This user may have left Wikipedia. Riana has not edited Wikipedia since January 28, 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!
If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I leave a message on your page, feel free to reply either on your page or on my page. However, if you bring it back here, I will reply here. Please don't {{talkback}} me.
Please be judicious in your use of the WikiLove button on this page. Barnstars for no reason are just as bad as barnstars for the right reasons are good. A politely-worded message is more likely to get a good response from me.
If you are here about an admin action of mine, please provide relevant links/diffs.
Please don't mind if I rename section headers - it helps me navigate - or refactor sigs - long sigs are evil.
Please reserve e-mail for conversations which must be kept private, or if you cannot communicate via my talkpage (i.e. you've been blocked). Try not to e-mail with issues which can be (or, for transparency's sake, should be) resolved via Wikipedia.
Riana has not edited Wikipedia since January 28, 2015. I'm sorry.
As an aside, let's do some math. on 12 February 2013, Riana edited their user page, stating their age as 24. Riana has been a Wikipedia user since 17 May 2006. Using subtraction, we can determine that Riana was either 17 or 18 years old when they joined Wikipedia, so it seems impossible that Riana blocked you while anywhere close to 11 years old.
I don't know what good this reply might accomplish considering that it's more than two years overdue, but who cares, I'm making it anyway. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a name I haven't seen in a while. If only all the oldtimers came back, they could probably take back the wiki before the newbies knew what hit them. You'd have to do it stealthily and in secret though, no spilling the... Oh, rats. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. Saw the wp:bn post, and like Floq says .. a name I hadn't seen in ages. Not that we ever interacted much, but I recall running into you a couple times back when I used to do the IRC stuff, and I remember how highly respected you were. Welcome back. — Ched : ? 19:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, chaps! Clearly doing a stellar job of returning by being so busy that I haven't had time to edit yet :) I am mostly back to write a few articles I saw were missing, but went "ack but all these buttons are gone and I loved them so". I don't even know if I'll use them very much! Seeing as I have no idea what has changed since I last used them... So feel free to call me out if I'm doing something completely obsolete. ~ Riana ⁂07:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! I have no idea who you are, (or were), but I find the fact that "they" restored you to "god" status as a routine matter is pretty impressive! On another level, I have this problem that after 25 years of preferring to relate to computers, I've discovered I prefer to relate to humans. Hence, after 5 years of indifference and/or avoidance, I've decided to get involved with placing Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Invite on certain talk pages. It will be nice to meet you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I did go to one of the Adelaide meetups back in... oh, gosh, yonks ago now. My return is primarily motivated by a few Adelaidean articles I saw were missing, so I'd definitely be interested in coming to a meetup but I don't know how much time I can spare (Mad March/Mad-Mid-Feb). But keep me posted, I'll need to have a think! ~ Riana ⁂08:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Riana. Welcome back! Doean't it make you feel old to know that you still have the distinction of having the most support votes in a non-consensus RfB, and people don't recognize you? I'll save you a glass of lemonade and a rocking chair here on the porch of the Wikipedia home for old fogies ;) :-P -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorta! Things have changed heaps around here - I'm a bit scared of using buttons for fear of breaking something. It is nice to see some of the old crowd around, I must say. ~ Riana ⁂12:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~TheGeneralUser(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
We may not have known each other before, but I always feel good when I see long term Wikipedians returning :) Thank you for your hard work efforts and for making Wikipedia a better place to be. Welcome Back, Good Luck and Happy Editing! ~TheGeneralUser(talk)11:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the listing(s) of Mozart's massed! I find them confusing, and do you know why we have two which are different? I know them not by numbers, but K# and key. At present, No 5 links to No 6. - I think it would be good not to pipe the article links, if only to show how confusing they are ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've been writing a few of the articles so I thought I'd add the links in. The article naming system is currently super-messy - some named by K#, some by key, some by number and some by nickname. I think they need a consistent naming format so as to prevent confusion and make linking easier - any suggestions? ~ Riana ⁂18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would need some consideration. The C minor should stand alone, if you ask me. Some have a more or less useful nickname, good for redirects. I come from the Bach cantatas, where we had a similar mess, some I and II, some not distinguished from chorales of the same name, - now we have consistently "title, BWV#". It's not that easy for the masses. We just prepare the Sparrow for Easter, and the latest edition says "Missa brevis et solemnis"! I edited Missa brevis and Missa solemnis, saying one is the opposite of the other ;) - Can you take the question to Project Classical music? I have the tricky move request for The Flying Dutchman going, on top of infoboxes, enough for the moment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair point! I think I'll write them all and then have a think about where they go. K# is the obvious choice à la the Bach, but there are variations... I'll take it to the Project when I'm finished with them, I think. Thanks for your tips! :) ~ Riana ⁂03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was following the format established at Missa Brevis No. 6 (Mozart), Missa Brevis No. 3 (Mozart), Missa Brevis No. 9 (Mozart) - but I agree with you that it's not ideal. A lot of these problems would probably be fixed by naming them by Köchel number instead of the list numbers, and using list numbers, nicknames etc as redirects. Unsure about Brevis vs brevis - my scores have brevis but I've seen the big B too, it doesn't seem to be an established convention. ~ Riana ⁂15:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, are you fast! - Brevis vs. brevis: the former is this English title convention capitalising almost everything, whether it makes sense or not. As it's so debatable whether a mass is brevis (or also solemnis) I would perhaps go by mass # rather than "missa brevis" # - which confused me to start with. The lead could say (provided that counting of massesand short masses is correct):
Yeah, that's a fair suggestion. They all need to be streamlined somehow! I don't think I'll have time during the week to write many more of the articles but once that's done I'll take it to the project page and seek some more opinions - it might be a bit of work to get them all in a way that fits, and I don't want to step on toes :) ~ Riana ⁂15:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I did this - as far as I can tell the "brevis et solemnis" classification is kinda semantic and based on the orchestration. Most people will probably classify them based on length, first and foremost, thus making it a brevis or a solemnis. Einstein seems to suggest the same. ~ Riana ⁂15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our score K.220 does say "brevis et solemnis". I would stay with the singular Missa brevis in the template, - or Missae breves, but that seems to be asking too much ;) (Friday is rehearsal day. Nice story: conductor asked voice professor who typically recommends some students for the performance on Easter morning, prof said: I could do tenor myself. cond: don't you have anything better to do then? prof: no.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I reckon let's stick with just brevis or solemnis as it doesn't seem to be a very common classification. And yes, my terrible Latin, eek! Maybe just stay with the singular, I agree. Great story - he is a bloody fantastic tenor though! ~ Riana ⁂05:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is! Opening of Le Laudi is tenor solo, then orchestra and choir come in, magnificent, he did it twice. The first time (1998) he was young, the second time we could not pay him any more what he usually gets, but he did it "for the music" ;) - Today, we will sing Michael HaydnMissa Tempore Quadragesima, MH 553, in a service, - much more interesting for alto singers than the Sparrow. - For Mozart, I suggest very simple redirects, such as Missa K.220 (Mozart), so that they can be found by people who only know number or composer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requiem, at least, - we rehearsed B minor, more tomorrow, - what a difference!
I'll grant you the Requiem :) Although I sang it as a tenor once (got bored of the alto, had done it twice) - so much more interesting! ~ Riana ⁂14:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! And all the people rejoiced :) I'm just drafting a question on the talkpage of WP:CM - once it's up, I'd love if you'd weigh in, I'll ping you on your talkpage. ~ Riana ⁂15:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana, hope you are well. I stumbled across the above and thought I maybe able to do something with it. This is my attempt at formatting a correct wikitable and I have also given it a bit of a lede too. I may have some of the table titles wrong (along with some other bits and pieces), but this does stray a little out of my area (despite my love of classical music). Let me know what you think, and if you like it I will move it over to the main space. Best regards! -- CassiantoTalk18:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heya! It looks really good to me - much better than the mess it was before. I have no particular expertise in the area either, just an avid singer :)
I think the only thing I would change is the heading "variation", as that has a different meaning in classical music - see variation (music). I'd probably go with "setting number" or something like that; the masses are definitely standalone works, not variations of each other. ~ Riana ⁂08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I have no idea about the compositional dialogue, but setting sounds more precise to me. The dates make the list look complete. A bit more in the lead section and a nice image would really complete it. To illustrate this, compare with a recent hit of mine which achieved Featured list status a few days ago. Happy to help! -- CassiantoTalk09:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like it! Who can word in the lead that the Salzburg Fürstbischof (link?) always wanted it short? That the nicknames are not by Mozart? Why the numbering of Missa brevis is not chronological and where it comes from? We sang #2, #10, #16 and #18, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to the scores (missing K140), only to find more inconsistency in names. How can we make the links less repetitious? - There are many more Kyrie comps listed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda: Yes, I have no idea where the numbering system comes from! I'll have a look into it - it's definitely not chronological, nor does it seem to be in order of discovery/cataloging. ~ Riana ⁂01:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Eg I just wrote Credo Mass (Mozart) which is classified differently in different places - brevis, solemnis, or brevis et solemnis. So it might not be so easy to move them to purely a brevis/solemnis article name... I'm still thinking K# might be most consistent and uncontroversial ~ Riana ⁂08:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not clear enough, at the moment I would just move from whatever is written capital to lowercase, as it is in the list already, for consistency until the other gets decided, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Gerda: Ah, my misunderstanding! Go for it. I actually like the naming style used on IMSLP, as you've linked on the list page. Consistent and easy-to-understand. I might suggest that style when suggesting a move.
Shirt58: Cool! de:wp has a great article on the Church of the Holy Trinity, de:Dreifaltigkeitskirche (Salzburg) - might be worth looking at if you wish to expand your article. Tempting to run it through a web translator but if you speak a bit of German (noticed the de-1 userbox on your page :) ) then you might be a better person to do it. ~ Riana ⁂13:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting the template! Look at the one on Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), - what do think of doing it similarly: first the naked facts (number, key, k-number), then whatever poetic name is attached? A reader should see "Sparrow", for example, to find the right one easily, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're doing well on it too! I like the way that looks. I also like the way {{Beethoven piano sonatas}} is set up (number, opus number, key, and nickname if necessary). I'm off to bed now but feel free to keep changing it around - I'll check it out in the morning :)
Hi, and thanks! I've provisionally unprotected them but having read up on the SPI, which cites relatively recent activity, I think I will probably reprotect - doesn't really look like the problem has gone away. I don't know the user's patterns well enough to be able to determine what his sockpuppets' actions look like, so I'll lock them down again. The protecting admin has retired so I was unable to contact them. ~ Riana ⁂02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All Semi-protected again. If you haven't done so already, would you care to have a look at the following diffs and see if they feel suspicious to you? They popped up after I unprotected the articles. [1], [2]. ~ Riana ⁂02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know your point of view on my edit of call of duty black ops modern warfare 2. I completely understand your reasoning and respect that. Thank you for helping me and completely understand your point. I agree that it should be a nuetral point of view and thank you for fixing it.
flowers and music to feed the soul
Thank you for quality articles on Mozart's masses and the extra plunge to find consensus to name them better, for being pure welcome, for "dedication to the task in hand ... with such good humour and patience", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 May 2007, 15 January 2009)!
Aw, thanks! I notice there still isn't any firm opinions on the talkpage but it's good that the ball is rolling. Grove wasn't helpful (but that's so rare that I'll forgive them). It's not a matter of urgency to get the articles in the right places but it will be nice when it happens. Haven't really had any time over the last few days to devote to the problem. Anyway, thanks so much :) ~ Riana ⁂08:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that you finished the Schubert masses so fast, great! - I would consider to move the exact scoring to later in the article, rather have a bit more on history in the lead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They will definitely need a copyedit. I'm currently writing something else but I will come back to them - thanks for the feedback. :) ~ Riana ⁂12:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were named Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago, with a poem! Miss you. I went over the Haydn masses, only to find that three are red links! Thank you for what you did for music, and I'll slowly work on what's missing, but your inspiration would certainly help! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Six years ago. I hope you are still singing. Our playlist (to grow) is here, Pärt on Sunday. I was happy to meet him last year, when he and I attended the same concert in Tallinn, his music (Fratres) played, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally fine with the block (although, I think one week might have been too short) and removing talk page access, but I'm curious as to why you full protected his talk page. RyanVesey05:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(tps) I saw that, and while it isn't standard, I actually liked the idea. Prevents him from posting (same as a reblock with no talk page access), and also prevents others from posting unnecessary comments that might escalate things further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that. My concern is that it prevents him from receiving any important notifications. How open is the community to unilateral minor admin sanctions. I.e. someone attempts to escalate matters on his talk page, an admin bans him from posting on Canoe's talk page for the duration of the block. RyanVesey05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he's blocked, I'm not sure how many important notifications he'd be getting, but that's not a bad point. This might not be a good way to handle everything all the time, but in this particular case I suspect it was a wise move. Preventing unproductive postings might be better than trying to deal with them after they happen. Things have kind of boiled over long enough, it's probably time to put the lid on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, I am a slightly old-school admin who took a long break, so I actually didn't think about the "block with talkpage access removed" option (it wasn't around when I was last around, IIRC). Page protection used to be one of the options when issuing blocks of this nature. I only did it because he was revert warring over the block notice (which he oh-so-politely demanded) and it's not actually been protected for the duration of his block (3 days vs 1 week). Once he stops unblock-shopping on different wikis, I'll remove it, and if anyone removes it before that, I'm absolutely alright with that.
Done. As you can see, the article was pretty much just a vague list of letters, so if you're planning to work on it, that would be great. ~ Riana ⁂18:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that when you want to indicate that an article's topic is in italics, it's usually best and easiest to use the {{italic title}} template. This includes titles of the form of Deutsche Messe (Schubert); the template knows not to include the disambiguation term in the italics.
If you do arrive at an article that {{italic title}} can't handle, and you need to explicitly specify the location of the italics, please remember that DISPLAYTITLE is a magic word, not a template, and uses slightly different markup for specifying the parameter. (If you use template markup, it will appear to work, because there is a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template that exists to cover for people who don't remember the distinction, but it's best to use the correct markup in the first place.) — Paul A (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's super-clever, thanks for letting me know! I didn't even know about DISPLAYTITLE until about 12 hours ago, so thanks for furthering my education :) ~ Riana ⁂10:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, the way those two are currently marked is the best available way to do it; there isn't a shortcut for that situation. — Paul A (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we've ever interacted before — I used to edit under the monicker "Master&Expert", you may have seen me around every now and then — but it's always good to see someone of yester year return to the fold. =) Kurtis(talk)10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the initial problem was that you had just missed off "ref=harv". Mass No. 6 (Schubert) seems ok to me now with just this added to the problematic ref. You might like to note a bug in the cite template when it's used with a chapter of a book: because there's no date after the editor's name, if their first name ends with a "." you get two in succession. I usually comment out the trailing full stop in this case. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, that's such a silly problem that I didn't even think it had such a simple solution - thanks so much! I feel pretty dumb now, haha. And thanks for fixing the editor issue, too. :) ~ Riana ⁂11:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It seems like Ptoumbekis is Chris Benz, or someone associated with him. The whole article needs a going-over, anyway - I'm not sure if the copyvio allegiation is even worth leaving in the article, for the reason you've stated. ~ Riana ⁂18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to a subsequent piece in the Times, no lawsuit was filed [5], so I'm thinking it doesn't belong. Also wondering if the edit warring IP doesn't merit a warning. Re: conflict of interest, I hadn't looked for that, or even read the article in its entirety. Thanks, 99.136.255.134 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've issued the IP a warning. Ptoumbekis has started discussing the issue on their talkpage, if you're interested in taking part in that conversation. ~ Riana ⁂18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A rarity indeed! I hope the edit-warring IP is equally sensible and keeps off the page, but we can keep an eye on the situation and see if it escalates. I do think the account has policy on its side in this case. ~ Riana ⁂03:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, a name from the wiki jurassic period suddenly reappears! You and Darwinek for the first admins I ever encountered on wikipedia back in like 2006, you helped out with blocking some Bollywood vandals I recall. Great to have you back, unfortunately Yellow Monkey, Pa7 and Shshshsh no longer edit here. Fortunately Bollywood Dremaz and Dwaipaync are still here and we recently promoted Mother India and Kareena Kapoor to FA!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld14:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, good doctor! Lovely to see you're still around, and carrying on your excellent work. It's nice to see the old brigade still going strong. ~ Riana ⁂14:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your work on this article and like what you've done so far. Look forward to seeing how this comes out when you're finished. All best, Jonyungk (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! I won't have much time today but I do want to get a list of recordings up there (short as it will be - it's not the most popular work to perform), and it would be nice to be able to write about what hour of service the various movements correspond to but I don't have the necessary knowledge - I'll keep digging for sources. He also faced a lot of censorship issues before the work could be published and performed, so that will need to be written in, too. I also want to incorporate the information about Tchaikovsky's influence on Russian choral music into the main Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky article at some point, and rewrite Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Tchaikovsky) to get it to a similar standard. It's definitely given me lots to do! :) ~ Riana ⁂03:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I notice that you are the main contributor to the choral symphony FA. At some point I want to write choral concerto, as written by Bortniansky. I notice that no links point there right now so it might not be the most widely-known term? That's another adventure for another day :) ~ Riana ⁂03:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fun statistic, I guess. Doesn't look like my time's about to be beaten - do I get a medal of some sort? :P I'm really glad Wiz is running, I genuinely thought he had become a 'crat in the time I was away. ~ Riana ⁂12:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did get a fright when I saw a comment of yours come up on my watchlist. Until recently I had been relatively inactive as well, maybe that was why I was surprised to see someone else return after a long absence. Anyway couldn't let it go without a quick message; knowing me I'd forget to follow it up if I didn't say hi immediately! - Shuddetalk11:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good fright, I hope! If there is such a thing... :) It is a bit of a return from the Wiki-dead though, I guess! Nice to see you around, hope you're well. ~ Riana ⁂12:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Maxim, thanks for the welcome :) Yeah, I went into #wikipedia-ru last night to ask someone about the transliteration. Stupidly I went "Oh, I better check the time in Russia before I ask, in case everyone in the channel is asleep"... and yeah, it was anywhere between 1am yesterday and 5pm today! Russia's quite large, apparently, haha. ~ Riana ⁂04:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a charming comment of yours to my efforts to fix a technical problem. Rest assured that I don't do much of that kind of thing, or actually much of anything on the site these days. Wikipedia can be a fairly disagreeable place. Bishonen | talk17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry my comment gave offense. I didn't intend it in that way in the slightest - and I don't really think being called "silly" is particularly offensive, either - it's a fairly neutral and gentle admonition, in my opinion. I do think it's a little unnecessary to be overly concerned about the automatic numbering, when it's highly likely that the closing bureaucrat will take the opposition into consideration - particularly in an RfB where the candidate is running with a lot of support, people do generally take the time to read the opposes to see what they're actually saying. My comment was not directed at you or anyone in particular (hence "we're being silly"), more at the numbering wonkery that seemed totally unnecessary.
I know you don't do much of that kind of thing - I am acquainted with your work and hold you in high regard.
I've also come back from a long, long spell of not doing anything on this site, and find certain elements of it to run counter to what would happen on most other sites or out in the real world - eg the fuss over numbers in what is supposed to be a discussion!
Anyway, I truly am sorry if I gave offense. I thought my comment was fairly light-hearted, but I apologise if I contributed to the disagreeable nature of this place. ~ Riana ⁂03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having just re-read this, it looks like a prime example of WP:NOTSORRY - please know that I am sorry! Even if my ineffective apology skills make it look otherwise. ~ Riana ⁂03:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably need to brush up on my online interaction skills, period - I appreciate that something I'd say doesn't necessarily translate to something I'd write. Anyway. Hope we're all good. ~ Riana ⁂12:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that one also! I changed and added parameters in the infobox, applied to Schubert's and a first Mozart, the Sparrow. Please have a look. Can we assume the Cathedral? Should we link "K."? What else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heya! Salzburg Cathedral looks correct. I haven't touched the Sparrow Mass but it looks like it was for the Cathedral for an Easter Mass - I'll do a bit of work on that article at some stage, and the other Mozart ones I didn't look at. I think linking K number is a good idea - I don't think overlinking applies to infoboxes? Looks good. I wasn't sure about the infoboxes at the start but I think it makes the articles look more cohesive :) ~ Riana ⁂11:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will link and picture, will you elaborate in the text? - I was against infoboxes in my salad days ;) - They are good for a different kind of readers, I came to be willing to serve those also. Look at Handel ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it really depends on the information the infobox is presenting. If it's a neat way of summarising some of the relevant details of the article - fine... if it's just a reiteration of the introduction in point form, it's kinda useless! I've weighed in at the Handel discussion. ~ Riana ⁂12:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came to think that even if it "only" reiterates, it's in different form, perhaps more attractive to some readers, and in a better data structure (see dates), - thank you for adding weight! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is apparently a somewhat controversial manoeuvre, I've started a discussion here. Hopefully you won't regard this as canvassing :P ~ Riana ⁂14:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I put it on my hope-list for GA, - concert in October! To my understanding, contralto is an opera term, it's SATB in choral singing, always used it like that for the soloists also, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to revert back to "alto". It's probably trickier than the other ones, some people say never use alto for soloists but these solos aren't always necessarily sung by contraltos... probably easier to find a mezzo to sing them! It's got potential for GA, I think. ~ Riana ⁂13:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that protecting the articles just makes them move to a different one. We've just been reverting vandals as they come in. m.o.p16:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jusdafax. I've actually just left a rather cross response to an ongoing discussion about related issues on the talkpage of the Classical Music WikiProject, so I don't think I'm in the right frame of mind to be responding to this on ANI. I'll return to it in a few hours. ~ Riana ⁂05:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riana, I noticed that you've tried to find solutions to the current (perhaps infamous) "infobox" debates. Would you be interested in helping me with some sort of RfC (current sandbox) that we could roll out to the community? No objections if you don't have the time or desire, just wondered. — Ched : ? 16:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ched, I'd be happy to (I think it's a ridiculous debate that's gone on for long enough) but I'm not sure I'm able to devote a significant amount of time to it this weekend. I may be able to help with writing some things down on Sunday my time. ~ Riana ⁂17:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'll take all the help I can get, .. when, and where I can get it. And I agree on the "for long enough" part whole-heatedly (obvious is obvious). Thanks Riana, .. have a great weekend. — Ched : ? 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Tchaikovsky)
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
I've been using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} on my user page to both change the title colour as well as hide 'User:' on my user page. But, it seems like it's not working for me anymore. I noticed you've used it on your page and wanted to see if you knew anything about a change to the thingy... I checked the template and nothing has been edited for months -- and I've only noticed this recently.
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
hi there, I created this page for the purpose of getting back together with my ex, this is his favorite website and i made a wikipedia page about him. i know it's not a legitimate page that should be on wikipedia, but i just really need a copy of what i typed so i can show it to him, it was deleted an hour after i made it, before i had the chance to show him, which was the whole purpose of it. i spent a lot of time on it, and cried when i found it was deleted.. please help me get a copy of it, i'll delete the page as soon as i copy the information i put on it. KaileyVera (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.
This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Riana. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Hi Tony, thanks for your message. I actually seem to have lost access to my old Wikipedia-only Gmail account and it's a big farnarkle trying to get back in. Would you care to forward your message to riana.chakravarti[at]gmail.com? (Trolls already have my surname and I'm not at the forefront of things anymore, not too fussed about putting my personal address here, haha). ~ Riana ⁂07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to celebrate it's 10 year Bengali Wikipedia has arranged a photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. It is scheduled to, start at 1 September 2014 00:00 (UTC) and end at 31 October 2014 00:00 (UTC). We welcome you participate there. Hoping to see you at the contest . Thanks.
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice the TFD, the {{Multicol}} family is being replaced by {{col-begin}}. A couple of your archives (10 and 17) are some of the few holdouts still using it. Feel free to either change the templates to something different or subst the existing ones (they're all wrappers anyway). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. QuasarGt-c19:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
