User talk:Ben Kidwell

Feedback invited, suggestions welcome

I'm happy to discuss all my edits and any matters of common interest. Suggestions for how to improve my editing and articles to work on, especially in the field of music theory, are much appreciated.Ben Kidwell 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music

There should be a wikiproject music, hold on...here we go Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres have fun :) Joe I 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Paxed

I wasn't sure where to handle the talk, if it should've been done on your page (due to the notifications / alerts which would be sent) ... or if it should be on the wiki entry page, due to the fact that it's relevant to the entry. Please excuse me if this is rude. I have made my request for feedback on the actual wiki item's talk page. --Prasand J. 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bach Keyboard Works merge

hi Ben, noticed that you were quick off the mark to flag the Bach keyboard article for a merge back to the main Bach article. I am unsure of how much you are involved with the current effort to raise JSB to FA status, but if you nose around you will see that there are serious concerns regarding the length of the JSB page even as it stands. Tony and others who are currently working on the main article are contemplating a split of the main article into several sections, so the separation out into several broader generic articles on Bach's works seems likely to pass muster with the principal contributors. Please feel free to weigh in on the discussions we are having either on the bach, my or tony's talk page. As it is, I will remove the merge tag until consensus arises. (You will note that the article redlinks a number of such articles now as part of the attempt to keep down the length). Eusebeus 11:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up for me, I appreciate the information. I'll try to contribute some content in this area soon, as a pianist I'd be happy to add some more info on particular works.Ben Kidwell 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is being debated so feel free to kick in your $0.02 at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Basically, the question is how to deal with an article (or articles) on the separate compositions. As you will see, there is some disagreement about the best way to proceed, so any thoughts you have to contribute would be welcome. Eusebeus 19:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben I saw your extensive contribution to the keyboard page - looks solid. The thing is we need to work out what to put where (per the discussion on the Bach discussion page) - check out the content at Well-Tempered Clavier; I think (personally) that the keyboard works page should provide detailed overviews of specific sets of works. Anyway, look at the WTC page - as it is we shouldn't keep this level of duplication. Eusebeus 09:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, and this is just my view, the WTC page is a real mess. The whole thing gets bogged down into a discussion of the tuning techniques (although this is important) and serious discussion of the music is elided. I think, therefore, that the bulk of your material would be best posted to the main WTC page. For the KB main page (and the entire entry may be moved to a more generic JS Bach (works) page, although I think that is too broad to cover in a single article), we need to decide what material could be brought up a level to a generalised discussion, and what should be pushed to specific subarticles. Similarly, the editorson the JSB main page need to decide what to keep in the main article and what to push down to the larger subarticles.

For example, it would be good to know who published the 1801 editions of the WTC (I just can't find this info, was it related to Swieten's efforts?) and that should be on the WTC page. On the other hand, a discussion of the expansion of Bach's published keyboard corpus from, say, 1800-1850 should be on the main KB page. Similarly, technical innovations (more sophisticated baseline parts, for example) generally should be on the KB page. Specific novelisations, however, such as the diversification of form in the Partitas, should be on the specific composition page. As another example, I would be interested to discover if figures such as Albrechtsberger used any of Bach's KB output as part of their instruction (I believe he would certainly have used CPE Bach, but JSB I am unsure of). If so, that is the kind of excellent material to include on the KB page. It also makes an implied argument for keeping specific pages for distinct genres.

Ideally, if we can work out a solid KB page, it could serve as a model for the other Bach daughter pages on the compositions and I appreciate any thoughts you have & any further contributions you wish to make. I look forward to collaborating. (I have added this page to my watchlist, so for the purposes of streamlining our comments, why don't you reply here instead of my talk page.) Eusebeus 08:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viashino retromancer

Hello! When an article has the same title as its creator, you can just move it to their User space, and explain to them why you've done it (rather than marking it for speedy deletion). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be able to move a page if there's already something in the target article — but that's not usually the case when it's a neewbie creating a user page in the wrong place. If it does happen, though, you can always ask an admin (feel free to drop me a line).

As for the jobs that need doing most, I don't really know (most of the ones that are back-logged are for admins, because they require deleting things and so on), though patrolling the Special:Newpages is always helpful, and a full-time job, so you could just keep doing that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siam

Hi. Thanks for reverting the edition of 86.28.214.34 in the article Siam. His information was totally wrong. It seemed to be vandalism. Please keep an eye for me. --Octra Bond (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was hilarious

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion. Awful but throughly delightful puns. Ray^Talk 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So was this. Hear, Hear. Perhaps "the nomination of this article makes me feel like crying" is not on the list of Approved Acronyms for stating one's position, but I feel it expresses things better than a laundry list of references for why DWM is significant

–SJ + 07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out NPOV in Anthropic Principle

However, do you still think the Anthropic Principle deserves the NPOV tag? And why? The intro has been improved to address your concerns by focusing on the weak anthropic principle and the difference between weak and strong wordings and versions has been explained in other sections. Highlander (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]