User talk:FordPrefect42

The Threepenny Opera

I can scan the score for you if I must. You may be right about the capitals, seeing as the titles are in all capitals on my score, but I can assure you that I have the original score. Once I have scanned it, I will let you know and you can decide for yourself what revisions are appropriate. Also, we should continue this on the pages talk page. -- Reilly 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Franz Möst

I have never heard Franz Welser-Möst called Franz Möst, on or off stage, and I live minutes away from Severance Hall. Banners, programmes and announcements all use the full name. Can you provide an example of Franz Möst being used? Spamguy 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See my answer on the discussion page. -- FordPrefect42 08:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures at an Exhibition

Hi,

I would be happy to receive a scan of Mussorgsky's facsimile by email. If you already have it scanned, I want it ALL :) But if you yet need to scan it, I'll just be glad to receive what you want to send... (yutsis (at) g m a i l . c o m)

Btw, the Russian article about "Pictures" (that I wrote) is the "featured" article since today. --Yms 16:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Air on the G String

I understand that this title refers to a particular arrangement of BWV 1068, but I get the sense that today it has taken the meaning of any arangement of the piece. Could we note this in the article, or is this not true at all? AdamBiswanger1 02:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, you are starting to mess it up again! It is not an "arrangement of BWV 1068", the Air is only one movement (from 5) out of BWV 1068, the 3rd Orchestral Suite. Otherwise, do as you please. It should only be made clear that the title does not refer to Bach's original, because it is only a piece "on the G string" when it is adapted to it. --FordPrefect42 06:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Song-Symphony vs. Symphony-Cantata

Hello, sorry I took so long to reply to your questions: I've been a bit busy lately. Also, since the atmosphere on the song-symphony discussion page seems to have become rather hostile and unpleasant, I would like to make clear my wish to keep this a very civil and mature discussion. I hope any disagreements will not become arguments. I am sure that we can do this, as you appear to be a very reasonable person. Now to address your questions:

• The "symphony-cantata". I am familiar with the term symphony-cantata, and have read of it being applied most frequently to Mendelssohn's second symphony, the "Lobgesang". This symphony consists of three orchestral movements followed by several choral-orchestral movements (the choral ones are sometimes considered to be all one long movement). The name "symphony-cantata" derives from the very clear combination of symphony and cantata that is Mendelssohn's second symphony: the first three movements, separated from those that follow, would appear to be a three-movement symphony. The following choral movements, separated from the proceeding movements, would appear as a cantata. Therefore, when the two are combined, we have a "symphony-cantata". Please forgive the redundant nature of my explanations, I am simply trying to be thorough.
• The "song-symphony". As I understand it, the song-symphony is a combination of the song and symphony very much in the same way that a symphony-cantata is a combination of its two elements. I am not familiar with the work of Lev Knipper, and I have never heard of the term "song-symphony" being applied to any work other than Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde. I have confidence that you are correct in your reference to Knipper, as I can imagine what such a composition would be like in the hands of a Socialist realist. While Mahler's work has become immortal, however, Knipper's song-symphonies have not. My understanding of the term therefore rests solely on Mahler's example of it. The orchestrally accompanied song-cycle was relatively common in the Romantic Era, from Berlioz's Nuits d'été, through Wagner's Wesendonck Lieder to Mahler's Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen. Let us establish immediately that the songs in question here are specifically the Germanic Lieder. As Mahler's career continued, his two compositional specialties emerged as the symphony and the song-cycle. It was therefore only natural that he would combine the two. Although Mahler himself labeled Das Lied von der Erde as a symphony, several factors distinguish it strongly from his other "symphonies": 1.) Mahler did not give the apparent symphony a number. 2.) He did not use the word "symphony" in the actual title; in fact, he did inlude the word "Lied", or "song". 3.)The structure of Das Lied von der Erde is different from that of all his others: symphonies nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are purely orchestral. Symphonies nos. 2, 3 and 8 employ soloists as well as choral forces, allowing them to be easily described as "choral symphonies". Symphony no. 4, although it only uses one soloist and no other singers, the soloist only sings in the last movement (which, nonetheless, was previously a song on its own). 4.) Das Lied von der Erde by far most closely resembles a song-cycle out of all of the composer's "symphonies". In fact, were it not for the last movement, Der Abschied, it would appear as an orchestrally accompanied song-cycle for tenor and contralto. Since the last movement is on a much more ambitious and symphonic a scale, the work as a whole can be labelled s "song-symphony", or even more accurately a "song-cycle symphony" (although the latter term is unnecessarily confusing).
• Why is Das Lied von der Erde a song-symphony and not a symphony-cantata? To make this distinction more clear, I shall eliminate the word "symphony" from this section of the discussion, as both forms have in common their affiliation with the symphony. The difference lies in their connection with the terms "song" (in this case "song-cycle")and "cantata". A song-cycle is a "set of songs grouped into an artistic unity by the composer in a particular order and referring to a particular theme" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music, 1996 ed.), death in the case of most of Mahler's contributions to the genre. A cantata in the 19th century was "usually on a sacred subject and was, in effect, a short oratorio" (same source), and employed either soloists only, solists and chorus, or chorus only with orchestra. By the 19th century it was much more common to use a chorus than not to. Das Lied von der Erde is not on a sacred subject (other than the Chinese pagan ideas of its origin), and does not employ a chorus. Therefore, it is rather "un-cantata-like". It does, on the other hand, employ only soloists, as does the traditional song-cycle, is made up of poems which were chosen for ther psychological and philosophical content rather than their pagan content, and it consists solely of movements performed by one singer at a time with orchestra, singing, in effect, a song; there are no recititives, arias, choruses, etc., the kind of material one would find in a cantata. Therefore, Das Lied von der Erde is much closer to being a song-cycle than to being a cantata. Now we can reenter the symphonic aspects of both terms under consideration, and reframe the final statement: Das Lied von der Erde is a song-symphony, and not a symphony-cantata.
• The other examples given for a "song-symphony". The other works that I mentioned in the original article were the Roméo et Juliette symphony by Hector Berlioz and the Lobgesang symphony by Felix Mendelssohn. The examples are quite obviously not true song-symphonies, and I only included them originally in order to give works that are related somewhat in form. In fact, the only real similarity that the mentioned works by Mahler, Berlioz and Mendelssohn have with each other is the fact that they each employ singers and instruments in a symphonic manner. I have already established that the Lobgesang symphony is a symphony-cantata and I believe that the Roméo et Juliette symphony is a hybrid work of its own unique sort, which does not bear discussion at the moment. I have since been made aware of two different examples which may very well be excellent candidates for the label "song-symphony". These are the Lyric Symphony by Alexander Zemlinsky and the Symphony No. 14 by Dmitri Shostakovich, both probably directly influenced by Mahler's work. I have Pfistermeister to thank for the former and David Brooks for the latter.

I apologize for cluttering up your discussion page and giving you so much rambling information to read, but I wanted to make sure that I answered your questions adequately. I would very much enjoy having a well-mannered intellectual discussion on this subject with you, and I hope that we can further each other's understanding of it. Regards,

Europus 06:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts

You have now reverted three times. Wikipedia:3RR. Catholic from Berlin 13:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, and I will continue reverting your vandalism until you stop it. --FordPrefect42 14:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reported

You have been reported for violating the 3 Revert Rule. Catholic from Berlin 14:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR and vandalism reporting

FordPrefect42, as you know a 3RR report was filed against you. I have chosen not to block you because the material you are reverting is negative in nature and unsourced. Under WP:BLP removing such material is exempt from the 3RR. However, I caution you that edit warring is not the way to resolve these problems and making spurious reports to AIV does nothing for your cause. Please be careful what you label as "vandalism". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use the talk pages to try to reach a consensus. If that is not successful, you may ask for an independent mediator and make use of other dispute resolution options. More information is available here: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Removing negative, unsourced material is the right thing to do and you have policy on your side in that regard, but please be careful of the other issues I mentioned earlier. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep this in mind. --FordPrefect42 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Rationale

Please see WP:CSD. Only items meeting the specific criteria listed there are eligible for speedy deletion. I have removed your tags from Der Koenigin der Nacht & Der Königin der Nacht as they did not meet any of the criteria. You are welcome to list them at WP:RFD if you still believe they should be deleted. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I guess I misread WP:CSD. --FordPrefect42 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

your question

Thanks for your message. Two keeps, two merges, and two deletes is not a consensus to do anything, which means a keep. (Or at least that is how I close AFDs.) If you disagree, you're welcome to resubmit the article to AFD or (if you think a merge is ore suitable) create a consensus to merge. Best wishes, Bucketsofg 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Cassian of Imola

Greetings! I tried to answer you at the talk page to the article. It's a tough one because that was before I was rigorously sourcing everything I wrote (started doing that in mid-2005 along with most Wikipedians ... ) but I think I found most of the sources. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Gielen

i completed a precursory search on that topic, and could find no verification. do you have a reference validating this claim? --emerson7 | Talk 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See my answer on Talk:Michael Gielen. --FordPrefect42 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Crab canon as Medieval or Early Renaissance

The majority of crab canons were composed before 1490. See for instance V. Newes: Fuga and Related Contrapuntal Procedures in European Polyphony ca. 1350–1420 (diss., Brandeis U., 1987); V. Newes: ‘Writing, Reading and Memorizing: the Transmission and Resolution of Retrograde Canons from the 14th and Early 15th Centuries’, EMc, xviii (1990), 218–34; R. Falck: ‘Rondellus, Canon, and Related Types before 1300’, JAMS, xxv (1972), 38–57; The discussion of crab canons in the Grove entry on canon occurs with discussion of 15th century music. The same goes for the Columbia Encyclopedia entry on canon. I think that you could have assumed a little more good faith in your comments. --Myke Cuthbert 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I should have done is added enough information about the Medieval usage so that you wouldn't have had to check out my user page for any reason. I'll make that my project for tomorrow night and then there'll be no need for a medieval stub notice. That's always the better solution. --Myke Cuthbert 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanna give you a prize

Hi, I'm Javitomad, a Spanish user of English wikipedia.

I've seen you've improved some articles about Spain.

Because of that, I want to give you a Barnstar, the Spanish Barnstar.

• 
  I, Javitomad, give you this Barnstar for contributing for a better Spanish-English Wikipedia.
  July 17^th, 2007.

(copy and paste this in your user page.)

Javitomad (...tell me...) 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow ... thank you! I am really moved ;-) --FordPrefect42 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You deserve it, I think...
Javitomad (...tell me...) 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Burana neume edit

Thanks for clarifying that! And for the heads up. MarkBuckles (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

de:Vorlage:NMA -> Template at EN?

I noticed you created the template NMA at de:Vorlage:NMA. I think this is very useful and I'm wondering whether you could do the same in the EN Wikepedia. Unfortunately, the name Template:NMA is already taken; Template:NME is available, though. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the feedback. Since Template:NMA is taken only by a redirect with few pages linking to it, that should not be too difficult to change. I am thinking about it. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, and also for incorporating that template in over 70 articles already - marvellous. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Oops, sorry I deleted your edit of the Mozart aria; it was an accident. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Requiem (Mozart)/[section name]" articles

From the "talk" page of one of those articles:

I was just going to ask basically the same question: why does this article even exist?. But the odd thing I noticed is that you seem to be the one who created this article, and others like it, in the form "Requiem (Mozart)/[section name]". What's up with that?

I agree that these articles should cease to exist, and their contents poured back into the Mozart Requiem article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See my answer at Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you of something you didn't do; I should have said you were the one who moved the articles to their present titles, seemingly "creating" them. In any case, it seems we agree these articles shouldn't exist and should be absorbed into the Requiem article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not take it as an accusation, don't worry. Otherwise we really do agree on the matter, except that I cannot see any content that might possibly absorbed in the Requiem article ... ;-) --FordPrefect42 (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Aubert

He was a violinist. Don't be confused by the fact that "violon" is French for "violin," not "violone." The French term for "violone" is "violone" (with an "E" on the end). See this search. Badagnani (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I just recognized my mistake myself. The article contained some typos, calling him violonist erroneously, that's what confused me. I have now fixed this typos also. Thanks for the heads up! --FordPrefect42 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, if it said "violonist" that's a giveaway that one of our friends from the French Wikipedia was writing this article ;) Badagnani (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:WIMA

I notice that you've been modifying my template IckingArchive, an improvement as it seems:-) Could I ask you to do the same changes to the template WIMA which I've been using for a while? Unfortunately my knowledge of the template scripting syntax is limited. I suppose you know what you're doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reccmo (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. But what do we need two templates for anyway? They seem to have exactly the same purpose. Is the anch parameter ever used? Since it is optional, the two templates might easily be merged into one. --17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirected {{IckingArchive}} to {{WIMA}}. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the two templates serve the same purpose. I introduced the template WIMA in order to support references to anchored links. This is what the parameter anch is for, eg. idx=Knuth|anch=#Crueger. WIMA has not (yet) a separate web index for the composer Johann Crüger. Reccmo (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i got it right then. Since the anch parameter is optional, we only need one template, therefore the redirect is the best for now (there is only one template, that needs to be maintained). --FordPrefect42 (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Muley Abul Hassan

I know Arabic somewhat and I'm sure that in Arabic it is not pronounced Muley. cheers--Tahmasp (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also see Mawla and Mullah, which both are of same root.(talk) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bianqing

Hi, why don't you crop the photo, keeping just the bianqing? Right now the photo is wider than the article itself. Badagnani (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Orff in WWI?

Hi - Can you please look at my comment on the Carl Orff discussion page about the German military/WWI category? KConWiki (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UT

Tuba in Mahler's Symphony No. 1

Hi, Ford. I agree with you on this. I've just been to a performance of Mahler's First with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra conducted by Gianluigi Gelmetti, and there was most certainly only one tuba on the stage. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Violonist

Thank you for drawing the attention on my error. Of course you are correct. I must have been absent-minded. I was writing a short article on a german luthier Johann Goldfuss and for some reason I got caught up in this incorrect correction. Thanks again for correcting it. Afil (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New template {{NMA s}}

I have created the template {{NMA s}} based on your {{NMA}}. I needed something that could be used en masse in tables (or in running text). You can see it in action at List of concert arias, songs and canons by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Thanks again for writing NMA in the first place. Regards, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks for giving me this notice. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

conductors

Kent Nagano is a conductor before he is an American Conductor, don't you think? Now, could you tell me why did you uncategorized all the conductors? Is there any good reason for it or is it just that things should just be YOUR WAY? It seems you've often been doing things like this. --Karljoos (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald von Wolkenstein

Hi FordPrefect42
betreffend des refimprove bei Oswald von Wolkenstein: Meine Quelle ist das Buch: Ich Wolkenstein von Dieter Kühn; Insel Taschenbuch 497; Erweiterte Ausgabe 1980; Insel Verlag Frankfurt am Main 1977; ISBN 3-458-32197-7; also das Standartwerk zu Oswald. Alle Daten, Fakten, Geschehnisse sind aus dem Buch, und da ich nicht Lust hatte (und habe) zu jedem Satz eine Referenzangabe zu erstellen (das Buch hat über 600 Seiten) meine Frage: wie können wir das wenig ansehnliche refimprove entfernen ohne für jeden Satz eine eigene Referenz erstellen zu müssen? --noclador (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi noclador, obwohl Dieter Kühns wunderbares Oswald-Buch auch meine persönliche Hauptquelle zu OvW ist, muss man doch feststellen, dass das eigentliche wissenschaftliche Standardwerk die Biografie von Anton Schwob ist (ISBN 88-7014-073-3). Und bei Kühn darf ich deine Aufmerksamkeit darauf lenken, dass die aktuelle Ausgabe die überarbeitete Neuausgabe von 1996 bei Fischer ist (ISBN 3-596-13334-3) – wenn wir schon Literatur zitieren, sollte es doch auf dem neuesten Stand sein. Natürlich ist meine Forderung nicht, dass jeder Satz einzeln mit einer Zitatquelle zu belegen ist, aber in der von mir bemängelten Artikelversion war die Quellendarstellung absolut unbefriedigend: Kühn nur in einer einzigen Fußnote angeführt, und als einzige weitere Quellenangabe eine arbiträre Einzeluntersuchung zu einem speziellen Lied. Das Minimum an Quellenangaben in einem fremdsprachlichen Artikel wäre IMHO, die wichtigsten Gesamtdarstellungen auszuwerten und anzuführen (also Kühn, Schwob und Baasch/Nürnberger – ein Artikel, der nur eine einzige Quelle angibt, steht automatisch unter dem Verdacht der Einseitigkeit), optimalerweise noch ergänzt um ein wenig englischsprachige Literatur (falls es da was gibt) für Leser, die des deutschen nicht mächtig sind. Im übrigen kamen mir ein paar Details nicht ganz koscher vor (das mit Margarethes Anwesenheit bei seinem Tod z.B. habe ich anders in Erinnerung, müsste ich aber zur Sicherheit erst nochmal nachlesen). --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe nur Kühn 1980... Ich bin vorgestern über den Oswald Artikel gestolpert und er war mir zu kurz und ungenau. Die einzige Quelle war obendrein die Einzeluntersuchung Meinolf Schumacher und so habe ich meinen alten viel gelesenen Kühn aus dem Schrank geholt und habe Samstag nach besten Wissen und Gewissen mal versucht einen Start hinzulegen. Dass es trotzdem noch viel zu tun gibt ist mir klar. Ich habe auch Samstags bei Amazon gecheckt, was die aktuelle Ausgabe von Kühn ist und habe mir dann sogar gedacht, dass es zwischen 1980 und 1996 sicher Unterschiede gibt, aber mich nicht davon abhalten lassen, denn wenn mal nicht jemand anfängt wirds nie was :-)

Ich stimme Dir dahingehend zu, dass es nötig ist auch Schwob und Co. in den Artikel einzuarbeiten - doch wie gesagt habe ich außer Kühn 1980 kein Buch. Also bitte ich Dich diese Aufgabe zu übernehmen. Mit englischer Literatur schaut es ganz mies aus: weder amazon noch google books haben wirklich was interessantes zu bieten... Dafür findet sich in der Uni-Bibliothek Innsbruck die komplette Handschrift B als pdf-Foto Serie :-) Im Moment gilt mein Hauptaugenmerk aber diesem Problem der eng. wiki. Zu Oswalds Tod: S. 592 Absatz 249 "Seine Frau war bei ihm"... was auch mich wundert den in Absatz 248 schickt sie noch einen Brief nach Meran... Anyway: ein Anfang in Sachen Oswald ist gemacht, viel bleibt zu tun: mit weiteren Quellen kann ich nicht dienen, aber ich habe Zugriff auf die Landesarchive südlich und nördlich des Brenners und auf die Unibliothek in Innsbruck, was immer sich dort findet - sowie Fotos von Orten; bei diesen Dingen helfe ich gern. Immerhin sind Oswald und Michael Gaismair die zwei wichtigsten Tiroler - aber dessen Biografie übersetz ich heute Abend :-) --noclador (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ich sehe, dass wir uns im Wesentlichen einig sind, was mich sehr freut! Ich will mich gerne mal dranmachen, auch die anderen Quellen einzuarbeiten, der Engpass ist bei mir momentan aber die knapp bemessene Zeit. - Bezüglich Oswalds Tod hast du insoweit recht, als der Satz so bei Kühn steht, auch in der 1996er Ausgabe. Er scheint es aus der Tatsache zu schließen, dass Margarethe von Wolkenstein an Oswalds Todestag in Meran Rechtsgeschäfte vorgenommen hat. Dass sie aber an seinem Totenbett gestanden hat, ist eine nicht durch Quellen belegte Spekulation Kühns. Baasch/Nürnberger formulieren vorsichtiger: "Margarethe, die in seinen letzten Tagen wohl bei ihm war, [...]" (S. 116). Ich finde, man sollte den Satz rauslassen, so wichtig ist das bei einem Artikel dieses Detailierungsgrades nicht. - Ein paar englische Literaturangaben finden sich bei [1] schon, aber auch hier meist nur Einzelaufsätze zu Detailfragen, nur eine einzige Gesamtdarstellung von 1973, die generell als Beleg für einen englischen Artikel dienen könnte. Grüße --FordPrefect42 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Kein Problem - es geht ja nicht um die Schnelligkeit bei wikipedia, sondern um die Qualität :-) Den Satz mit Margarete habe ich gestrichen. Des weiteren habe ich diesen Vermerk auf der deutschen wiki hinterlassen. Außerdem: ich denk schon länger nach wen ich kenne, der etwas zur Geschichte von Oswalds Dichtung schreiben könnte... also einen Musikhistoriker und/oder Germanisten... aber bisher kommt mir keiner in den Sinn.

etwas anderes: im dt. Oswald Artikel findet sich - so glaube ich - ein Fehler: "Weil er sich nicht mit seinen Gegnern einigen kann, muss er zurück in die Gefangenschaft. 1423 löst sich der Adelsbund auf. Oswald kommt aus der Haft frei." Das kann so nicht stimmen, denn zu der Zeit als der Rechtstag auf Schloss Tirol angesetzt war, war Oswald bei Sigmund in Ungarn und anschließend war er am Kampf um Greifenstein beteiligt und nicht in Haft - meiner Meinung nach liegt hier ein Fehler vor! Er sollte zwar in Haft, hat aber stattdessen zusammen mit seinen Brüdern offen Krieg gegen Herzog Friedrich geführt. Könntest Du das bitte überprüfen; danke. --noclador (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, ich check das heute abend. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe die offensichtlichen Fehler mal gelöscht. Bei Schwob ist recht ausführlich dargestellt, dass die falsche Darstellung der Faktenlage auf Fehlinterpretationen des Historikers Anton Noggler (1882 etc.) zurückgehen, die lange Zeit in der Literatur unkritisch übernommen wurden. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zum Glück habe ich mir noch den deutschen Artikel durchgelesen: Oswald freiwillig ins Gefängnis - da habe ich aber gleich gestutzt- das kann doch nicht der Oswald sein, der er war :-) und gut, dass Du den Schwob hast: 2 Quellen sind immer besser als eine! --noclador (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don Kosaken Chor

Fr.Seite is fertig. Jetzt die Deutsche Seite noch... 94.215.61.61 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lloyd Webber

Thanks for restoring the interwiki. I don't know what could have happened... Ohconfucius (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Escriva

The move I attempted does need to be performed. The user who moved it away from Josemaría Escrivá to Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer did so with no discussion. The current location is wrong on two counts: first, for a modern saint such as Escriva, "Saint" should not be included in the page title. Second, his name sans "De Balaguer" is far more common than when it is included. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your name

Are you the same FordPrefect from starmen.net? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am afraid not so. Never heard of starment.net before. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Boabdil

I was thinking the reference was also about the information of the book of Salman Rushdie, I will try to find something else, thank you for your time. --Henry Knight (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum

An article that you have been involved in editing, Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Martyrs of Córdoba

Hi, in arabic page of Martyrs of Córdoba شهداء قرطبة they moved the page to مسيحيو قرطبة المحكومين عليهم بالاعدام or (christians of Cordoba who were executed) Justifying that it's not neutral. Is that true? according to Naming conventions we use the Common names and according to sources. Besides, the 48 person weren't all executed.. some of them were tortured to death [2] [3] so i doubt that we can call that execution. I want your opinion. thanks and happy new year. --Rimmyram (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I don't speak a word of Arabian, so my opinion about this would be of no worth at all. What you are saying about the translation ("martyrs" vs. "executed") makes sense to me. Yet naming conventions of English wikipedia will not hold for Arabian wikipedia, as all wikipedias my have their own conventions. It's hard for me to form a view on this, I am sorry. Regards, and happy new year to you as well. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth von Magnus

Well, if she so wishes ... I got the year of birth from the VIAF record - may be I misinterpreted that. Her family relation is recorded in the German National Library - no secret. So I don't understand ... Cheers back --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn

After your recent edit to Wyn, poor Wyn Morris gets a rather rough deal – you changed his entry to:

• Wyn Morris (1929–1929), a Welsh conductor

I guess it was a mistake? -- Hebrides (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It was my mistake, i fixed it now. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quarter chimes at Westminster (Big Ben)

Dear FordPrefect

There is an inaccuracy in this article and I am writing to you because I think you can rectify it.

The chimes are described as being three crotchets followed by a dotted minim. No, no, it is three crotchets followed by a minim. i.e., it's in 5/4!

I agree, the first quarter is a little slow to get going, but it is still not 6/4.

Therefore, could you please correct the description and rewrwite the music?

Any problems, let me know at my talk page and I will ask someone else (Lord knows who....)

Thanks for your attention and action. FClef (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Concertmasters

Hello, FordPrefect42 - I just checked in on Category:Concertmasters which I created this morning. To my amazement, it is now well-populated -- thanks to your efforts! (I just removed the "popcat" template.) Strange that nobody had thought to create this category before now. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the corresponding category on de:wikipedia and tried to match them. Regards --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hah, so that's how you did it! Very interesting. Thanks for explaining that. Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahler's Eighth

Your thoughts and minor corrections and additions are welcome. The draft of the revised article is now complete and I will shortly send it for a general peer review. Please feel free to comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice pic, thanks! Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --FordPrefect42 (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quam olim d: C:

We generally write something like "As of June 2010 the ms has not been recovered." Of course one could argue that if it is WP will be updated very quickly, however we still try to write things in a way that doesn't date, for example in off-line copies, CDs, mirrors and forks, print etc. Rich Farmbrough, 10:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Webber, Andrew Lloyd

Just to inform you that I have restore ALW and family's proper name again. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan Dismas Zelenka

Your "action" on that page is out of : ad 1) there were not 2 unconfirmed portarts, only one, that why you deleted both of them ? ad 2) the selection of works was not identical with extra complete list of works, they were divided into categories with a special attempt to their importance and with links to particular pages of compositions You invasion there harmed my work. Jan Blanický 06:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

1. Concerning the portraits: as far as I know there are no surviving portraits of Zelenka. The "composite sketch", only to be found on very few sources on the internet, appears to be a technically edited artefact, probably as well a hoax as the infamous derivation of Fux's portrait. Of the violone sketch I have no knowledge. So far you did not cite any source that this sketch is really a picture of Zelenka; neither did you provide a proper description of that picture on commons. As long as there are no hints given about the picture's authenticity, it should not be used to illustrate the article.
2. By creating the List of compositions by Jan Dismas Zelenka you did establish an unwanted redundancy to the already existing selective list in the composer's article. I am aware, that the information about the respective compositions are not identical on both lists. It should be easy to retore that extra information from the revision history and merge it properly into the list article.

Regards, --FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Send in the clowns...

I've declined your speedy of the redirect Circus renz as I think it is a possible search term. Doesn't do any harm anyway. If you feel passionately deletionary about it (Peridon has been reading too much spam...), you're welcome to RfD it, or even tag it again. Or just argue... Peridon (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Circus renz

Hello FordPrefect42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Circus renz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion nominations, because of the following concern: do not renew declined speedy deletion, as that's considered adminshopping; nominate the redirect for deletion at WP:RFD instead. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

John Berry

If you're trying to make an article on the violinist, you can just overwrite the redirect without deleting it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Peter Rainer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Violinist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lochamer-Liederbuch

Gatoclass 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francisco Tárrega, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Villareal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ellen Oléria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Violinist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Faithful Hussar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chorus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leonello Casucci may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to "[[Just a Gigolo (song)|Just a Gigolo]]" in English) in 1929, with lyrics by [[Julius Brammer]]). Italian lyrics by [[Enrico Frati]] with the title "Gigolò" were published in 1930.<ref name="

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lakmé phantom recording

It looks as though we have another anon IP posting info on phantom recordings. All are DG recordings. I'm leaving a stern warning on the talk page. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There's an other recording just listed by User:151.56.9.50. Do you know if it is fake as well? Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it is not another phantom recording, but the very same one re-inserted. I removed it. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The cast of Lakmé by Leo Delibes recored in Studio at Watford Town Hall, London, November 1982, Label: Deutsche Grammophon, it's:
Ileana Cotrubas (Lakmé), Plácido Domingo (Gérald), Elena Obraztsova (Mallika), Nicolai Ghiaurov (Nilakantha), Thomas Allen (Frédérick), Alicia Nafé (Mistress Bentson), Yvonne Kenny (Ellen), Christine Barbaux (Rose), Geoffrey Pogson (Hadji), Mark Curtis (Fortune teller), Anthony Laciura (A Chinese merchant), Gordon Sandison (Le Kouravar); with The Ambrosian Singers, Chorus master: John McCarthy and the London Symphony Orchestra, conducted by: Claudio Abbado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.80.71 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no indication that such a recording exists. Please cite your sources in a comprehensible way. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

RIPM

Hello! A couple of weeks ago, you should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete to receive access to RIPM. If you did not receive the email, please let me know. Otherwise, please complete this form as soon as possible so we can process your request. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! The mail has been routed to the spam folder, but now I found it. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, FordPrefect42. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FordPrefect42. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert W. Jones

Hello FordPrefect42,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Robert W. Jones for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert W. Jones

The article Robert W. Jones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this individual meets either ANYBIO or NMUSIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FordPrefect42. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Citations go in the article, not the edit summary. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Now this is completely nitpicking nonsense. None of the Days of the Year page entries has got a dierct citation. Sources need to be given in the target article primarily, where they are. The Musical Times' Obituary, sourcing the proper DOD, has been longstanding in the article, however the DOD given was still incorrect until today. I have added some more citations now. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.

The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info (like you found here) and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.

So about a year and a half ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

158 footnotes for each DOY page is what you are aiming at? Good look then. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Boccanegra (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boccanegra (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boccanegra (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Segne du, Maria

You removed a Memorial, saying in the edit summary "shows sheet music of a composition by Karl Kindsmüller (1876-1955), so will be in PD only as of 2026". Now this "composition" is so famous that many sing it from memory. Why do you think the rights of the author are not observed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Popularity is not the point. "Let it be" is also so famous that many sing it by heart, but it is still copyvio to publish it without consent of the copyright owners. On commons, only files are accepted that are in the public domain in both the original country (author died more than 70 years ago) and in the United States, which is clearly not the case here. Anyway, the file is now nominated for deletion, so it should not be used in any article until the case is settled. Feel free to make your points in the discussion. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I won't go any further, just wanted to understand, but still don't. If people know a piece anyway, where is a need to protect what it is? (the composition) - Had you spoken of the artwork I might have understood better, but the music pretty much isn't the composer's anymore but some kind of common heritage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I am absolutely astonished that a long-standing contributor like you is not familiar with the very basic principles of copyright and licensing. You may want to read WP:C and c:COM:L. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, FordPrefect42. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Curbon7 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, FordPrefect42. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)