them all into one article (with redirects). How about that? --Klein zach 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not too sure about merging the articles: if you look at Johann Strauss II's composition list, for example, you can see that his works all have their own articles -- that goes for a lot of other composers as well. I think that unless it's really a problem or something to have individual articles, it would be best to leave them as they are. Best regards, ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that if you are going to develop those minimal little stubs (which at the moment are a waste of search time for the reader) into proper articles. Can you do that? P.S. The Strauss articles are also pretty minimal and need some consolidation. --Klein zach 01:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right about the stubs being a waste of time for the reader -- I did not think of that. The only references I could find for the compositions were record jackets of CDs, which doesn't amount to much, so I can't expand the articles. Yes, it would be better to merge the articles into one. Could you do that? I'm not exactly sure how to do it. Best regards! ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 02:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can merge them. I think it will enhance the value of the work you have been doing. More on this later. Best. --Klein zach 04:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed the consolidation and was about to let you know - but you obviously discovered what I was doing while I was still working on it. To be frank I don't think using Ziehrer's full name is in line with WP style. We use the simplest possible titles, so for example we have List of operas by Mozart (featured article). In the case of Richard Strauss, we have List of operas by Richard Strauss because there are other composers with the same name. Do you mind if I change it back to List of dances and marches by Ziehrer?

The present article is obviously incomplete - perhaps you would like to develop it? Perhaps you would like to make a complete list? The format is not ideal either. Perhaps it should eventually be made into a table? The stubs are all redirects now which should make it easy for the reader to find the new article. --Klein zach 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see you are in front of me again. I suggest the table should have separate columns for opus number and genre (waltz etc). As the table is by opus number not date, that column should come first. Also Comments should be Notes. --Klein zach 01:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Composed . . . composer? I don't think that repetition is a good thing, do you? --Klein zach 03:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing vandalism

I notice you fixed a vandalistic edit to the Leonardo talk page. Please, when you correct edits like that, check the history of the article. In this case, the same vandal had made two stupid edits. If you are going to do one correction, then you need to make sure that you do them all, because other editors who check the page regularly are likely to presume that you have fixed everything that needed fixing. This can lead to serious vandalism (in one case the deletion of 1/4 of the article) not being noticed for weeks or even months until the person who actually wrote it decides to reread it to see if it needs improving. Sometimes several vandals have been at work on the same day so you need to check exactly what version you are returning it to. Amandajm (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Hello. I noticed today that you were doing newpages patrolling but are not marking some of the pages you visit as patrolled. Though this is not mandatory in any way, and should not be done for all newpages, where appropriate it keeps your fellow patrollers from wasting time reviewing the same page multiple times. In any event, keep up the good work! Thanks. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 03:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]