User talk:Trumpetrep

Welcome!

Hello, Trumpetrep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Trumpet repertoire, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wperdue (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Trumpet repertoire

A tag has been placed on Trumpet repertoire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Wperdue (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trumpet Repertoire

I realize your edits are in good faith, but this new category looks completely redundant. We already have Category:Compositions for trumpet. DavidRF (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compositions for trumpet is totally useless, and looks completely abandoned, with only 3 entries in it. There are repertoire categories established for Piano Trio, Euphonium, Organ and other instruments. I'm just following those protocols and trying to provide a better resource for trumpeters. Thanks

It contains the subcategory Category:Trumpet concertos. Isn't it assumed that a trumpet concerto is in the trumpet repertoire? I think a better solution is to add Category:Compositions for trumpet to more articles instead of creating a category that means exactly the same thing. DavidRF (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your category should be renamed Category:Trumpet repertoire, which actually already exists. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback, but there wasn't anything in 'Trumpet repertoire'. I'm just following the pre-existing naming convention for other repertoire categories. That's the most reasonable way to proceed.

I'm unfamiliar with any other "repertoire" categories. We can create an article. You tried that earlier this evening, but it got deleted because it stayed empty too long. I'll take the text from the top of your category and put it in an article.DavidRF (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just search 'repertoire' and you'll see the protocols that have already been established for Piano trio, Organ and Euphonium. All I'm doing is adding to the knowledge base, which is non-existent on the subject here. Trumpeters will really appreciate. Your rolling edits are hampering my efforts to centralize what little information there is on Wikipedia about trumpet repertoire.

You're also proceeding from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'repertoire'. Mahler 5 is not a 'composition for trumpet', it is a composition for orchestra. However, it contains such extended solo passages for the trumpet that it is an important part of our repertoire. You guys are sticking to a category that wasn't correct in the first place. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please sign your posts? with four tildes: ~~~~ Just do it and click save. Your signature will show up. Thanks. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the good faith edits here. There's just a few little organizational details that need to be hammered out or the admins will keep deleting your stuff. I'm all for creating a Trumpet repertoire article in the next day or two. For now, please place new information here: User:DavidRF/Sandbox. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other categories by the name of <Instrument> repertoire. There are articles, but no categories. I went ahead and stubbed the article here, and recategorized them. Q ^{T C} 03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you guys 'the admins'? Again, 'compositions for trumpet' isn't the protocol that's used for other instruments on Wikipedia, and it's also inaccurate. Thanks for the sandbox. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are global admins who quickly delete articles that are empty. I'm just an editor that's familiar with how to get articles past the stub phase. I put a question on the talk page of the new stub here: Talk:Trumpet repertoire DavidRF (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of this? I couldn't find a category for another instrument that was called "<Instrument> repertoire" but as can be seen here there is a large number of categories name "Compositions for <Instrument>". Q ^{T C} 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, according to the Music WikiProject their categorization structure can be seen Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Categories. It basically goes: Music>>Musical compositions>>Compositions by instrument>>Compositions for ... Q ^{T C} 04:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and asked them for help regarding this issue. Q ^{T C} 04:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also ask here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music? This list is looking to be classical music centric. DavidRF (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I posted a note here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Those editors usually have some suggestions. For now, there's Trumpet repertoire (by composer) and User:DavidRF/Sandbox (by type). Not sure which format is preferred. Maybe we can keep both? DavidRF (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't both redundant? That seems a bit antithetical to the point of Wikipedia. The 'repertoire' naming convention that I've seen elsewhere is typically done in 'list' format. (see List_of_compositions_for_violin_and_orchestra), which is what your Trumpet repertoire page does. I'm happy to follow whatever convention is considered best by Wikipedia, but I'd just point out that DavidRF's sandbox follows the convention of the music world. Publishers list repertoire by category, and musicians (for whom this page is intended) look for things by category. It's of no use to us to look at an alphabetical list of hundreds of compositions, if we're looking for a duo. We want to laser right in on where the duo rep is, and ignore everything else. If the idea is to conform to industry standards in organizing information, the sandbox version is the most appropriate way.Trumpetrep (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References and sources

I see you've added a lot of new material to Trumpet. Please be aware, though, that Wikipedia aims to be a collection of published, sourced material. Your edits seem to contain valid information, but none of it is cited as to its source, making it original research. Also, please avoid inserting your point of view or opinion into articles - e.g., assessments of the importance of a piece or a player, or claims about what constitutes common practice are only valid in articles if they are from a published source. You're adding lots of information, but any editor would be completely within his rights to remove all of that material for the above reasons. Happy editing! - Special-T (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a fine line, right? Most of the information that is already present lacks citations. For instance, the 'Legende' entry contains the assertion that 'Legende now holds an important place in the trumpet repertoire and is considered one of the most beautiful pieces available in a somewhat limited modern repertoire'. All of that is pure opinion, in the technical sense. It's all conventional wisdom, as well, which requires no citation in academia.

All of what I've added has been well within the realm of conventional wisdom.Trumpetrep (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article, and that sentence in particular, is an example of what shouldn't be here - unsourced claims laced with pure POV and opinion. Of course, lots of articles started out with editors just adding what they thought was true, but check the links in the Welcome message above and you'll see that just because there's some sub-par editing out there, we still need to stick to published, cited facts. - Special-T (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what Wikipedia aspires to be, but again, take a look at any single page on here, and you will find that most of the verbiage is not sourced. I appreciate your intentions, though.Trumpetrep (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Brass Quintet Repertoire

I have nominated Brass Quintet Repertoire, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brass Quintet Repertoire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination. I'm honored! As to your concerns, the article is all verifiable and does not constitute original research. Please consult other repertoire pages such as Piano_trio_repertoire, Trumpet repertoire, Flute_repertory, and you'll find the format is the same: brief intro, list of pieces. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haggadah of Passover

You added the Haggadah to the category of musical allusions in Ulysses. I can only assume this was a mistake and reverted it, however if I was mistaken please let me know. The Haggadah is a text that is used to guide a Jewish ritual known as the Passover Seder - it is not musical at all. (Well, you can sing it I suppose, but you can sing any written text if you want). Please let me know if I misinterpreted. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. The Haggadah is incorporated into Ulysses as a musical allusion, particularly to the 'Chad Gadya'. The main character thinks of it as he watches a typesetter at work, which makes him think of a Jew and his 'hagadah book, reading backwards with his finger.' He then goes on to chant a few lines to himself, as part of his never ending interior monologue. He does the same thing with the Ordinary of the Mass, at the outset of the book.

However, what's been pointed out to me is that the use of the Category tag is incorrect on Wikipedia, as the Haggadah's not essentially an allusion in Joyce's novel. I find the distinction highly subjective, but I've learned not to argue with the folks who are invested enough in Wikipedia to make a fuss.

Logorama

Thank you for your work on Logorama. I made a couple of changes to your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy but please don't let that discourage you from continuing to improve the article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem fond of blocking people. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, engaged in an edit war.

You were saying? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that I am not, nor have I ever been, engaged in an edit war, and that you seem rather enamored with blocking people.

Fletcher

~~Ok, I can buy "compromised security", since~~Actually, no I can't, but I'm not going to quibble further at this point. I mostly wanted to show up and point out that by a strict reading, we're probably both past 3RR on that article, so let's not give anyone further excuses to block us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sheilaism

The article Sheilaism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neologism for which there are no reliable sorces to document its notability, and deletion is likely to be uncontroversial

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, I will remove the prod myself. Bearian (talk)

Images of Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki

Hi! I'd be very happy if you could help with this request. Particularly with the image which will soon be on wikipedia's mainpage as DYK. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your continuing edits. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split-tones, Rep, etc.

Greetings. I'm doing a little research for my quals on split-tone multiphonics. I've been searching for notated pieces that use them, but I haven't found many. Do you recommend anything?

Also, I have the score to that Isabel Mundry piece mentioned on the split tone page. I doesn't appear to me that there are any multiphonics of any type in that score, although the player is asked to crossfade between the bells of the double-bell trumpet. Do you know anything about that piece?

Thanks! Phembree (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reach out to me on FB, and we can talk more about it. Short answer: yes.Trumpetrep (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

jd@analogarts.org

BLP on Schweizer

You're been around long enough to know that BLPs aren't built upon "C&C" sections. GraniteSand (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk page. I've addressed this already, and it doesn't appear that you are working towards a consensus on the issue. There needs to be a general bulking up of PW's commendable work on other topics.Trumpetrep (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how our WP:BLP policy works. You either haven't read it or you're making this up as you go along. GraniteSand (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of the C&C section poorly sourced? No. Meanwhile, the "Career" section of his article is a bunch of bullet points from his bio. Please spend your time bulking up that section, rather than undoing edits which cite mainstream resources.Trumpetrep (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to get into your use of primary sources or WP:SYN yet because the whole section is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK. Let's not play this silly game where you set out to smear a guy you don't like and pretend you're just writing an article and I pretend that I think that you don't know what you're doing. GraniteSand (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made it very clear that the Career section was a joke before I even added the C&C section. Why don't you bulk that section up? I've been trying to do that myself, but you keep reverting the article. If you give me a few hours, I'd be happy to build up his Career section! The dude has done some really fantastic work!Trumpetrep (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you know that's not how it works. You don't create a bogus COATRACK, then say to others, "oh, well just balance it out". The form and function of the content you've added, esp in the External Links, make your motivations here transparent. You also don't "keep getting reverted". You edits are not compliant with WP:BLP or WP:NPOV or WP:EL. Full stop. If you've like to add source and policy complaint material in the sections or topics you've discussed then I certainly won't stop you. GraniteSand (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to give me a few hours to bulk up the Career section?Trumpetrep (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. GraniteSand (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I hope you'll see my edits are in good faith.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prokofiev

Hi there,

You're right that one of the two links doesn't work. However, the other says:

‘To hell with this futurist music!’ people were heard to exclaim. ‘We came here for pleasure. The cats on the roof make better music!’

Did you read this part? The reference to cats sounds more than "hissing," doesn't it? Adam78 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did read it, Adam. But does someone saying "cats on the roof make better music" rise to the level of a "riot"? That's Grade A heckling, but it's not a riot.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the answer. I'd be very sorry if this article were deleted, since—among other things—such articles (and their particular perspectives) make Wikipedia richer, broader and (last but not least) more enjoyable than a paper encyclopedia.

In fact, the category that you suggested does exist but its content cannot be provided with footnotes, so the insertion or the removal of an article will be more likely to lack reference (within articles). In addition, page changes are more difficult to track in categories than in articles (if an article is removed from a category without justification, it is rather difficult to restore). I would appreciate if you withdrew your proposal for deletion. Adam78 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes that establish a "riot" (a dubious claim in most instances) took place should come in the article itself. If someone wants to look up the documentation behind the claim that a riot occurred, they can click through to the article and see for themselves. Now that you mention it, that's another big issue with the Classical Music Riots list. Often, the articles don't contain any information that a riot occurred.

This page has been a problem for a while now, and I've been posting regular questions on the Talk page about its viability as an article. I first raised the specter of deletion a year ago. No one has commented on that. So, I finally decided to nominate it for deletion, because no one seems to pay attention to the page unless they are adding another piece to the list, which rarely meets the vague and unencyclopedic criteria. If you check out the Talk page, you'll get a sense of the issues with this article and how they could be addressed to avoid deletion. As it is right now, the list is so short and the definition so unworkable, that it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, then solely the most striking cases of music impacting on the world of art, this particular overlap between the domain of music and society, seems sufficient in itself to justify that the article should be retained. If there is music psychology, how would anyone question the most tangible instances of music sociology? Irrespective of the condition of the article (and a dozen examples are far from few), the topic itself lends significance to the article. Adam78 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but much of what you are saying doesn't make sense. I can't quite follow what you are trying to say. A "dozen examples" don't count if more than half of them are B.S. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, even one single real incident ("riot") that actually happened (which certainly exists, to say the least) would be sufficient to show how music can influence society. And the fact is that there are more than one. You can arrange the other instances in whatever way you like, sort them by intensity or classify them as you like, but it doesn't affect the significance of the tangible overlap between music and society. Adam78 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that music doesn't have the potential to or hasn't influenced society. That's a totally separate issue from the "Classical Music Riots" article. Nothing on that page speaks to your concern. It doesn't serve that purpose. It's designed as a collection of information, which is already tenuous ground for Wikipedia. Close examination reveals that it is an error-plagued, indiscriminate collection of information, which is grounds for deletion.Trumpetrep (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sleeping Beauty page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mr. Robot (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. 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) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Mr. Robot (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Alex|The|Whovian 02:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! You've now reverted a total of six times! A listing at ANI will now be filed against you. Alex|The|Whovian 02:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to engage in a discussion to gain consensus. I seriously doubt anyone would take your side in this particular argument, especially given your history on this article.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. One way or the other, you've violated a strict policy, and will now face the consequences. (Nice try with the attempt at warning me, by the way - it takes four reverts to violate WP:3RR. I reverted three times, you six). Alex|The|Whovian 02:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more policies on Wikipedia than at the Pentagon. The substance of the matter is that you are vandalizing an article and ignoring attempts to gain consensus. That's the bigger no-no. Again, I don't think any reasonable person would take your side in this particular dustup. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were saying? Alex|The|Whovian 07:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that no reasonable person would take your side in this particular dustup, as the consensus clearly shows on the Talk page. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Mr. Robot (TV series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.. --Drmargi (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not characterize what I said as an attack, but thanks for the reminder.Trumpetrep (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are very much an "eye of the beholder" phenomenon, and your remarks most assuredly were two personal attacks, and wholely inappropriate. --Drmargi (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't attacking anyone in particular. I was simply stating facts. I was pointing out that you have a demonstrable track record of overzealous, uncooperative editing. Having recently dealt with your style, I was offering help and support to yet another editor who was surprised by your heavy-handed tactics. Did you feel "attacked"?Trumpetrep (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Club/Mr Robot

Please note that I have no interest in discussing with you further on this, and it appears that you haven't the faintest idea of the meaning of words you are writing. The narrator being able to control what he is doing does not meant being able to control Tyler. The discussion has balloon out of all proportion because I had to deal with you irrational rambling and nothing you said made sense. I would not respond to you in any way on this issue. Hzh (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you change your mind, I would be happy to explain to you why there is no synthesis in the article as it is currently constituted. I'd also be happy to explain in further depth about the issues of control in Fight Club. I would wholly disagree with your notion that Tyler Durden is dead. The Narrator has simply grasped temporary control of Tyler and the situation, but he still has to watch as Tyler's explosions go off, and the film does end, after all, with another of Tyler's patented smash cuts. There's been loads written on this, if you're curious. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking...

Hey there... I got a notice you "thanked" me for an edit on the Mr. Robot talk page. Thanks for that. Just a question, how do you do that thanks function? I have never seen that before. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Edit history, there's a little "(undo|thank)" option at the end. Just click on the "thank" link and select the option to make it public or keep it private. Thanks for weighing in on that mess. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P-Funk mythology

You've done a great job of cleaning up the mess that the article was and you found and added reliable sources! Very nice work! Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Trumpetrep (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion (instrument)

Hello,

A lot of years ago, you worked on the Clarion trumpet article. I reworked it with different sources, and it was a struggle. Reading it, it makes sense to me because I just wrote it. I wondered if you would look it over to see if you notice any factual errors or points needing further clarification. Best wishes, Jacqke (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! Thanks for doing so much work. I'd forgotten about this article. I'll talk a look at it. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phineas Finn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gregory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate parms in Madama Butterfly

Hi Trumpetrep; I have fixed "duplicate parm" errors in Madama Butterfly by doing the following:

Changed "E soffitto e pareti" filename to filename1

Marked the filename between filename4 & filename5 as DUPLICATE

Removed the help=no & image=none parms, duplicated below

You may want to adjust my changes to suit. Davemck (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not sure those all need to be there in the first place. It seems excessive, and eliminating duplicates is the least we should do!Trumpetrep (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Trumpetrep! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:56, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Backlog drive feedback

Hi, I was reviewing some of your contributions to the unreferenced articles backlog drive. Please note that in La Salette of Quezon you have used a WP:PRIMARY source, which I now tagged as such. Please only use reliable secondary sources as references. Would you mind quickly checking the articles you edited? If you used primary sources in other articles, it would be great if you could find higher quality sources. Thanks again for helping with the backlog! Broc (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Fusion Fire. Interviews with the subject (or author, in this case) are primary sources as well. Only use with care ;) Broc (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A citation barnstar for you

		The Citation Barnstar
		For good work during WP: FEB24 drive! Davidindia (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dry for wet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Backdrop.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Trumpetrep for collecting more than 500 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Nightbreed, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. Auguste Dupin

Thank you for updating the wording. "Commonly understood" or "common knowledge" would imply that any random person on the street would know this information. I would gather a huge portion of the population doesn't even know the character, let alone one of the influences behind him. To suggest otherwise would absolutely have needed a citation. Best, --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpet

I hadn't realized you were a trumpet player or I'd have been more respectful! :) We even have a mutual friend on FB – Brian Shaw. Small world once you start doing the Venn diagrams. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall you being disrespectful. So at least there's that. Happy to talk trumpet any time! Thanks for catching the typo on De Quincey's Bibliography. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucifer (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac page

Hello, I'm one of the people who has been working heavily on the Zodiac Killer page recently. I appreciate your work with the citations on the page. However, many citations have gone missing in the process, such as the one at the end of the first paragraph on the Lake Herman Road section. I don't know if you are planning to put these back under the new citation style, but either way, can you work on that? Thanks. Atubofsilverware (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't deleted any citations. I have consolidated several that are duplicates, mainly of the Kelleher/Nuys book. It was often cited multiple times in the same sentence.

For the one at the end of the first paragraph in Lake Herman Road, the citation is still there. It is simply at the end of the 2nd paragraph. Both citations point the reader to pages 30–1 of Kelleher/Nuys. In my view, only one is needed, because the citation lets you know where to find the information in the book. Duplicating a citation is unnecessary. For instance, in the next paragraph, there is another invocation of Kelleher/Nuys but with an additional page, 30–2.

Paragraph breaks are more of a grey area, and if you would like to restore the citation, I wouldn't disagree. However, the citation implies that all of the preceding material can be found in the source.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see. No problem then. I will add the paragraph break citations for clarity. Atubofsilverware (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, having the same citation twice in a row is less clear, but I can see why some may prefer that. My main goal was to strip all the bloat from the references. When the article was de-listed, the citations were one of the reasons why. I'm going to consolidate the Graysmith citations next. I also posted a note on the article's Talk page about next steps.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the consolidation in general. Worth noting that the de-listing was in 2014, before I changed the citation style myself earlier this year. You're changing it again, which is totally fine, but the de-listing had nothing to do with the page before you started working on it. Atubofsilverware (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a citation style you think is best? I only dug in when I realized how many redundant citations there were. In addition to Kelleher/Nuys being cited multiple times in the same sentence or paragraph without different page numbers, the reference names were arbitrary. For example reference #2 was for Kelleher/Nuys p. 32. Reference #3 was for p.32–3. In an article this labyrinthian, that's a distinction without a difference, not to mention the fact that editors have no reliable way of knowing named reference #23 from #30 (pp. 76–7 and p. 77, respectively). There were 9 different named references for the same source. That is why I consolidated Kelleher/Nuys under the "KN" name, and will do so for Graysmith's books as per the 2014 assessment. With all that said, if there's a system that you think works better, I would be happy to use it.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The messy citations are a result of me making this page bigger very quickly, (I wasn't being quick for any reason, it's just my ADHD editing style) my plan was indeed to consolidate the citations once I was finished with expanding the body, which I'm very close to being done with. That being said, I think the citation style you chose is fine. When you're changing Graysmith's citations, note the difference between versions of Graysmith's Zodiac, as the 1986 edition I'm pretty sure has mistakes that were fixed in the 2007 version and both versions are on this page, unfortunately. Atubofsilverware (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trumpetrep, many thanks for updating my talk page after reverting my edit to Zodiac Killer where I converted a ref to use cite news. I thought I would follow up here, as there seems to be an ongoing discussion.

I prefer templates such as Template:Cite_news because it makes it much easier to create references that are uniform. The order of fields in cite news does not matter, the citation will appear the same even if the order of fields is different. I see citation templates to be little databases and by specifying fields for reference data, it makes it easier to use tools on references. Outside of Wikipedia, biblographic tools such as BibTeX are used to create bibliographies that are uniform. Template:Cite_news states "This template is used on approximately 1,680,000 pages, or roughly 3% of all pages." So, 1.68 million pages are wrong? Would you consider un-reverting my change? Thanks. Cxbrx (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm curious why you responded here instead of to the message on your Talk page. Is this another protocol of which I'm unaware?

3% is a vanishingly small usage rate. As you can see from this discussion, the citations on the Zodiac page are a mess. There were problems with placement and naming, and that's before the formatting issues created by the shambolic Cite News/Web templates. Most of the citations that used templates did not have basic information like the author or the original date of the article.

Moreover, the citation templates were only part of the problem, which has been discussed on the Talk page. The page was 200k with 266 citations. It is now at 117k w/ 151 citations. Most of that was not a result of losing material. It was the result of consolidating references that were duplicated and renamed and hashed to bits. The same book or article would be invoked under different names, multiple times in the same sentence or paragraph.

The article is extremely long and complicated, dealing with a subject where the known and disputed facts are both legitimately part of the encyclopedic subject. A typical Cite News reference is 100 characters longer than a normal citation. In cleaning up the page, I found that stripping out unnecessary code has been extremely helpful.

The article was de-listed over a decade ago because of some of the issues I've just described. So all of that is to say, I would like to continue streamlining the citations and cleaning up the article. I am not opposed to anyone using Cite News, but for now, I would like to press on in the same manner.Trumpetrep (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I again commend your work on the page, you are doing a lot of great stuff with the notes and the page could always use more attention. Still, I'm asking that you don't summarize the page much further considering the amount of important and non-intrusive detail that is being removed, especially from the footnotes, which are meant for that sort of thing. You mentioned the various pages for the Assassination of JFK earlier. It is worth noting that this is one single footnote on the main assassination page:

Lieutenant Day of the Dallas police examined the weapon prior to its seizure by the FBI. He found and photographed fingerprints on the trigger housing. Although Day believed the prints to be those of Oswald's right middle and ring fingers, the ridges were not clear enough to make a positive identification. Day then discovered a palm-print on the barrel underneath the wooden stock. He tentatively identified it as Oswald's, but was not able to photograph or analyze it in more depth as the FBI took the Carcano.[108] In D.C., FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona found the photographs and extant prints to be "insufficient" as to make any conclusion. The rifle was returned to the Dallas police on November 24.[107] Five days later, the FBI made a positive identification using a card from Day.[109]

The Zodiac page is used by many Zodiac researchers as a way to parse the case's misconceptions or fuzzy understanding from the truth and real-life context. Removing prose that does so could bring up those same problems again in the future. I recognize it is not just you making changes to the page recently, but you're one of the most active people. Essentially: I have worked really hard on the page in a way that - citation issues notwithstanding - aligns with all standards of what a good encyclopedic article should be, and I am becoming slightly disappointed with that work going away, but I do not want to insert myself into unnecessary edit conflicts for now, so I am trusting you with this. Atubofsilverware (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add that I definitely support the body being the current size, albeit if the details get moved to the footnotes. I don't know if you're planning to do that so I don't want to assume anything. Atubofsilverware (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the same page about what should be in the article. Most of the "Notes" that were there needed to be in the body of the article, in my view. Some of them were superfluous, but not many. For example, we don't need a translation of the translation of a cipher. I think it's enough to point out that the Zodiac purposely misspelt words and present his texts as such. But if the consensus lies elsewhere, I'm fine with that too!

A good example of a "Note" that I just incorporated into the text is the Indenti-kit one. I didn't see why that shouldn't be in the body of the article. Maybe it's better to corral certain material in Notes, but when I dug in, it was part of the information sprawl that I felt needed to be streamlined.

The other issue that happens in a lot of Wikipedia articles is sentences that run on too long and lose their meaning. It's a function of group editing, and in a year or two, that kipple will creep back into the article. There is just a lot of information put in odd places. For instance, if the TV call-in was a hoax, why save that information for the end of the section? It's a notable moment in the case, but it was a hoax, and there's no reason to give it more time than it's due. But of course, if I strip out some detail that you think belongs, I hope you'll put it right back in! I'm glad you recognize the good faith nature of my edits, and I have another big question I want to run by you when I have a better grasp of the issue. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of a translation thing wasn't me btw, I'm totally fine with that going. In any case, go ahead with your edits, I was just adding a note. I'll change larger stuff when you're done with your work, take your time. (And if I've been too anal about all this, my bad, I'm stressed out these days!) Atubofsilverware (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "anal" is a prerequisite for editing Wikipedia! ;) I have an allergic reaction to seeing "citation needed", for instance...just can not let it slide. So, let's keep working to make this article the best it can be! Trumpetrep (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox essay

Template:Infobox essay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpetrep: I have fixed this template for you. It takes almost all of the same parameters as {{Infobox book}}. You are welcome to use it where it is appropriate. I have fixed about twenty essay articles that were misusing {{Infobox short story}}; I'm sure there are more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. What was missing to make it work? I'll edit the parameters to what makes sense for an essay. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zodiac Killer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KQED.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]