User talk:Labrynthia9856

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Labrynthia9856! I am I dream of horses 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!

I dream of horses (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin and King Arthur

Thanks for trying to update these pages, however both sets of changes you made were unsited and I believe current scholarship does not agree on any singular date for either individual. If you think your source has good reason to be believed please raise this information on the talk pages. SADADS (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date changes

Hi Labrynthia,

Why are you changing the birth dates for composers? The date for Dufay is tentatively established as 1397, and you are restoring the old date as it was understood thirty years ago. And why are you removing cited material on Palestrina? Lockwood has established the terminal dates for earliest and latest possible birth, with a cite to Grove. We must be precise here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't assume good faith on a person that changes Debussy's b-date to bizzare numbers like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here for Mozart and here for Haydn … and many more. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent edit to the Handel page. The linking of dates has been deprecated and is no longer considered desirable. Please take some time to read the Manual of Style if you intend doing housekeeping-type edits. Thanks for taking an interest in the Handel WP page. HWV258 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop your bizarre, arbitrary, and uncited date changes. I have no idea what you are doing, and several people have expressed concern above. We are trying to create a reliable, reputable, and precise reference work here, and you seem to be experimenting with random numbers. Antandrus (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Antoine Mahaut

A tag has been placed on Antoine Mahaut requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

For your work so far. I won't tell you either to keep it up or rest on your laurels because it's not my place to do so, or indeed any other Wikipedia user's. Incarnatus (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selfrevert

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. (Your edit.). Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and sourcing

One of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:V, verifiability. You can't simply go around adding exact dates to article without supplying sources. Back in August, someone similarly noticed you do this and asked you to stop (#Please stop). I'd like to encourage you to read up on our basic policies. If you have questions about how Wikipedia works, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to help you, and we have many other volunteers that would likewise help. But you cannot continue adding unsourced content to articles. Thank you for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A response!

Hello, your edit message here is the first time I've noticed that you even been aware that your edits are all reverted. Your talk page is littered with requests from people that you stop. You've been notified of discussions about your edits here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Navigation_template_additions. And you never offer any response to these reverts, you just press on. For over a month. If anything your date-edits are becoming more and more trivial... like whether or not some date in 1788 was a Friday. Yes, its trivial, but it seems like you know that your edits are being monitored and you're "testing" people by seeing if you can make a tiny change that *isn't* reverted. Then when we turn our back you can go back to vandalizing Jesus, Adam, or Noah. We don't have the time or inclination to baby-sit your edits. Explain to us why we should take you seriously... how are you *not* the "trivial date vandal" that so many editors think you are?DavidRF (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From all the furor you'd think Labyrinthia was messing up the Holy Bible on Wikisource. Or maybe that she was messing up the life work of some great writer. Give me a break. Incarnatus (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response is what irked me. No acknowlegement from him/her that most of their edits were being reverted. No response even to to accusations on their own talk page! Normally, if its a genuine content dispute, there's talk page discussions that follow. But none. This editor is a troll, plain and simple. If you want to be the lone defender of this type of behavior, then its sounds like you are nominating yourself to babysit their edits on the off chance that one might occasionally be accurate.DavidRF (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done that kind of "babysitting," and at least one of her year edits was actually accurate! In other cases, I fail to see the problem with adding "uncited" information to an article that was uncited to begin with. Anyway, no one asked you specifically to babysit her. But you can choose who you want to babysit, and odds are someone babysat you when you started. Incarnatus (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... at least one was accurate! And how many of them were deliberately false? What's the acceptable ration of actually accuracies to deliberate fibs? When I started, I actually paid attention when people left me notes on my talk page and stopped to discuss things. Here, the two of us having a discussion right here on the very page and still no response! Nothing. Check my history way back, I'm *very* patient with new and well-meaning editors. Show me the slightest bit of good intentions and I always back down and assume good faith. We've waited over a month on this particular editor and pointed them to multiple discussions about them at WP:CM and no response, no discussion, nothing... We've seen this type of behavior before... someone vandalizes pages, sees that other editors are on to them and then makes the changes progressively more trivial and bizarre to see what they can get away with. Or they sneak in a non-vandalization to see if we'll revert anything. All a big game. Anyhow, you're right, my job is not to babysit. I'll let the admins worry about this (or not worry about it).DavidRF (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wager most of the dates she's put in are accurate. I took the trouble to check one of her dates against the books; the books agreed. That wouldn't have happened if instead I just blindly believed what everyone is saying in edit summaries. Incarnatus (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what are you basing this wager? I count six complaints above on this very page. The only kudos is from you of all people. There's been rational "assume good faith" discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Navigation_template_additions and the conclusion was that some edits were good but some were "clear vandalism". Check out that self-revert edit mentioned above... pretty bizarre. Then suddenly leaving classical music to make ridiculously absurd edits to Adam and Noah? What are we supposed to think? And no explanation from the editor... nothing...DavidRF (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basing the wager on that the one date I bothered to double-check turned out to be correct. I had been led to expect a completely preposterous date; if I had found something like that I'd become the baritone soloist in the chorus of condemnation. Then there's Handel's Jephhta: the dates Labyrinthia added seem quite plausible (I haven't doublechecked them yet). The dates were not cited, but guess what: neither was the article before her edits! Incarnatus (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Century and decade dates

The dates of decades, centuries, and millennia are well-established by consensus. Any further changes will be considered vandalism, and may lead to blocks.

Specifically:

2010s runs from 2010 through 2019
21st century runs from 2001 through 2100
3rd millennium runs from 2001 through 3000
3rd millennium BC runs from 3000 BC through 2001 BC
5th century BC funs from 500 BC through 401 BC
230s BC runs from 239 BC through 230 BC

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello, I'm placing this message because you complained on the edit history of Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) that you have been called a vandal.

The edit that most clearly establishes your vandalism history is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&diff=309643453&oldid=309635795

The life dates of Bach are very well known and so it is virtually certain that you inserted these false ones as a joke; i.e. as vandalism. The discussion higher up on this page suggests that the Bach episode may not be the only one.

My particular concern is that, unlike most WP vandalism (which is normally just silly or obscene), your vandalism might go undetected and permanently harm the accuracy of the encyclopedia. This is why I am reverting your edits liberally.

To put it in different words: when you chose to vandalize, you lost the benefit of the doubt. I would suggest that if you want to avoid future reversion, you ought to list a legitimate published reference source for each edit. Opus33 (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brahms symphonies

I've had to revert your edits again for this. Please discuss with some other editors before putting the dates back. I know you believe the dates help the reader however in my opinion they are a very, very bad idea for Brahms, especially since his first symphony spans 21 years in its creation. By slapping a date after it, even though it correct identifies the year of its premiere, falsely gives as impression the symphony was wholly concieved within that single year. Centy – reply• contribs – 18:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) , as you have to the article George Frideric Handel, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Frederick Loewe, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Mass in C, 'Missa solemnis' (Mozart), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Betty Twarog in 1952, while at the Cleveland Clinic.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Betty Twarog in 1952, while at the Cleveland Clinic.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Blurred Lines 18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Virgo (astrology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mercury and Liaison

Cancer (astrology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liaison

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2013 (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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]