User talk:Horn of Plenty

Though this user is new, he or she has shown him/herself to not be a vandal. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Horn of Plenty, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jindřichův Smith (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits

Concerning this and similar edits, are you aware that the heading formats we use for Haydn Symphony articles has been long established by consensus from the WP:COMPOSERS project talk page (now buried int he archive somewhere). Can you please restore these headings or else establish consensus for a change? I will alert DavidRF to this message as well as you should also convince him of the merits of your changes. Thanks, Eusebeus (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got all these pages on my watchlist, so I saw the editing and reverting going on before Eusebeus called me over here. From how I understand it, the "standard" sections of a symphony article (see Beethoven symphonies) work great for longer articles but 'look awkward' in a stub. Personally, I don't mind 'awkward' because I see wikipedia as a collection of information and not a place for eloquent prose, but I can understand the opposing viewpoint. The sections are needed in a longer article such as Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) and don't think they should have been removed in an article such as Symphony No. 101 (Haydn) (the sentence referring to the nickname really got buried when the section headers were simply removed) but I'm ambivalent about brief articles such as Symphony No. 91 (Haydn). The question is, where do you draw the line? And at what point are the section headers re-introduced in cases where the article grows? We should probably ping User:Anton Mravcek for his opinion as well as he's also interested in this discussion. DavidRF (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that these headings are awkward for a stub, some of them are also awkward for a longer article. "Date of composition and scoring"? Why should those two things be singled out as a pair for their own section? With few exceptions, the Classical-era composers did not revise earlier works and rescore them, as later composers such as Bruckner and Mahler would later. And even for, say, the Bruckner symphonies, does it make more sense to have a heading called "Date of composition and scoring" than a heading called "Date of composition and harmonic analysis"? Or "Modern reception and scoring"? Anton Mravcek (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Establishing_Heading_Formats_for_Symphonies, which is a better venue. Eusebeus (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

After investigating a report at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PrimeFan, I have come to the conclusion that this account, along with a large number of other accounts, are all being operated by the same person as abusive sockpuppets. Operating multiple accounts is not permitted when they are used to edit the same articles and debates. However, due to the nature of the IP addresses involved, it is possible that some of these users have coincidentally shared a computer or IP address. If this is the case, you may request to be unblocked by emailing the blocking admin or the unblock mailing list with your official University email address. This is to prevent one person from spoofing the admins with multiple free throwaway email accounts such as gmail or yahoomail. (Your email address will not be stored or used other than for verification.) If this is a misunderstanding I apologize in advance, and your account will be unblocked as soon as you provide proof that you are a separate individual. Be advised two checkusers examined this case and agreed on the results. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]