User talk:Jaxdelaguerre

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jaxdelaguerre! I am Jack Merridew and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. 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!

Jack Merridew 06:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double Bass - Pitch

Hi there! I like your additions to the pitch section of the double bass article, but would love if you could find a reference to cite and back up the information.

Which part of the info? I cited the example Carmina Burana w/r/t high exceptions to the general limit of playing on the fingerboard. What specifically do you think should be ref'ed there?

Perhaps just a clarification that the 3 octive range is the extent of the fingerboard, not just an arbitrary range. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well double basses are remarkably different from one to the next as regards fingerboard length. My empirical observation is two octaves can be expected, but one I play regularly goes up about a fourth above that on the G string ... the fingerboard is longer towards the G side. So there really is not a standard. So I'm not sure what I could reference in that regard. _JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know you're right, but the goal of WP is to provide references and have no independant research. The article on Musical acoustics has a plot which shows the double bass at just below 3 octaves. Perhaps a reference to their source would do well as far as commonly played notes. Another would be this link which says 2.5 octaves. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look at those links as time permits and see what I can come up with. _JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well, while as you note there is no hard limit to the highest harmonic that can be played, there will be some practical limit. Could you also try to find a reference to give a range for the practical upper limit of the instrument's harmonics? Thanks! Bakkster Man (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. New ground is being broken on that sort of thing all the time, both in string design and in composition. I will certainly look around. Thanks for critique! __JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've never seen much in the way of harmonics above the 4th or 5th. I'd love to see some research into the practical 'soft' limit on harmonics. I mean, somewhere around the 7th harmonic (for example) there just wouldn't be enough sound being produced. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough sound produced way up high if you are bowing. _JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, seek and you shall find: "It is unusual to encounter natural harmonics higher than the fifth partial on any stringed instrument except the double bass, on account of its much longer strings" from the article on harmonics. So, now the question is 'how much higher does it get on double bass?' Bakkster Man (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm performing in Carmina Burana this weekend and I have to play written A above high C which is the sixth partial on the D string. _JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a link, or can find one, that points out that sixth harmonic, we should put that in the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the symphonic part, but it's not public domain. _JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Wiknic

Cool, maybe you should start a Wikipedia:Meetup/Denver page.

Started, thanks.

How picnicy were you planning it? Also, isn't Colarado more "West" than "Midwest"? :P--Pharos (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West or midwest, I'm not doctrinaire about it :) Was planning something indoors. Maybe it should be a picnic outdoors. I don't know. There was nothing for Denver so I called a venue I play music at and asked if they were free that day. We could do it somewhere else.

Are you in Denver? JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea in general was for outdoor picnics, but I'm not doctrinaire about that either :) I'm a New Yorker just trying to help energize other parts of the country, so whatever works for Denverites is cool.--Pharos (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no particular clue. Don't know any Wikipedia editors out here. Just volunteered a venue I have some familiarity with in case some folks were going to show up! JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! As founding father of the Wiki-Denver community, you deserve to pick the place :)--Pharos (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic 2012

Heya! Would you be interested in helping organize something for Wiknic 2012? I've listed a meetup at Boulder in June , but we could move it to Denver instead if there are more Wikipedians there. Let me know! -- Gaurav (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could hang out at the DNote again ... beer pizza & music (& chess, I've got several boards). JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic notice

Please see my e-mail. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, tnx ... see you at the DNote! JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looking for Denver wikipedia meetup groups

Hi. I signed up for wikipedia a few weeks ago and would like to become a serious and mature-minded editor that fosters understanding and self-education about how to use wikipedia. A page I worked on was recently deleted, for example, and I'm backtracking to find out why and what I can do to avoid that in the future. Additionally, another page I'm working on has a COI, and I have exhausted my capabilities in determining why. I saw that there was a meetup group recently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Denver). What is required to join this group?

Thanks, timeinabottle8615 Timeinabottle8615 (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never attended a meetup in the past, but when they called for a site in Denver for Wiknic I volunteered a site I know. So I guess the answer is just show up next Saturday at our get-together at the DNote and you are likely to meet such Wikipedians as are up for meetups! See ya there June 25 3-5 pm! JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess article lead

I saw that you'd rewritten the opening part of the Chess page. However, I think you may have overextended it, as it's now eight paragraphs long! Would you be able to condense it somewhat? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly shall strive to do so! Thanks for your comment. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it's much tighter now. What do you think? JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still fairly lengthy in comparison to most other articles, but it's certainly better than it was! :) NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 19:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the intro because it is effectively the introduction to a huge number of Wikipedia pages, a lot of which I find as I examine it is rather fanciful in the characteristic manner of chess enthusiasm rather than scientifically accurate. I'm going to tackle Chess openings next which is highly problematic in that regard. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work in general. The sentence "Play seeks execute exchanges of pieces which gain the advantage in terms of piece value or board position." requires reworking. "Players seek to gain the advantage... " perhaps, but is Exchange (chess) desired to be linked in the sentence for some reason? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! "Fingerfehler" :) Thanks, SunCreator. Now fixed. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to Exchange (chess) is worthwhile as that page expounds fairly well the basic mathematical truths of the exchange of relative value that forms so important a part of the heuristics of chess in positions not subject to concrete calculation. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess page

After I trimmed that bit I had second thoughts. Chess problems/compositions deserve mention in the article lead, but we should fix up the old misleading bits. I don't feel as bad trimming mention of GMs in the lead as I think it would be OK to leave that for the article body. If it goes in the lead we should find a better place for it than that paragraph. I thought your edit on the whole was an improvement to the page. Quale (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't author the problems/compositions section, I just left it in because it's probably worth mentioning. I agree the GM's section is entirely adequately covered in the body. Thanks for your comments. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

innig or Innigkeit

When I saw that show up, I was tempted to revert it as well. Went looking, and saw it as a term sometimes used in music criticism... respect! to you, for your prompt reversal and apology. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill! It's easier to jump to conclusions than to jump back from them :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Whom the gods would destroy, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- GigaG (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars seems appropriate here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a misattribution that is noted in WikiQuotes. The quote does not come from Euripides' play Medea. I have reverted the reversion. It was not vandalism on my part, it was a correction of factual error. GigaG should apologize for attributing vandalism. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Euripides Misattributions and next time do your homework before you accuse an experienced editor of vandalism. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly short notice: Boulder WLM on 15 September

Apologies for getting this out so late, but this is all Pharos' fault. Please blame everything on Pharos.

That said, this message is just to let you know that we're having a photo hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments at 11:00 in the morning of Saturday the 15th in Boulder, probably somewhere around CU, though the exact location hasn't yet been decided. Since you have previously attended or expressed interest in other meetups in the area, hopefully you might be able to come.

Please sign up as soon as possible if you're interested; we'd love to have you along to help postpone the squirrel apocalypse. Or at least get some decent images. -— Isarra ༆ 05:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double bass

Hi, I am sad that you totally reverted all my edits to the double bass page. I have been a significant contributor to this page over the years, and I feel that your tone was negative (referring to "nonsense edits"). OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the tone of the revision comment. I question the wisdom of slamming so many individual edits one on top of another. And I see from your talk page that you are somewhat sensitive to reverts, which may possibly indicate that it's something that happens to you fairly often :) I thought some of the insertions and deletions you made were of questionable value, and wonder if it would not perhaps be better to do one or two edits, then wait a day and see how they are received before proceeding. Furthermore, you didn't have to manually redo the edits ... you could have just reverted my revert, right? So perhaps going slower and thinking about things a little before you edit might make your life easier, and make it easier for us other editors with interest in the bass page, who would like some time to evaluate individual edits before swallowing a whole series of them uncritically. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diminuendo hatnote

I think we just edit-conflicted in reverting the hatnote change to my earlier edit!! Thanks for realizing it wasn't vandalism and for reverting your change --Bcp67 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, again, my apologies. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik

Thanks, you nailed it. I don't know where I left that book, but I'll dig it up. Quale (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know, there are used copies for sale in book stores here in Colorado. - JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is "doesn't play" not grammatical?

As a native English speaker, I'm quite certain that "White opens with 1.d4 but doesn't play the Queen's Gambit" is grammatical. In Wikipedia we would normally prefer to avoid the contraction, but I don't understand your edit summary. Quale (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the "Queen's Pawn Game" is the grammatical error. The way I state it, that the London is one of the Queen's Pawn games where white doesn't offer the Queen's Gambit is correct chess prose style. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you are quite right. The version you corrected doesn't agree in number. Quale (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really trying to be Marion the Grammarian :) That was a rant, I should have omitted it. What I want is the chess pages to be of higher quality. Let's write like we have read a chess book or two! There isn't this thing "The Queen Pawn Game" versus "The Queen's Gambit". It's that the QG is a QPG in which the gambit is offered. That's better classical theory per the books we grew up on. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jaxdelaguerre. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jaxdelaguerre. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jaxdelaguerre. 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)[reply]