Jump to content

User talk:Impromp2Music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Impromp2Music, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Snowysusan (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Impromp2Music, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Impromp2Music. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 17:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, no doubt my attempt to help will be pulled down or simply not appear as I'm not able to spend enough time on wiki to dot all I's and cross all T's when it comes to coding but it is a tough question you ask and one that hits close to home here. I get self styled 'wiki police' on my page denying my work as if the last 40 years of history never happened. As for creative participation credits on LPs, most are to be found from major labels (tougher if they are out of print) but many are from smaller labels which require a lot of research to verify the truth. But in the case of some editors, unfortunately they show there seems to be no end to the discontent and idle time on their hands. Random case in point, I performed in the recording studio (on drums) with Keith Richards and John Lee Hooker - just the three of us and it was released and nominated for a Grammy. Seems notable to me. A certain wiki editor brought this up as not being notable enough to be able to keep as a credit even with proper references and sources on my page. So we have two legends of the highest musical variety, we made a million selling platinum record for a major label that I have on my wall with my name on it, but that is too weak for wiki?? Head scratching stuff and frustrating as can be, but I conform as best I can in the face of doubt for facts from the editors. I confess not to understand this type of policing. Something must be missing in their lives...I find it sad. One may get from these words that I have some disrespect for wiki, the guidelines and search for the truth. They would be sorely wrong - it is nothing short of imperative to enforce these and all other important pieces of truth to make wiki real and reliable. I have the utmost respect for those that do this job well. Of course, no group of people can be perfect and yes, you will bump into folks that seem to just want to find fault or disclaim where there is none. I wish you luck. Oh, I looked up my wiki yesterday and found it completely removed and redirected to the Capitol Records page. True, I have been a recording artist on Capitol and made many other records for them but it made zero sense that if you searched me you should get Capitol Records! Craziness. With patience and time, I sorted it but it still has ancient remarks to source material that has been expertly sourced. Yikes! Littleritual (talk) 15:15, 3 Novemeber 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Impromp2Music. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 18:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting references

[edit]

Were you able to get it straightened out? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! gwickwire | Leave a message 16:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Impromp2Music. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hey

[edit]

Hey Impromp2Music! I saw the message that you posted on Gwickwire's talk page. I think I understand why you are upset. I can ABSOLUTELY tell you why she said your references weren't reliable. All you have to do is tell me which article you edited, and what section. The same exact thing happened to me. I'm very sorry you are upset. Just tell me those things. DEIDRA C. (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - gwickwire

[edit]
Hello, Impromp2Music. You have new messages at Gwickwire's talk page.
Message added 17:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

gwickwire | Leave a message 17:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out your edit.

[edit]

Ohhhhhhhhh. I see what you did wrong. I'll explain the best way I can. Here are the Do's and Don'ts of referencing.

DO'S •Always include exactly where you took the information from.

•Try to use a intelligent source.

•Make sure your references come from cites that you are sure of.

•You have to say what type of source you got it from such as- book,newspaper,website,etc. (if you don't understand how to put that in, I'll help you.)


DON'TS

•Don't take your references from a cite such as "YouTube".

•You may take your references from Yahoo!, Bing, or Google, but DON'T include it.

•If you would like to take your info. from those areas, ONLY include what website you got it from.

•Never use a source that you are not sure of.

Those are just a couple of DO'S and DON'TS for references. If you need help including your reference, feel free to ask on your talkpage or mine. But- if you do ask on your talk page, leave a Talkback message letting me know you asked. Your Welcome. If you need any more help, don't be shy to ask. Happy edits. Good luck with your article.♥ DEIDRA C. (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a deal with you. Fix the links (you say the first one is to a book but when I click on it I don't see a book), and make sure they are cited to avoid link rot. If you do that, I will accept your article. Please try to avoid personal attacks when talking to others here also. Once you fix the links (I didn't say delete any of them), then I will go accept it. Okay? gwickwire | Leave a message 18:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Impromp2Music. You have new messages at RAIDENRULES123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An easy way to add references

[edit]
Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia (which helps maintain our policy of verifiability). Adding a well formatted references is very easy to do.

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite"...click on it.
  2. Then click on "templates".
  3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill as many details as you can, this will add a well formatted reference that would be helpful in case the website link (web URL) becomes inactive (dead/link rot) after some time.
  4. Click on Show preview to make sure that the reference looks the way you want.
  5. Click on Save page to save your edits.

You can read more about it on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv. Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

[edit]

This time I feel compelled to accept it. You've fixed everything that I could see, and I found no major problems with your article. After I accept it, I need you to go to the article and remove the red-link file at the bottom, otherwise, it's great! Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 20:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Just reply here if you are going to reply. I have watched your talk page, and will see anything you reply with here.

Wow. Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. I tried to go to the article and remove the red-link file as you asked ... but could not find any. Could you please advise as to where I can specifically look? It said that someone had deleted the article at first, but then another person stepped in and did something to it. You probably will know better as to what happened and why ...

PS Could you by any chance show me how to change the title of the article to simply read "Aaron Robinson"? I initially put in (composer) so that it would not be confused with the baseball player of the same name also on Wikipedia. Sometimes I see at the top a "redirect" for subjects that have the same name but different articles ... or do you think that I should leave (composer)? my only concern is that when people go to search for it on Google, one must type in (composer) to reach the correct Wikipedia page. Which does not do well with the other credits Mr Robinson has ... such as author and recording artist. Could you help with this? Thank you, in advance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Robinson_%28composer%29

I really appreciate this.

Impromp2Music (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Aaron Robinson (Composer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

gwickwire | Leave a message 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources.

[edit]

Hey Impromp2Music. I saw your edit. It was great. I think that it is very reliable. I'm really proud of what you did. That's great. If you can, I don't know, but try to include a link somewhere. You might not be able to, but great work. You are a very good editor. ♥ DEIDRA C. (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Also- You know what would be cool? If you did your User page. Click User page on the top left corner. Than edit it. Just include somethings about yourself. So other Wikipedians can know more about you. You don't have to include personal information. It is not nessecary to include your age. You can if you want, but only on your User page. You may tell your intrests exaples- Fav. place, Fav. music, Fav. Video, Fav. game. All that stuff. Just to make yourself look even more interesting. If you have time, take a look at someone's User page and look for examples. You may look at mine. DEIDRA C. (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Deidra! You taught me so much! (I'm hoping exclamation points are okay with this) I will definitely provide links and keep looking ... but now that it's up and running, I'm hoping others can take over and provide much more than I could not offer. That's what it's all about, right? and I definitely will edit my "User page" too! Have a great day! and Thanks again! Impromp2Music (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Your welcome. Yes exclamation points are only okay if you are expressing happiness, exictedness, or any good expressions. Don't use them with aggresive expressions. I would also like to tell you that I'm not really an expierienced Wikipedian, but I hope that you have seen me as one. Also- try to take a look at my User page. You know- for some inspiration.WINK.. Well, have a good week.

Ps- Do you need help with posting talkback messages? Because I can help you. They are very useful. ♥ DEIDRA C. (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aaron Robinson (composer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merrily We Roll Along (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) 15:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ş== Hot chocolate! ==

YAY!
Here's some hot chocolate to welcome you. And to warm you up from the upcoming winter. PS- I put some whip cream on it. Enjoy your warm cup of hot chocolate! Looking forward to your articles! DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ITS ME RAIDENRULES123! I'm sooooooooooooooooooo sorry about what happened to my account. I promise that it will never happen again! DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for my wonderful hot chocolate! But I should be buying you a gift! I could have never done it without you! ... but what happened to your account? Please tell ... Impromp2Music (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so stupid. You see, I forgot my password to my account and it wouldn't let me back in. So this is my new account. Please continue posting at my original account until I figure something out. Sorry. DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's aweful!

[edit]

It's very messy. I feel really bad about what happened to your article. I hope you can fix it. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's one reviewer. She keeps removing my reliable sources and then asks for citations for every sentence that is clearly stating in my "off-line" sources: i.e. books. People keep saying, "don't take this personally" but I am ... she has become obsessed and is exerting a self-appointed sense of self, stating that the reviewers who helps me before were "inexperienced" but that she is "seasoned" ... I don't know what to do. Is there any place to complain? She even asked for (disambiguation needed) for "conductor" ... it's really defeating. I don't know what to do. I can't go to any talk pages because she's always there and I feel with her personality, the more I engage, the more trouble she'll cause. I honestly feel that this sort of excessive behavior gives this wonderful resource a very bad name. I am trying to offer an article that is found in a very expensive book that people might not be able to afford. I had planned to create other articles as well in such a fashion, believing that this was the good of this service, but with a reviewer such as this, I don't know if it's worth it. Impromp2Music (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by commending and congratulating you for doing what I consider to be one of the very hardest things to do at Wikipedia: Coming in as a totally new user and writing an article that can merely survive. Most people who try to do what you've done find their articles deleted forever, frequently in milliseconds after they hit the "Save" button. Good for you that you've made it this far and I strongly urge you to hang in there. At the same time, I'm sorry that you've put so much work into this article only to have this happen, but the five most basis principles of Wikipedia are set out in the Five Pillars and one of them says that "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". What Cindamuse has done appears to me to be, on the whole, proper and you're probably not going to get anywhere generally complaining about what she has done, but let me get you started on a couple of things that might help:
  • Your reference to israbox.com is not unacceptable because it's an external source, but because it's a site from which a person can unlawfully download copyrighted materials, which puts it in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies (the policy is here). Even if it didn't have those links, it's not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (see the next bullet point).
  • Your reference to greygardensnews.blogspot.com is not acceptable because, as a blog, it's not a reliable source, but not because it's an external source. At this point in your editing you really need to read the verifiability policy, which is the policy which says when sourcing is required (short answer: whenever material is challenged or likely to be challenged) and what sources are acceptable (short answer: reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, though there is a lot more that you need to know than just that, such as the fact that self-published sources, such as blogs, are almost never acceptable sources). Rules are a Really Big Deal at Wikipedia and you're going to continue to be frustrated if you don't become familiar with them. The ones you need to know the most right now are verifiability, no original research, and identifying reliable sources. What Wikipedia is Not and Arguments to Avoid (ignore the part about "avoid in deletion discussions," the arguments listed there generally won't carry much water anywhere in Wikipedia) will help you get a better understanding about how Wikipedia works in general.
  • Remember the part above that says that sources are required for material which has been challenged? One effect of all the {{citation needed}} tags that have been inserted into your article is that the assertions to which they are attached are now challenged. It's up to you to find and insert a — and here we go again — reliable source for each one of them. Why you? Because part of the verifiability policy is a rule that it is the burden of a person who introduces a fact into Wikipedia to properly provide a source for it if one is required. Since you do have some sources in the article which have not been removed, one possible response — you should make it on the article talk page — is (if it is true) that you've already provided a reliable source for the material, but remember that the source must state the assertion plainly enough that you do not have to do any interpreting or analysis in order for it to support what you want to say (that's the no original research policy kicking in). If your existing sources do not support those assertions, then you must find a reliable source for them or they may be removed. (And I hate to tell you this, but some of your remaining sources may not be deemed to be reliable when carefully scrutinized. Allenorganofmaine.com jumps out at me and I have to wonder if the publisher of the Wulp book might not be a vanity press or self-publishing house. You may want to go back over them after you have familiarized yourself with the policies.)
I know that's a lot to digest, but that's where you are. I'm not in a position to help you on an edit-by-edit basis, but if you need someone to do so, you might consider getting a mentor. Good luck with your editing and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your response at the help desk, so let me add another word about what Cindamuse has done. I said it was "proper". By that I mean that it does not appear, at least on casual inspection, that she violated any of the rules of Wikipedia by doing what she did. Could she have done more? Certainly (but no criticism implied: see my 20:26, 30 October 2012 edit on this page, below), but the rules do not require her to do any more than she did nor do they prohibit her from doing what she did. At the end of the day, we're all volunteers here and unless the rules require us to do something, or to do it in a particular way, then we do not ever have to do more than we care to do. That's the hard fact of life here at Wikipedia and it's particularly hard on folks such as yourself who have not yet become familiar with the rules. Don't be too hard on Cindamuse: remember that whoever responded to your inquiry to Wikipedia or I could also have both done more than we've done: we're all just editors, nothing more, nothing less. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Underlined material added — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And one more word: I overlooked that you said in your posting above that you'd like to create additional articles. That means that you also need to read the Notability rule if you've not done so already and, if those articles are going to be about living persons, the Biographies of Living Persons policy. You've luckily managed to avoid any real problems with either of those rules with this article, but either of them could be a problem in the future if you're not familiar with them. Again, good luck and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

[edit]

I'm confused by this feedback given your contributions. On what article or dispute did you experience this behavior from editors? For instance, it seems like your interactions on Talk:Aaron Robinson (composer) were substantive, but not particularly straining on you or others.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Thanksgiving

[edit]

HAPPY THANKSGIVING! Hi Impromp and happy thanksgiving to you. Hope it's filled with joy and blessings from friends and family. Wishing you the best on this thankful holiday.

SO sorry!

[edit]

Sorry! I forgot to wish you a Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas and happy new Year to you! RaidenRules! (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Impromp2Music&oldid=1141162273"