karljoos/Archive 1

Thank you in advance for your help! --Karljoos (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To redirect to a section all you have to do it this

#REDIRECT [[foo#bar]] 

That will make the redirect. You can also read more at: Redirects to page sections.If you edit this section you will notice that I used the a link to a section.

You see what the page will look like with this example

I hope you get it and if you need more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

Thank you very much!--Karljoos (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Being a part of some teams is not enough, which is kind of the point. There may be a lot of very notable orchestras as a group, but as individual members they do not all warrant articles. WP:Athlete has very specific criteria, for instance, and similarly, individual members of an orchestra need to be notable on their own. The only references in the article right now are primary source articles, and those don't seem to indicate notability to me simply by virtue of inclusion.

That said, I think your edits since then fix my original concern which was that the article didn't indicate how the individual was notable, and like I said, just inclusion in the orchestra wasn't enough by itself. But I trust your judgment that there's more than just that, so I won't pursue this, and I'm sorry for the trouble. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I made a comment on the talk page of this article here which you may be interested in. Please comment so that consensus may be reached and the article may be improved. Thank you. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your recent addition to the Steinway & Sons talk page. It seems obvious that User:Fanoftheworld has basically taken ownership of the article, and it's reverting back into being an advertisement. A slanted article, no matter how well sourced, is still slanted, and it's beginning to read like an advertisement. I propose putting a tag to this effect on the article. Do you concur?THD3 (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This article has completely lost its encyclopedic tone. Go ahead, plase. --Karljoos (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I added both the advert and peacock tags. The article is really getting out of hand. For the record, I no longer work in the piano industry, but do play the piano and used to work as a piano technician. I have no financial interest in the piano industry. Any tech not on the Steinway payroll will tell you there are a half-dozen pianos being made today that are far superior to Steinway, including Mason & Hamlin, Fazioli, Bosendorfer, Bluthner, and Bechstein. Unfortunately, those manufacturers didn't have the marketing genius to put their pianos in every concert hall and lock up the business. I also personally know several pianists (who must go unnamed) who have complained about their treatment at the hands of the "Steinway mafia." Sorry for the rant, this is not the kind of thing I can put in an article.THD3 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and cleaned out the more egregious instances of peacockery and poor referencing to press releases and so forth, but I would appreciate your help and support in enforcing a modicum of neutrality on the article in light of extensive editing by a user with a clear POV and possible COI. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Fanoftheworld removed the Artist list from the Baldwin Piano Company page. Bias, perhaps?THD3 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like my presumption, about some users being judging the Steinway article harder than other piano articles, is correct. It can not be interesting for anyone, that a long promotional list with no information than just names, shall be removed. Articles about other piano brands shall, of course not, be judged more gently than the Steinway article. And remember, the harder the Steinway article will be judge, the harder will all the other piano articles be judged. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All articles have to be judged equally hard. I have always asked for neutrality, impartiality and objectivity in articles (check my history), but I never found a user so contrary to it like Fanoftheworld. I started all this thing when on the 12 January 2009 (UTC) I commented "There's no doubt that Steinway & Sons manufacture good instruments, but expressions such as "world renowned" have no place in an encyclopedic article, even if they are well sourced". User Fanoftheworld did not accept the pursue of more neutrality and started to pick on every single change made to achieve it. This makes other editors to pay more attention to this article. I think it is time this user starts listening to the other editors, and stops thinking he/she owns the truth and this article. Thank you. --Karljoos 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Steinway Model D

Thank you for all of your efforts to help this article improve. I do not want to seem l feel this page is mine but I feel that changing/deleting the sections on:

• The Introduction
• The Steinway artists
• Quotes

was unnecessary and I had spent much time trying to find these. If you would like to discuss your recent edits please contact me on my talk page to sort out any issues. Please spend time trying to improve the article and I really appreciate the help as I have not had much.

Thank-you

Pianoplonkers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. Would you help me majorly improve our page and I would be very grateful. Thank-you again

Pianoplonkers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please can you help us improve our page. We would be grateful--Pianoplonkers (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should mark the Steinway_Model_D-274 for deletion. I know of no other articles on specific piano models. Also, this model is not significantly different than other Steinway grands except that it's bigger.THD3 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I agree. Please go for it! --Karljoos (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 

Hello, Karljoos. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Karljoos,

I saw you undid my change to Francis Xavier, may I ask why? In 1506, Xabier was fully under the Kingdom of Navarre. It was in 1512 when Castile took over Navarre. That classifies Francis as Navarrese, there's no way he can be called Spanish. - Keta (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, didn't look at the talk page. Will move on there. - Keta (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Hi there.

Following some {{helpme}} requests from Pianoplonkers (talk · contribs), I investigated recent edits to Steinway Model D-274. I noted your comments about suspected sock-puppeting on the talk page, and I investigated further; I shared your suspicions, so I asked a checkuser to look into it. They confirmed that Rachmaninoffrus (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of Pianoplonkers.

Rachmaninoffrus has been blocked indefinitely, and Pianoplonkers has been blocked for 24 hours.

Thank you for highlighting the problem.

If there are any further similar problems, please let me know. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep your eyes open, I caught Pianoplonkers (talk · contribs) trying the redirect the Steinway Model D-274 page to his own user page. I reverted it and it now lead to Steinway & Sons.THD3 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Suckpuppets

{{adminhelp}} Not thinking in applying it right now, but how do I report a suspected sockpuppet?--Karljoos (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reports are made at Wiki: Sockpuppet investigations. Instructions can be found there about how to, and when not to, request an investigation. AJCham 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Hello Karljoos. I retreived some information from corresponding articles on other Wikipedias (i.e. the Japanese Wikipedia). I also use Riley's History of the Viola, etc. I see you are a fellow violist. Best regards, Hrdinský (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Rubinstein page when you get a chance, I added several citations and made some other changes. Regarding this sentence: "He received international acclaim for his performances of the music of Frédéric Chopin, Johannes Brahms and his championing of the music of Spanish composers", I'm still trying to figure out what to do with it. Part of the problem is that it's redundant with a paragraph in the Musical Style section. Also, Rubinstein's repertoire was considerably vast (for example, he recorded a Mozart Concerto in 1931 when that music was not fashionable). So, I propose either deleting the sentence in its entirety, or changing it to say he was acclaimed for his performances of diverse repertoire - or something to that effect. I welcome your suggestions.THD3 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi THD3! That is not going to be easy... it is true that his recordings of Chopin and Brahms (specially the second piano concerto) are legendary but he was also a genious playing Scriabin, Busoni etc. Maybe you should just delete the sentence.--Karljoos (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete that sentence, since it's redundant. It would have been interesting if he played more off the beaten path pieces in later years. I've heard a pirate recording of Ruby playing Scriabin's Nocturne for the Left Hand - not bad, but not extraordinary. When you say Busoni, do you mean his transcriptions? I've heard the Bach transcriptions he recorded for RCA. Btw, I spent my year 2000 Christmas bonus on that mammoth RCA boxed set. One of the best investments I've ever made.THD3 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, a few years ago, the Rubinstein page descended into complete hyperbole due to the editing ofLorenzoPerosi1898. It turned out that the editor also had his own vanity page and numerous sockpuppets. One of his sockpuppets tried to get me banned last week, and would up being banned himself - again.THD3 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks. I also did some reorganizing of the Vladimir Horowitz page, and took a lot of hyperbole out of the Alexander Toradze page (why is it that second-rank pianists have the most flowery written pages?). The main challenge with Rubinstein and Horowitz is keeping track of the many changes to their pages. While useful information is sometimes added, it can at times lead to a breakdown of the organization.

Hi. Vladimir Horowitz is looking great (still needs more refs., but it is defenitely a good article). I am just a bit concerned about the "minor composer" thing. I think if we just say that he was a composer (did he actually compose anything original?) is OK. What is a minor composer anyway? If a composer is a person who writes music that is later performed, then Horowitz fits the definition of composer even though he only wrote only few small pieces. On the other hand his transcriptions/arrangements are not original compositions and maybe he could be called arranger rather than composer. --Karljoos (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give the name that the page should be. I am having trouble figuring it out. Thank-you. Please reply on my talk page--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please can you give me suggestions on improving the new D-274 page so that is ready for being able to put onto the main wikipedia area.Thank-you--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion. The topic of the article is not relevant enough to have a separated article. Most of the info is already in the main Steinway and Sons article. The article was deleted and it can only be moved back if 1) you provide verifiable, reputable and independent sources (not promotional material from the company) 2) if you can prove that the topic is relevant 3) the relevant and sourced article has the "shape" of an encyclopedic article. In the meanwhile, please don't make redirects from articles to your personal pages. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please direct any comments to user:etincelles regarding this article. He has asked me to tell you: "Thanks for the help and can you give any feedback on how it is looking". Please send a reply to Etincelles. Thanks--Pianoplonkers (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There're many things you could talk about:

1. When was the piece composed, why did he write the piece (was it a commission? did it perform it in concert? what were his personal circumstances when he wrote the piece? in other words, what was going on when this piece was written?). Possible section name--> Background
2. When was the piece first published. --> Background
3. You could add a brief analysis of the piece; talk aboutform of the piece or the harmony etc.--> Composition
4. Please be more specific with the recordings: include the name of the artist, year, label and catalogue number.--> recordings
5. Has this piece had any influence in music by other composers? Yes? Then talk about it. But remember: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.--> Reception and influence
6. The score image is fine, but... did you create it? is it a copyrighted image?

You don't need a section for each topic. Whatever you add be sure it's relevant and PLEASE, don't forget to include references (with the right format). Good luck.--Karljoos (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karljoos thanks for your advice on the new page, i created the image myself so no copyright laws have been broken. It has been very difficult to find information about the piece, but i have now put it on the main wikipedia area. I hope you will be able to take a look at it and suggest any further improvments that could be made. Scherzo in A-flat major (Borodin) --Etincelles (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I am concerned about Rondo Alla Turca (Mozart), an article about a movement of Mozart's (Piano Sonata No. 11). It is a bad article, no sources, no real content etc. The article should be a section in Piano Sonata No. 11 (Mozart). How can I tag the article for deletion + redirect? The article has existed for a long time with no improvements --Karljoos (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The info in the article seems to be taken from the main article--Karljoos (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
You can use articles for deletion to request deletion but since the article has a lot of incoming links, you can just turn into a redirect yourself (by simply replacing the content with #REDIRECT [[Piano Sonata No. 11 (Mozart)]]) after merging whatever content you think can be merged. You can or rather should try to expand the article instead if you have knowledge of the subject. Regards SoWhy 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I do have knowledge, but this article should not exist. Is like having an article on the chapter 2 of a book. It's just nonsense. Thanks again! --Karljoos (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To address your points:
1. The agency page and other webpages that you initially put are not proper, objective 3rd-party references. References are books, journal articles, newspaper articles, radio features, for example, with cited authors and dates that are traceable; in short, publications with no particular vested interest in the subject at hand. However, they are accessible external links, which is why I moved them into the "External links" section. An artist's own agency biography certainly does not qualify as objective, for one.
2. Putting lists of ensembles with whom any conductor (not just Ivor Bolton) has appeared has no meaning, because all guest conductors guest-conduct a variety of orchestras, opera companies and ensembles in their lifetimes. To list all such guest-appearances by any given conductor would take up space that can be devoted to particular achievements that are unique to that conductor or artist, and make all conductor biographies extremely redundant and resembling one another. One example of an exception to that would be if the conductor first appears with "ensemble X", and subsequently is named its chief conductor.
Thanks for the note and for your time, DJRafe (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Points taken. Thank you. You seem to know a lot about these things and maybe you could have a look at the following article Giorgi Latsabidze. I am concerned about the tone of the article and the résumé-like lists at the end. I'd be grateful if you could check it. Cheers. --Karljoos (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Please don't take offense, but I am going to take out the list of ensembles again. When you had restored them, the agency page and the Bach Cantatas page are needlessly duplicated in the references along with the external links. However, I will try to find more references on Ivor Bolton that might be useful for the wikipedia article. I will respond on Giorgi Latsabidze below. DJRafe (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I did already. Thanks --Karljoos (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the response on my talk page.Music43lover (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have continued to think about the "excessive quotes" problem that you called attention to, and your suggestion to use Wikiquote may be a good solution. I am considering retaining only a representative set of the review extracts and their translations on the article itself, and then providing a link reference to "similar" review extracts that could be placed on Wikiquote. Do you consider this a good approach? By the way, I have been using strictly my own translations of the included review extracts and, of course, including the corresponding original language text in each case. (I have completed only three of them thus far, but plan to do additional ones as the originals become available to me.)

I notice that a user named Augenblick has removed your "resume" banner. I would not have done that myself, but would hope that you would either remove it yourself or provide some guidance as to where you believe that the article was being less than objective. I can see from your background that any advice that you would provide would be of value and, as I am a beginner on Wikipedia, all help is greatly appreciated.Music43lover (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite interesting that user:Augenblick09 has only edited Giorgi Latsabidze (check his/her contributions) and that he logged in only to remove the "résumé" tag, don't you think? Don't feel offended but I will ask an administrator to find out if you're using a suck puppet to promote your view on this article.
Anyway... Problems with the article; some examples:
"Latsabidze is already regarded by many as one of the more significant performers of his generation is WP:AWW.
"(...) it was not long before his evident abilities had attracted enough recognition that he began to receive financial support from (...)".
"(...) has studied with numerous great teachers, including Professor (...).
"(...) Latsabidze has pursued an ambitious performance schedule (...)".
"an audition with the famous Georgian Conductor Jansug Kakhidze".
"(...) one of the leading musical channels in Europe.".
"The details of some of these and other notable concert appearances are shown below, as are excepts from some of the resulting performance reviews in the media.". Please use prose and not lists. Remember, this is NOT a Résumé.
All the lists, with all the information etc are not neccesary, provide far too much information and detail. A complete list of all masterclasses attended is info for a CV, not for an article. Please open a reputable encyclopedia or the Groves and find an article about a performer and you will see what is a good article about a performer.
I hope it helps. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos - thank you for providing the above specific problem examples, which are very helpful in understanding the nature of your objections. I would like to discuss some possible correction approaches with you at a later time. (I need to pick up my wife at the airport later this morning and can't take the time right now.)

However, I would like to immediately reassure you that I have no knowledge of or known relationship with your suspected "sock puppets" Augenblick09 and Jeunesbarbara. The only change Jeunesbarbara has made to the subject article was to add the Georgian spelling of the Latsabidze's name to the first line, which I thought was a friendly edit and might be useful to somebody. I followed up on her talk page and asked her what method she had used to access a Georgian keyboard, and she provided an answer on her talk page. (I have since found much more efficient methods. I may need to type in some of the Georgian review extracts myself if I can't find an OCR program or get help somewhere.) Augenblick09's contributions to the article have been more numerous, but of a simple and consistent nature. He (or she) added a large number of links to the article, mostly to the names of specific compositions that were mentioned as parts of Latsabidze's past public performances. I thanked him for the contribution on his talk page, although I also pointed out to him that some of these added links seemed redundant, and I removed those additions. I also had to spend some time correcting the method that he used to add the links, which did not properly link to existing Wikipedia articles. I have noticed on your talk page that you have had problems with "sock puppets" before in some of your articles, so perhaps you have some justification in your suspicions. My own more benign reaction was that these individuals were likely two of the many fans of Latsabidze that are just trying to be helpful, although, as I pointed out above, I do not think that removing your "résumé" tag was a helpful or wise act on his part. If these individuals are vandalizing your other articles, I seriously disapprove of such behavior.

Your totally unfounded accusation that I am the same individual as these two others has no basis that I can see, and is highly insulting. I would not personally make such an accusation without some evidence gathered beforehand. You should try to be less accusatory in your correspondence, which is after all a matter of public record. Of course, seeking help from the Wikipedia "management" is totally justified if you feel you are subject to vandalism. I will, on my part, attempt to retain a friendly tone, in the hope that you will continue to provide more useful assistance in the future. Music43lover (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos - I find that I am somewhat more angry about the tone of the personal accusations against me that you have placed on both my talk page and in the following article on yours. In the first instance, you accuse me of being Giorgi Latsabidze, the subject of the article. This is hardly justified by any arguments that you present. In addition, if you refer to Wiki: No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, you will see that "speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense". In the second instance, below, you speculate that I am using two other user names as "sock puppets". I consider this a serious accusation, and in the same article cited above, you will find the advice against "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." These remarks of yours are both instances covered by the statement that "some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable", found in the same referenced English Wikipedia policy. I am attempting to keep the discourse on my contributions on a professional level, and you will help if you follow the relevant Wikipedia guidelines on personal attacks. Music43lover (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry If you felt I was personally attacking you. I expressed my concern about editors who up to that time seem to be single-purpose editors. I have some experience dealing with editors creating their own articles, single purpose and users using several user-accounts. Seeing the way you were promoting the notability of the article I asked you if you had a conflict of interest. Maybe I shouldn't had asked you directly if you're this or that person, but just ask you if you had a conflict of interest. Again, I’m sorry if I offended you. This doesn't mean, of course, that I will not pursue improvements towards a neutral Giorgi Latsabidze's article and will not report any possible sock puppet user. --Karljoos (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your apology above is not adequate. I didn't "feel" that you were personally attacking me. Your statements were a clear violation of Wikipedia's relevant guidelines, as I clearly pointed out above. You were attacking me. I suggest that you attempt to stick to more constructive suggestions on ways that the Latsabidze article can be improved, rather than pursuing some other irrelevant agendas. In this connection, please see my questions regarding your recent suggestions on the Latsabidze article. Music43lover (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos, you might also want to contact User:Grover_cleveland. He has a broad understanding of Wikipedia policies and is the most knowledgeable and dedicated editor I know of - at least as far as classical music articles go.THD3 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the remaining "peacocks" so that the banner can remain off. Music43lover (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your recent reversal. Whether Giorgi currently is an American resident or not seems like a minor point to add or debate. He actually has a green card and is here on an approved immigrant visa for permanent residency (not on a student visa). He plans to apply for citizenship as soon as he can and stay here. His approved application was supported by an amazingly long list of testimonials from highly placed educators, performers and other personages in the classical music field, since the justification for the green card was the claimed expectation for Latsabidze to bring future honor to the U.S. through his anticipated activities in classical music composition and performance. Some of the more easily recognizable sources of the testimonials: Ernest Fleishchmann, Jaime Ingram, Juaquin Soriano, Jeanette de Boer, Lev Natochenny, Klaus Kaufmann, Igor Lazko, Sergei Dorensky, George Sava, and many, many more. I suppose that I could put a few dozen of these on PDF's for references and create a whole story about that, but we have enough issues already, so let's let it lie. Music43lover (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. You have access to great sources regarding Giorgi Latsabidze! It's amazing. I think that even when his student-visa expires and he obtains his green card and becomes a legal resident in the States, there's no reason to include that he is a resident in the US in the lead of the article.--Karljoos (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree totally. Incidentally, despite the rocky start to our collaboration, I do appreciate your contributions to this and other classical music articles and issues on Wiki English. Anyone that has your evident devotion to fine music and performance is obviously worth my attention, and I hope that you will continue to offer your contributions and criticism. I have written many technical articles in the course of my career in engineering, but have never before attempted an encyclopedic one with its special requirements, so it is a learning process for me, and I appreciate the patience and assistance that this has required from you and others on Wiki English. Thank you. Music43lover (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Karljoos. Giorgi has not yet graduated from USC Thornton. He still has about a year to go to complete his DMA. So the category you added for "USC alumni" may be premature. Coincidentally, my wife and I were invited to a celebration last Thursday evening of Thornton's 125 year anniversary. They served dinner, cocktails, champagne, etc. for the faculty, a few selected students and invited guests. Dean Cutietta began the formal ceremonies with a brief history of Thornton through the years and its illustrious alumni, contributions to Los Angeles culture, etc., and then he finished with the rhetorical question "But what can we say that Thornton is doing now?" ... The spotlight slid over from the center podium to the corner of the ballroom, where there was a concert grand piano ... and Giorgi Latsabidze played Liszt's "Grand Galop Chromatique" which you might recall as a brief, but dazzling piece. Cutietta continues ... "That was Giorgi Latsabidze, a student here that epitomizes what Thornton has been and still is about, musical excellence." (The quotes are from memory, but capture the gist of his remarks.) Of course, that is not the first time I have seen Latsabidze perform. I imagine that such direct experience must make it somewhat more challenging to maintain a neutral POV, so please continue to keep me straight. Music43lover (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply to your request on the Latsabidze article. Frankly, given the history on that article, it's not worth my time (or yours) to edit it, because the "groupie"/s who can't grasp the concept that Wikipedia is not forum for personal fan-pages will just undo any changes that I make. I am extremely suspicious that one person has obsessively taken it upon him/herself to undo any constructive changes (i.e. toning down) to make the article acceptable. I reiterate what I had said before: the article is terrible, and doesn't even belong on Wiki English. I don't even know who Giorgi Latsabidze is, and from reading the article, this person has not made enough of an impact on the world of music to be worth an article on wikipedia, IMHO (FWIW). Thanks for reading, DJRafe (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos - I am sorry to read that you have health issues, and wish you a swift return to good health. I notice that you have not offered any recent criticism or suggestions on this article, and I hope that does not reflect a loss of interest on your part. I hope that you don't agree with the preceding rant. If the "one person" that he refers to is me, I challenge him to point to a single instance in which I undid a constructive change to the article. In fact, I have accepted and attempted to assist in all changes (e.g., removing "peacock" terms, reducing the number and length of quotes, citing references where required or deleting unreferenced statements) that could improve the article and enhance its NPOV. If he doesn't know Latsabidze, that fact is not a criterion for notability as far as I can tell, and my careful read of notability on Wikipedia leaves no possible doubt on the notability score for Latsabidze. If the article is currently poorly written, that reflects on my inexperience, not on the article's subject, and I plan to spend some time revising the article to make it more similar to other biographical articles on Wikipedia (without all those lists or review quotes). Who are you asking for advice? Music43lover (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I suspect there’s a case of sock puppetry. Here’s what’s happening:

1. I rose serious doubts about the objectivity of the article Giorgi Latsabidze and tagged it as being close to a résumé and almost advertising. I left a message to user: Music43lover regarding my concerns about the article, the tone of the article and the fact that he’s not edited any other article.
2. Another user (Augenblick09), who also has never edited any article other than Giorgi Latsabidze’s article removed one of the tags without giving reason.
3. I found that two of the articles I started, Alberto Nosè (please visit it and tell me if it is promotional or unsourced!), had been tagged as promotional and not citing references (!!!!) by another single purpose user User:Jeunesbarbara. This user has only edited Giorgi Latsabidze (several times) and the other article cited.

How can I find out if these three users are all the same person? What can I do about it? Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:SPI - if you think that your reasonings justify a check, request it there. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karljoos, (second try) I think there are still few more external sources to use. You have listed only one in Aleberto Nose's article. I know Alberto Nose in person, and know about him quite a few things. I think you offended me by saying that I only edited Giorgi Latsbaidze's Article because I have started editing Lazar Berman's, Yundi Li's and still plan to continue. I am originally from Japan, I am a pianist too. I studied with Mr. Berman and Arie Vardi, teacher of Yundi Li in Hannover. I was quite successful but not like Yundi Li. I know Giorgi too since he got his degree in Hannover and additional to that I went to his concert in Berlin and I will not forget that. Finally, Wikipedia is a new think for me (i just started) and I know no one is perfect here. Please excuse me if I did something wrong, however, I would like to ask you to be more polite. I see you got a doctoral degree in violin? Congratulations!!!-- Jeunesbarbara (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeunesbarbara (talk • contribs)

No, my PhD is in Sociology. I have an Artist Diploma from an American conservatory and a MMus from an English conservatoire in viola. There's no way to prove that you have studied with this and that teacher, and quite honestly, here it doesn't matter, because it's all about independent sources. If I tell you the conductors and soloists I met while playing in orchestras in the last 28 years you would not believe it, so what if you know him in person? What does it change? The article you tagged is a short article but it is referenced (six independent refs + 1 external link) and the tone is not promotional (I challenge you to indicate a single promotional/ unencyclopedic sentence in the whole article). About not being polite: saying facts clearly is not rude; I expressed my concerns directly, and if they offended you I am sorry (though I don’t see how). Congratulations for your piano studies.--Karljoos (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Mr. Karljoos. I don't have and need to prove anything here. I dedicated all my life to music and people I 've been working with know about this. The fact that I have studied with some great teachers and not only study but met wonderful musicians remain truth. I don't have to explain you why, where, who..ect... By the way your article about Richard McMahon way too short. I have added some info there. Overall, you have done some interesting work in wiki as I see, but don't act like an expert here. Your last writing is still unfriendly: "I count six external sources and one external link. How's this article not sourced??????" I must say that if you remain unfriendly and not respectful I will ask administrator of Wikipedia to put a tag on your user name, because it's unacceptable correspondence in here and violates Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Jeunesbarbara (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Richard McMahon was too short. It was a short stub. Thank you for improving it.--Karljoos (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if you think you have to report anything, please do so. Please visit Wiki: Wikiquette alerts. Cheers. --Karljoos (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks for letting me know the link:Wiki: Wikiquette alerts although I knew how to do that. Please try to improve your Richard McMahon article. It still needs more polishing. I got a message from Music43lover He seems very unhappy and discouraged from the correspondence with you. Please be respectful to your colleges. I am a professional musician who knows something about classical music and especially have a quite knowledge in the piano field. I see there are some other articles you have created and they need a better work (from my point of view). Now, before you start judging me or someone else, first look at the article like Richard McMahon's you have created (before I added) and ask yourself if you are qualifying to be a good adviser. Moreover, you don't have to be offensive to someone. I still want to remain friendly to you and thank you for understanding. Please remember that being a good editor requires certain skills and I think you have a potential to be a good editor, but before that you need to change your attitude my dear friend! Thank you and bye Jeunesbarbara (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Genki! As you can read, the list of articles on my user-page are listed under "Articles I started". They're the seed for a complete good article. Not all articles are at the same stage of development and I do not pursue all articles I start further than the "start" stage. I can assure you something: no article I created can be said to be promotional/subjective or to lack third part independent sources. Asking myself that question you wanted me to ask myself I can tell you: yes, I have experience on certain aspects of this magic world of Wikipedia and can share it with newcomers such as yourself (I can see you've been a registered user on wikipedia for less than a month) so they can make better articles. PEACE! --Karljoos (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos, I have some experience in dealing with sockpuppets (and was falseley accused of being one last month). If you suspect someone is sockpuppeting, it's best to simply gather your evidence and submit it. Be prepared, also, for a retaliatory investigation on yourself. The administrators can check the IP addresses and verify whether someone is sockpuppeting.THD3 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.--Karljoos (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Maria Rosa Calvo-Manzano, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have added sources that suggest that the person is notable. I have discussed them on the article's talk page. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wiki: Articles for deletion. Thanks! --CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 86.152.8.22. Unfortunately, there was a problem with your filing and it has been rejected. Please see Wiki: Abuse reports/86.152.8.22 for details on why the filing was rejected. You may also review filing criteria for abuse reports filings.   bsmithme  04:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Karljoos, I've contested the deletion of Florent Charpentier. My reasoning's on the talk page (based partly on new information added). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Entincelles and I hope to create a new Wikiproject, entitled: Romantic Pianism. The project aims to improve and create pages about the Romantic Era of music. We would be delighted if you could show your support by signing your name on the proposal page and helping us to launch this project.--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) and -- Etincelles (talk), 5:04 pm, 16 September 2009 (UTC+1)

I am not sure how to get a rating from the project's quality scale for Borodin Scherzo page, please could you advise me on how to do it. --Etincelles (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know.--Karljoos (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I am concerned about the notability of Navah Perlman for the reasons I explained here. I really think it is wrong to have an article about a person whose merit is just being the daughter of someone famous. Now, the person who started the article (who's also an administrator) objected to the deletion by removing the "prod" tag, and has not discuss his/her objections. I know I can't re-nominate the article, but I think is wrong to have this article on wikipedia. What can I do? How can I have the article re-reviewed by an administrator? Cheers--Karljoos (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If the user has contested the PROD, you can list the article at Articles for Deletion to have it discussed. If you have any further questions:

• Leave a message on my talk page; or
• Use another {{helpme}} here; or
• Talk to us live, with this or this. ∙ AJCham^(talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the first AfD nomination -- the PROD doesn't count. I'll move it to the correct title when you're finished setting it up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, thank you. No hard feelings. Just think this article should not be here. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
None whatsoever. We'll see what the community thinks over the next week -- if it's a clear delete, I'll close it myself, but I suspect it will be no consensus at worst. Actually, while we're on the subject of music, would you mind chiming in at Talk:Ave Maria (Vavilov) regarding the correct naming of the article? I think it should be at Vavilov, but there's a possible case for "Caccini" as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Comment" is better, but you could also say "Delete as nom" to make it clear that you already not-voted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Karljoos. I left my comment on the deletion of the Navah Perlman article on the relevant discussion page. Thanks for bringing me into it. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I hope you don't mind I copied your comment to the talk of the main article. It is more "visible" there now. --Karljoos (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I found it very misleading, so I removed it. I think I'll re-open the discussion, though, since "no outstanding deletes" is no longer accurate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am planning on creating a new article entitled Carmen Variations (Horowitz). Do you think this would be too specific? --Etincelles (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is a good idea. Don't forget to mention Volodo's version! ;) --Karljoos (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't, thanks for your support. --Etincelles (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Question: Is it acceptable to tag users as {{Notable Wikipedian}} in articles when the editor's username is the same as the biographic article they're editing? I am asking because I have found some single purpose editors whose user name is the biographic article's name they edit and I think the community should be aware of the possibility of a CoI.--Karljoos (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be polite to ask the editor if they are the subject of the biography, but that's usually how the tag is used, yes.  Skomorokh  05:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done that in the past and I've been accused of violAting Wikipedia's policy by especulationg about an editor's real identity. Do you think it's OK just to tag the article and then notificate the editor that I've tagged him for this ot that reason and inform him that he can remove the tag if he is not that person?--Karljoos (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be like writing chapter two of a book to separate this article: Nocturnes Op. 55 (Chopin), into two different articles?--Pianoplonkers (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The "complete book" is the Op.55, which includes two nocturnes.--Karljoos (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks anyway--Pianoplonkers (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Nocturne Op. posth. in C minor doesn't exist. You might be interested in starting this article ;) --Karljoos (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I haven't heard that one. But I will keep it in mind--Pianoplonkers (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the Babayan page. I did some work on it two years ago, but have been reluctant to touch it lately because a pupil of his is one of my closest friends.THD3 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, Catalan conductors is a subcategory of Spanish conductors, because of this I left only catalan conductors. --Estrat (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. They are not exclusive. You may leave both. I suggest you do leave them. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I would be glad to help. Would you like it to be based around the Royal Academy of Music or was that just an example? Also, would you like me to make it for you or shall I explain it to you step by step?--Pianoplonkers (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could explain me how to make them. Yes, I want to start one for users who are alumni of the RAM, and also for students of the Juilliard School, Curtis Institute and for students of German Hochschules. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Firstly, you need to create a template.
2. Then make the userbox in this template. Use this code for a start: {{Userbox |COLOUR OF BORDER AND LEFT BOX|COLOUR OF RIGHT BOX |LEFT HAND BOX IMAGE |RIGHT HAND BOX TEXT}}. This will then create a userbox of your design.
3. You then need to add a catagory to this template: [[Category:NAME OF CATAGORY]].
4. You will then be able to add this: {{TEMPLATE NAME}} to your userpage or article and it will appear as the userbox that you have created and also add the catagory at the bottom of the page.

I hope this helps! If not then I will try to explain it again, but it worked for me! If it does work then send me a link so I can see it. Thanks--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I've been reverting some changes (unencyclopedic, POV) at the RCM's article by an unregistered user who kept undoing them. Now, a new registered user has reverted the same changes I keep reverting (their only edit). The problem is that the user has chosen as user name User:HighHorseKarljoos, which I do find offensive. How can I report this to make this user change the username? Cheers--Karljoos (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go and file a report at WP:UAA. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm feeling abit lost in that page and I really don't understand how to list it. Could you help me to list the username or give me the template I should use to include the name. Thank you very much for your help--Karljoos (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the account, since the username is obviously an attack. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help --Karljoos (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Did it work?--Pianoplonkers (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pianoplonkers. I haven't tried it yet...I haven't had much time to edit. I will try it this weekend. Thank you for your help--Karljoos (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit at Alicia de Larrocha which added the template {{Spanish name 2}} (which BTW is a REDIRECT to {{Spanish name}}):

I'm not overly familiar with Spanish family names, but after reading up on it at Spanish naming customs, I believe your usage is not quite correct. As I understand it, her first family name is LARROCHA or possibly DE LARROCHA (but the DEFAULTSORT should be "Larrocha" in any case), and her second family name is CALLE or possibly DE LA CALLE, but not, as you specied it Y DE LA CALLE. See i.a. José Ortega y Gasset and Carlos Salinas de Gortari. Maybe you can raise this matter at Wiki talk:WikiProject Spain for a definitive answer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I asked a colleague from Spain and he says that in the spanish national id cards surnames are included with "de"s, "de la"s and "y"s, but when listed they're listed by the main word, so Alicia de Larrocha de la Calle would be first name Alicia and surname de Larrocha and de la Calle, and when listed by surname it would be under L (from Larrocha), not under D (from de).--Karljoos (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I thought that, with your help, we could help improve Steinway Model D-274 until you are satisfied that it is worthy enough to be a satisfactory article. I have requested that it can be reestablished. Thanks (sorry about the wording of this question!)--Pianoplonkers (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article here. Do you think it's ready for the main wikipedia section? --Etincelles (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is obviously ready. It's a good article. I have suggestions:

1. The article says that the variations were "(..) transcribed and preformed by (..)"... in the variations there's as much transcription as composition! I am not really sure if they should be called a composition or a transcription. Maybe you could ask a musicologist.
2. It also says that "(...) of Horowitz's many transcriptions the variations were the only to remain in his repertoire throughout his career.". I am not really sure about that. He performed often his transcription of "Stars and Stripes Forever" and Listz's "Second Rhapsody".
3. If you can, provide more external references.
4. I suggest you use the following template to cite your sources:

As I said, I don't see any major problem. Thank you for your (and Pianoplonkers's) contributions.--Karljoos (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice but Horowitz only played "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" in 1952 and 1953 and only played "The Stars forever from 1945 to 1951. --Etincelles (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From previous experience I have found that it is best to follow the guidelines outlined Wiki: Template messages/User talk namespace when warning vandals, especially ones like User talk:82.219.5.116. If they have not received the explicit warning messages (increasing in level) they may not be blocked until they have recieved the relevant number and severity of warning messages.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and your advice. What this unregistered did was not really vandalism. He added info that was not good enough for the article (POVs), but it was well-intentioned. But yes, I will use the template next time.--Karljoos (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I should have looked at that particular edit in more detail. The other edits from that IP tend not to be well-intentioned. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He raises a good point about that football club anthem. I was going to nominate for deletion but then I remembered the passions associated with football clubs in Europe, so I'm not so sure it would be safe! :) JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll be fine. Be brave! ;)--Karljoos (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that I was signed out when I edited this article today [1]. I declined the proposed deletion notice as I think it's not an uncontroversial deletion. I've added better sources, recordings, and cleaned it up (some of it was in German and appeared to have been pasted from somewhere). If you still think it ought to be deleted, feel free to take it to Articles for deletion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the article. This is always a bit problematic. I always have the same doubt: Do all professional musicians (singers, instrumentalists, conductors etc) active as performers deserve an article? For every professional concert/opera musician/singer it is possible to find sources on the Internet... With my real name on the internet there are over 55.000 articles about concerts, master-classes etc I gave before retiring. Do I deserve an article? No! In the world of music I am "lower middle class", almost a worker (yes an "orchestral" worker, but a worker) and don't deserve an article (I had to convince one of my former students not to write one on the German Wikipedia). I don't think that giving recitals, playing sometimes as soloist or being a member of a prominent orchestra is enough to have an article... there has to be something else, because there're tens of thousands of musicians with careers like that. Going back to Robert Merwald: he's also a worker. He's still young and has no real relevance in the classical music world; he hasn't had any impact yet. Does he deserve an article just because there're sources? Just because he acts in musicals or sings secondary roles in operas? There has to be a limit, don't you think? Sorry about the rant, but I just had to take all that off my chest. Now, following strictly Wikipedia’s rules and with the latest improvements I think there's no reason to delete this article, so I won't pursue this. Thank you.--Karljoos (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That's OK, rant away.;-) I think it might not survive an AfD, given the lack of independent coverage about him and verification of having won the Meistersänger-Wettbewerb. But normally opera singers who have won a major competition and sung at least two leading roles in opera houses tend to pass. For his voice type, I'd consider Papageno and Albert to be leading roles, although the opera houses in this case are pretty second tier. Anyhow, that's why I thought it didn't quite qualify for a Prod. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your edits to Fernando Sor. Specifically your revert of my edit (you are right of course, thank you for the correction)  ! Anyway, I plan on getting that article to at least 'good' quality. I'll be rewriting most of the body at some point and expanding the lead, using an entry in this. If you would like to make any more improvements, I would be grateful. Happy editing! Jujutacular ^T · C 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you find us "dark" as partner accounts? We are friends and we want people to recognise that we do a lot of editing together. I do not see how you find this a bad thing. The reason why we vote together is because (i know it sounds cheesy) friends should stick together and we often believe the same thing.--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to see you blocked because you have made good contributions, and that is why I am telling you this here instead reporting it to start an official investigation. I have serious doubts about the way your account is managed. In August you (User talk:Pianoplonkers) were blocked for 24 hours because of the use of puppet User:Rachmaninoffrus[2]). You used to talk about yourself using the third plural person ([3] see section "Royal 'we'?"). Later, you explained that several persons were using the same account (see "Royal 'we'?" again). Then you said that each user using the account User talk:Pianoplonkers got their own account and that you formed a "partnetship": Pianoplonkers + Egemont (talk) + Etincelles (talk). I want to think that there are other persons behind those accounts, and they are not puppets. However, you have tried to use your “partner”-accounts to win a poll. This is not acceptable and, if not a case of puppetry, it is definitely a case of meat puppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet). This is why I said that your partnership is “dark”. Please think about it.--Karljoos (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. --Kleinzach 03:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my proposal here. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You PRODded this article in October, and it was deleted. The author Johnabdl (talk · contribs) has asked for its restoration, which per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion is automatic on request. I have therefore restored it, and told him I would notify you in case you wanted to consider taking it to AfD; please notify him if you do. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I added my two cents on the AfD page. Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation in Puerto Rico.THD3 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos, I left my comment on the AfD page. Thanks for calling me to join the discussion. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's always good to have the opinion of intelligent and dedicated editors.--Karljoos (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karljoos

I have proposed that Category: Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award recipients, which you created, shoukd be deleted. Your input would be welcome in the discussion at Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:Hanno_R._Ellenbogen_Citizenship_Award_recipients. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Category:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your input would be welcome in the discussion at Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:Primrose_International_Viola_Competition_prize-winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you have a great new year too! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karljoos

I have proposed that two categories which you created — Category:Besançon International Music Festival and Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition — should both be deleted. Your comments would be welcome in the discussion at Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Category:Prize-winners_of_the_Besan.C3.A7on_Conducting_Competition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Karljoos

As you can see, I have nominated for deletion (at WP:CFD) several prize-winner categories which you created.

Please can you refrain from creating any other similar categories until we have established what the consensus is on these ones?

Thanks! -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you refrain from nomitaing categories? --Karljoos (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The categories you have been creating are of a type which there has usually been a consensus to delete, per WP:OC#AWard-winners. If consensus changes, I won't nominate them for deletion ... but unless it changes, then you are simply creating categories which will be deleted. That doesn't help anyone, so why not hold off creating them until we see how consenus forms on these one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the music competitions you are nominating are not awards, as in Nobel Prizes. They are a prize given to winners of a contest, in the way of Miss America, the FIFA Corldcup, Eurovision etc. I think no good comes from these nominations. --Karljoos (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What matters here is not whether you or I think that these categories are a good idea or a bad idea, but whether there is a consensus to keep them. All I am asking is that if the consensus is to delete them you respect that consensus by not creating more similar categories, and that you hold off creating new similar categories until these have been discussed.
Recent precedents include:
1. Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Native_American_Music_Award_Winner
2. Wiki: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_20#Category:Poker_Hall_of_Fame_members
3. Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:Hanno_R._Ellenbogen_Citizenship_Award_recipients
4. Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:Primrose_International_Viola_Competition_prize-winners
The last two very created by you, and while you may be right that competitions are different to prizes, I note that the viola competition winners was deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Operalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Karljoos. I've added my opinion on the relevant AfD page. Once again, thanks for calling me into the discussion. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I have nominated the above page for deletion. I welcome your input at the article's deletion page.THD3 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

All due respect, article on Mark Birnbaum is backed up references that are easily verifiable; Mark Birnbaum is a notable musician with a track record. It is unfair amd unjust. to delete this entry. Watch him on youtube, check his cd's at cd baby and amazon, his Doctorate from Columbia University, or just watch his numerous performaces from 20 years ago (on youtube) when he worked on Joe Franklin WWOR-TV. All the Best(Markjmarkj (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)).

I am sorry, but not every professional musician deserve an article. He has made no impact in the music world. Also, a PhD doesn't grant authomatic notability, millions of people have one (I have a PhD myself!) and please put new messages at the bottom of the page (it would be very appreciated). Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this and make or request any improvements to it please. Thanks--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  Hello. It appears from the edits listed here that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence a aeries of discussions at WP:CFD (including Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition, Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Category:Operalia, #Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and Wiki: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition).

While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no way to know if they think the same way i do, how could I know? I only know that the persons contacted are interested in classical music. I invited them to give their opinion (whatever it is) AND to develope a new guideline to categories related to music competition, and haven't invite them to opine one way or another.--Karljoos (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of the discussion on the above competitions. (I must tell you, personally, that I believe the preponderance of competitions is one of the worst things to happen in music over the last 60 years--although it may be a marketer's dream). In any event, I voted to keep the Leeds and Busoni, and delete the O'Shea (which I think refutes this whole Canvassing thing).THD3 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole canvassing thing is nonsense, but I don't think I will say anything more about it in the discussion. It is the power of bureaucracy over knowledge on subjects: it doesn't matter if you don't know anything about the topic (for example thinking that the Leeds Competition is a minor competition) as long as you know the "rules" of wikipedia. (I agree with you: competitions are a horrible thing, but unfortunately they are the only way today. When I was starting in the profession there were other ways: while still a student I started playing off-stage percussion in a small opera house in Austria then moved to the viola tutti and then moved to other orchestras. That'd be impossible nowadays! About 10 years ago I was in the panel of auditions of my orchestra (a major American orchestra in the east coast) and the CV of every person auditioning for a tutti seat was almost as good as the CV of an international soloist, with prizes in several competitions). Thank you for your contribution. All best. --Karljoos (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• This canvassing issue is not nonsense, though I accept your statement that it was done without intent. Because of what you did, I've had to close all of those discussions as administratively tainted. Your message was not neutral (you mentioned certain categories were being "targetted", implying some sort of hunting metaphor) and you limited your actions to notifying specific editors, rather than a general notification. This is a textbook example of inappropriate canvassing. I appreciate that you want people with knowledge about the subject to participate, but remember that Wikipedia subject areas are not controlled by experts or those with specialized knowledge, and there are more neutral ways of encouraging participation from those who may have interest or expertise in an area. I also appreciate the desire to prevent categories you have created from being deleted, but this was an inappropriate response. If you didn't know this before—now you do, so I trust it won't be a problem in the future. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend. Regarding Jordi Savall, do you personally know him? My father does. And be sure Jordi Savall will be proud to say he is Catalan. Why don't you ask him? Regarding wikipedia articles, Catalan is a valid adjective that can be used for any person from Catalonia and who is proud of that. The fact it is not an official nationality is already reflected when we accept to keep "Spain" as the birth place. Maybe this is not important for you, and you are tired of national discussions, but it is important for many other persons. Please be kind to understand it. --Jordiferrer (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have worked with him, but I can't say I know him. Even if I knew him and he told me that he is Catalan, it doesn't change the fact that Catalonia is not a country. Facts are facts. It is a fact that Catalonia is not a country (and no catalan nationality is possible) and that it is part of Spain. I am sorry if some people are unhappy about Catalonia not being a country (I had a summer house in Catalonia and I know that not all catalans like the idea of Catalonia being a nationality) but 1) Wikipedia is not the right place for propaganda and making nationalistic claims 2) Jordi Savall has a Spanish passport and not a Catalan passport 3) Facts are not to be changed because it is important for many other persons. If you have further comments regarding this article, please do it here. Best.--Karljoos (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you at this article to deal with the GA review? Or is it just coincidence that you have passed this way. I'm having a look to see how much work it aill be to save as a GA. a partner in this work would be much appreciated.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just "passing by". I think you're doing an excellent job with this article!--Karljoos (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You tagged Jose de Sousa Campos for speedy deletion as {{db-a2}}. I removed the tag because the only time {{db-a2}} can be used is if the article is "a foreign-language article that exists on another Wiki project", which this one isn't. I will replace the article with an English translation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I'll wait to see how the article develops but it doesn't seem that Jose de Sousa Campos is notable, so I might propose it for deletion in the future.--Karljoos (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Chopin! 2010 marks Chopin's 200th Birthday 22nd February / 1st March Étude Op. 25, No. 9 Etincelles

--Etincelles ^(talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

wow, that's really nice! Good job and happy Chopin-bday to you too!--Karljoos (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out Wiki: Articles_for_deletion/Steinway_D-274, if interested. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Karljoos - I see that you've aready added two more articles to Category:Concertmasters, which I just created a couple of hours ago. (Long overdue -- I'm amazed that nobody had thought to create it before now!) I just read your User page and saw that you are interested in conductors, so it occurs to me that you might want to have a look at this CFD on renaming Category:Conductors, where I've just made an alternate proposal - no canvassing implied! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the CFC and for creating Category:Concertmasters. I don't know what to think about the renaming... To be honest, I've never heard "conductor of music"; probably it is the right way to say it (obviously! the conductor does conduct the music), but it's definitely not often used. Also, I can't think of any other kind of "conducting" profession.--Karljoos (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I would be grateful if an experience editor or administrator could have a look at the following templates: Template:Purveyors to the Russian imperial family and Template:Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court. As it is normal, there’re no sources in the template. Royal Warrant#Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court (of Austria-Hungary) (k.u.k. Hoflieferant) and Royal Warrant#Purveyors to the Russian imperial family have also no sources (I researched and I couldn’t find anything). I am concerned because both templates were started by an editor known for promoting a brand (which has been included both in Royal Warrant and the template), which has lead some editors, including myself to suspect a COI. In my opinion these templates have been created (once more) only to promote the name of the brand. What should I do? Where should I take this problem?--Karljoos (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:COIN. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 00:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have proposed the deletion of this entry for a very self effacing, brilliant chemist. I have known Chris for many decades, initially in the pharmaceutical chemistry field and latterly in industrial chemistry. I asked him to write a short piece explaining some of the more important work that he has done which has a significant contribution to ensuring we live in a clean world. Chris has always worked quietly in the background and generally has an aversion to any self-seeking or publicity of any sort. It is interesting that a person such as yourself seeks to eradicate any mention of him or his contribution to world science. He will be quite pleased to have his entry removed as he finds any acknowledgement of his talent an embarrassment. You say there is no mention of him or his work on search engines - I'm not surprised as this is quite deliberate on his part. If, however, you were involved in his area of expertise in either Europe or USA, you would find he is very well known indeed. It is true that he is not well liked either in Government circles (because of his work with Biofuels) or with Greenpeace and the like, who don't want power stations cleaned up they just want them all shut down. All of this is another subject and one on which he doesn't want to be drawn. I now have a different opinion of Wikipedia as it seems to be at the mercy of any radical who wants to suppress information that he or she doesn't agree with. A very sad situation. Geekiep (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the following points:
1) I did not propose the article for deletion. It was Phil Bridger. You should copy your note in his talk.
2) There're no sources, articles about his job etc that can help to establish his notability.
3) Remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (...). Please read Wiki: Verifiability.
4) What information is not agreed with here? Who's a radical? Nonsense.
If I were you, I would think it twice before writing messages like that. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I will think twice, but only because it seems to be futile. Silly me, obviously if Chris or I need to formulate a new biofuel or solve a complex chemical problem we should be talking to a violin player !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekiep (talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your friend (and you) isn't a notable subject, that's clear. Also, if you (and your friend) were so busy doing great things you would not be here wasting your time. Please stop bothering people and don't be so arrogant and ignorant: yes I was a violist (not a violinist, do you know the difference?) but I also have PhD in sociology. A PhD in chemistry or sociology is easy to get and it's available to anyone with a normal IQ, time to study and to do some research, but not everyone can play in a professional orchestra. Why don't you stop harrasing editors and continue playing with your schlenk tubes? --Karljoos (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, touched a sore nerve did we. Yes I do know the difference between a viola and a violin, I often chat to the guy who plays one, very well, in the underground station. I also have a PhD in sociology as well as one in Chemistry (which I can also spell) and qualifications in science subjects you probably wouldn't even be able to pronounce let alone understand. I'm sure the problems of the world will be solved by a fiddle player (or was that what Nero was doing when Rome burned ?) Don't worry I woun't be "harrasing" you again as you are of no consequence - play on, what the world needs is yet another musician.Geekiep (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said I will not be wasting more time on this disruptive user. I am deleting this section in a couple of days.--Karljoos (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note. As you may have noticed, my talk page is often very busy, and I have to frequently archive things to keen sane. My feedback on Templates, Steinway and Warrants is now in User talk:Chzz/Archive 19. Please do let me know if/when you'd like more tips or anything. Best,  Chzz  ►  06:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The block on User:Fanoftheworld has been lifted and he's been changing some infoboxes for classical and popular pianists to show the Steinway brand name as a "notable insturment." I have read the applicable template and I believe that adding the brand name is out of scope. User:Fanoftheworld has stated that it's justified as "custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated". I don't think of a Steinway grand piano as a custom instrument, unless it has been "customized" in some way (like special color, or other unique characteristic). What's your opinion?THD3 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course that's wrong! I agree with you. It's not the same the Strad of a violinist and the piano of the concert hall. In Europe, pianists are usually offered three pianos to try out before the concert (then the piano is tuned following the instructions of the pianist)... and I can tell you that most soloist will perform even if there's no Steinway. Unless the pianist plays only on her/his customized piano (as somo soloists do) or a historical piano there's no reason to be included in the infobox. Should it be included in the infobox of Roger Federer the kind of trainers he uses? This is just one more move of this SPA... I am really tired of dealing with him/her.--Karljoos (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've brought up this issue here. Infoboxes should not be in articles on Classical musicians anyway, unless there is a consensus on the article's talk page, so I am deleting the infoboxes and putting in a warning template.THD3 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have nominated the above article for deletion. I welcome your input, pro or con, here.THD3 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"they aren't notable enough for the list since they're not notable enough for their own article" - so you say. I am filling red links but can only fill them if they are there. The names you removed from the Weimar Hochschule (just an example) of course have an article in de-WP, just not (yet) in en-WP. Most of the winners of the Rheingau Musikpreis of the Rheingau Musik Festival (another example) have an article in German, not as many in English (yet). I would prefer to keep them - and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition: I don't want to edit your user page: Biograhpies, Celidibache. And I wonder why you don't link to Celibidache? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I should link it, of course!--Karljoos (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. There's a similar discussion here.--Karljoos (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I read the discussion and agree. How about de-WP? I started inserting inter-wiki-links but was cautioned - openly red being less confusing. The de:Hochschule für Musik Franz Liszt Weimar lists alumni in red and blue, and teachers in blue plus data. I agree that a bare name tells nothing about notability. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"they aren't notable enough for the list since they're not notable enough for their own article" - so you say. I am filling red links but can only fill them if they are there. The names you removed from the Weimar Hochschule (just an example) of course have an article in de-WP, just not (yet) in en-WP. Most of the winners of the Rheingau Musikpreis of the Rheingau Musik Festival (another example) have an article in German, not as many in English (yet). I would prefer to keep them - and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition: I don't want to edit your user page: Biograhpies, Celidibache. And I wonder why you don't link to Celibidache? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I should link it, of course!--Karljoos (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. There's a similar discussion here.--Karljoos (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I read the discussion and agree. How about de-WP? I started inserting inter-wiki-links but was cautioned - openly red being less confusing. The de:Hochschule für Musik Franz Liszt Weimar lists alumni in red and blue, and teachers in blue plus data. I agree that a bare name tells nothing about notability. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wiki: Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know how helpfull it will be, but thanks a lot.--Karljoos (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Karljoos,

While I was here, I notice that your talk page is quite long. Would you like me to set it up to automatically archive, with a box at the top showing the archive? If so, just let me know (here), after how many days of no new messages would you like sections to be archived - after 30 days? 60 days? Whatever. (Or if you don't want it, that's fine too!)  Chzz  ►  14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, Thank you for the offer. 60 days sounds fine. Thank you very much for your help with this and for all the times you've helped me!--Karljoos (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK - I've set up this page for auto-archiving, as discussed.

Normally, I prefer to explain how to do stuff, but in the case of archive set-up, it's easier to just do it for you. The voodoo to make it work is here; the bot should come along within about a day and kick things off.

It's set to 60 days (60d), you might want to change that. Note that a) it won't archive very small threads or things with no sigs in (ie no date) - you can cut those yourself and paste 'em into the archive page if you want.

So - that's about it; no action required, just let the bot do its thing, and - if I've done it correctly - all should be well. If it goes wrong, of course, give me a shout. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh - that worked, then! I hope that's OK; do let me know if you have any trouble.  Chzz  ►  06:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It works well! Thanks again!--Karljoos (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed your prod. This must be the one of the two most famous departments of music composition in the United States. If you must, send it to AfD or suggest a merger. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.

I'm glad you got the problem sorted, and thanks for letting me know.

In future, I suggest either filing a sock-puppet investigation WP:SPI or failing all that fuss, a quick post to WP:ANI with a mention of the previous incidents.

You might take comfort in the fact that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" (a quote from Charles Caleb Colton, apparently).

I'm taking a break from Wikipedia, so sorry I was not around to respond more directly and promptly. Best of luck with everything,  Chzz  ►  18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Goagainagain is new user who bears watching. If there's any evidence he's a sockpuppet for you-know-who, he should be immediately reported.THD3 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Trevor the Shredder (only one comment in a Steinway-related discussion) and User:Rerumirf (editing mostly Steinway-related articles) are good candidates too.--Karljoos (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Administrators can check their IP addresses, and find out if their activity is coming from the same user. If that's a case, I believe there's a way to block the IP address to they can't edit again, no matter what name they use.THD3 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Add User:Atlasofhome to the list of SPE/possible sockpuppets (only one edit on a Steinway article) of you-know-who.--Karljoos (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan has launched an investigation here.THD3 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Add User:Blackbirdflyaway to the list. He's edited the "Purveyors"-templated, re-adding Steinway.--Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Fanoftheworld have been blocked on Danish Wikipedia as a sockpuppet for the Danish user Zxcv. Zxcv is a Danish speaking person currently blocked for a number of reasons. User:Rerumirf ("Freemason" spelled backwards in Danish) is a sockpuppet of Zxcv. User:Blackbirdflyaway is most likely yet another sockpuppet of Zxcv; a "checkuser-check" has not yet been conducted, but a lot of evidence indicates a connection between the users. Zxcv has had a number of sockpuppets on Danish Wiki English. His/her interests are Steinway & Sons, Freemasonry and various royal families. Further, a tendency to get involved in fruitless discussions arguing that he/she is a lawyer ... --Pugilist (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. User:Fanoftheworld's interest in royal families is limited to the purveyors to the imperial/royal families, and always to include Steinway as a purveyor.--Karljoos (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
WOW, THAT'S AMAZING! He/she did the same thing on Danish Wikipedia, including all the imperial/royal families templates !!--Karljoos (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)!

I have mentioned this discussion on User:SarekOfVulcan's talk page.THD3 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Rerumirf is active again...--Karljoos (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another possible sockpuppet: User:Siliciustheone.THD3 (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The article should be blocked and only serious editors should be allowed to edit it.--Karljoos (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Siliciustheone is active again.--Karljoos (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Peoplefromarizona seems to have a substantial number of similarities with Fanoftheworld and other suckpuppets. --Pugilist (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not active on wikipedia anymore, but I just noticed that the article is back to its "old" style (the fanoftheworld style). I think, based on the kind of articles edited by the user, that the new major editor of this article (User:Peoplefromarizona) is a puppet of banned user User:fanoftheworld (who has continued editing the same article using User:Rerumirf and other accounts). Best.--Karljoos (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)