User talk:Graham1973

Most recent eruption should always be mentioned. It doesn't matter if it started last year. There are volcanoes, which started erupting some fifty years ago and erupt ever since but we still state the latest year of eruption, which is 2008 in this case. Details can always be mentioned in the article itself. -- Darwinek (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! --Catgut (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a reply at my talk page: User_talk:CosineKitty#Explorer_Articles. CosineKitty (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time answering this one, since I've never read the book and I can only find brief descriptions of it. Based on what I know, I'd go ahead and put it in the Gemini section for the appropriate time period, but with a note about this not being a Gemini rocket. RandomCritic (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since, according to your description, it's about a teenage genius and his girlfriend operating (I assume) outside the boundaries of a space program, I am doubtful whether the protagonists can be called astronauts -- it sounds like it puts the book into a different sort of subgenre, the kind that deals with genius inventors like Hans Zarkov or Richard Seaton or Tom Swift, Jr..

Thanks by the way for a lot of very good and helpful additions to List of fictional astronauts! RandomCritic (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Military space shuttle, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Military space shuttle. Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the spaceplane in question supposed to be orbit-capable? Is the mission experimental/exploratory, or is it routine? RandomCritic (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to this and this, The Adventures of Captain 'Space' Kingley is a 1951 publication. It looks to be in the same category as Dan Dare. RandomCritic (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't interpret any deletions as personal attacks; they are simply attacks on words, which are welcome to be attacked back (so we get a good article) :)

As for the Melk cadenza, I didn't see that in the bit I deleted although I did notice it in the footnotes. Now, I don't think cadenzas written by various people are themselves notable, unless they have features of interest or are of historical importance. But if you think this cadenza is important then put it back in!

Tell you what, let's have a section/paragraph about cadenzas written for this work and we'll put that in too. OK? Then it will be useful for people looking for cadenzas for it.

Thanks for your contributionsPhilip Howard (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good! I put in a lot of cadenzas that I found on the IMSP page for this work. I or you can add the others you mentioned, though I haven't seen those. Philip Howard (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop what you're doing to the season articles. I think it's making the appearance worse. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I was talking about this, where you added the unnecessary Image function. As for the spacing of the TOC, that's a good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm sorry I overreacted. I'm glad, actually, that you are working on the older articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, this edit is what I'm talking about. What you did is added an unnecessarily large white space in every single infobox, whereas before the image was centered. Think about the time period - there is no chance we'll get any other images to fill in that space. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you a reply at my talk page: User talk:Gildir#Your additions to the List of Fictional Astronauts. Gildir (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, once again, I've left you a reply at my talk page: User talk:Gildir#Your additions to the List of Fictional Astronauts. Gildir (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your reply, you're welcome. :-) Gildir (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Between us, I believe we have now updated the citation formats for all the references to books and journals on the list. :-) Gildir (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! As part of an attempt to clear our backlog of article assessment requests over at WP:SPACEFLIGHT, I took a look at Explorer 33 as you requested. I believe it is currently start-class (and meets four of the six B-class criteria), largely due to the short length of the article. If you would like me to have another look at it once its expanded, drop me a line! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you did some tweaking to this article. Most of which were done to edits done by this editor.[1] There are two big problems with the article, which aren't your fault, but I am just bringing to your attention.

1- The edits by Fi11222 propose a theory for the crash that doesn't match the NTSB report.[2] If the NTSB didn't blame the pilots, why is wikipedia?

2- The edits are copied largely verbatim from here and without sourcing.[3]. Take for instance this paragraph-

However, it is clear that the captain and flight engineer's irresponsible actions were to blame. They were experimenting with the autothrottle system, which supplied the instruments that measure the rotational speed of each engine's low pressure compressor. The cockpit voice recording contains the following conversation just prior to the number 3 engine exploding:

See WP:Plagiarism. After discovering this I reverted the article basically back to what it was before Fi11222 did their edits.

Something I've learned to do when I see suspicious edits- Check the article's edit history, check who the editor was, and if they don't have a long background at WP, do a google search to see if the article was copied from elsewhere.- William 14:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Graham1973/A Cambridge Mass has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Cambridge Mass, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have nominated the Bordesley railway station article for the 'Did you know' scheme. Best Wishes, Martin H. Heron (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just listening to this (for the first time) on YouTube, and it seems pretty awful, well-inclined as I am to Rubinstein. Apparently Rimsky-Korsakov described it as "either bad Beethoven or poorly-orchestrated Mendelssohn", and this seems fair enough to me. I haven't identified any thematic connections with Beethoven's 'Eroica'. Did not Rubinstein's title simply mean 'Heroic Fantasy', rather than 'Fantasy on the Eroica'. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this (recorded at the music festival I run in Slovakia). I am away from my books till end August but if I find anything more about the Fantasy I will let you know. Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! It's getting there, but I don't think it's quite C-class yet. It's missing a lot, unfortunately. It only relies on three sources. The meteorological history could be longer, and there could be more info for different areas. If you need any help getting sources, let me know! Keep up the good work though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• [4] - here is the official re-analysis info for the storm.
• [5] - Virginia-specific info
• [6] - Impact in Florida
• [7] - Monthly Weather Review, check page 5 and 6

Mostly, it just seems that the meteorological history is a little short (compare with this), and the impact should be a little more comprehensive. Also, the impact appears to be missing sources. It's just a lot of one-liners. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that source is probably your best bet. And yea, that article has been around for a while. It's only if you're trying to get it to GA that you should use all of those links. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, it's a neat format. Keep it up! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the new 25th Armored Division (United States) article and for working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of military-related topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some useful sources for many of the insignia for the British fictional units! Diagram of the fortitude patches and a list of some of the others. The latter list mostly contains real units - some of which were later re-activated for deception. Oh, to answer your question about barnstars - just copy/paste the whole of the barnstar code to wherever you wish to display it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham. The edits I undertook are very much a matter of taste, of course; my intention was just to bring the articles into line with some consensus current WP practice for classical music articles. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there aren't any cast-iron rules as such. The guidelines page gives general background advice. Existing articles vary in quality - older ones that haven't been revised are often out of step with the present consensus. I don't put myself forward as an authority on WP style, so treat anything I say with the same detached interest that I would were someone giving me their opinions! Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one tip, put the sources in alphabetical order of author surname - Best ---Smerus (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Graham1973. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:On The Beach66.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Graham1973. Really I'm a bit at a loss; while saying during the discussion that you had a fix underway, which would result in a new article covering all the units in one, to avoid the pseudo-unit issue, you then went away and did other things. I checked your contributions before I rolled up the deception XXXV Corps again and you'd done nothing further. Really - what do you expect me to do?- you ask everyone to hold off doing anything because your new article was to cover it, do no more on the new article, and then attack people who attempt to resolve the issue in the absence of any action from you. Happy to talk about this but as I say I'm not sure what you think I should have done. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is really that we're working at two different speeds - mine much faster than yours. Would you consider my finishing your draft article and mainspacing it?- that is a reasonable solution to both our concerns(?) Then I won't remain irritated by nonexistent formation articles and have the nagging temptation to do something about it.... Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you do not wish to act, do not complain about others doing so, when I have suggested a reasonable solution that would attempt to address both our concerns. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Graham. You may be interested to read Nick-D's comment on the same thread at my talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note that Nick-D is giving you very good suggestions on Buckshot's talk page, and continuing in your current line of editing is getting tendentious and disruptive. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham1973: I would invite you to clearly indicate what you feel you need an apology for. As other editors have indicated, I am begining to feel your conduct is becoming disruptive. I have attempted to suggest compromises, reflecting our different editing paces, and your responses could be considered taunts and Personal attacks. Please get to the point. Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graham, the Classical Music WikiProject looks very inactive. Volunteers are needed to help get it back on its feet. You appear to be quite active currently. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Bubka42 (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to British Eagle may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• //www.britisheagle.net/Routes-Maps-CE.htm |title=The Home of Eagle ... — Cunard Eagle Route Map] |publisher=britisheagle.net}}</ref><ref name="Eagle_34"/><ref name="MidAtlanticReturn"/><ref name="
• //www.britisheagle.net/Aircraft-By-Type.htm |title=The Home of Eagle ... — Eagle Aircraft by Type] |publisher=britisheagle.net}}</ref> formed part of the fleet during Eagle's 20 years of operation:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saudia Flight 163 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• title=Family Suing in Saudi Airliner Fire; Crew Found Partly at Fault]|last=Witkin|first=Richard|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=17 October, 1980}}</ref><ref name="

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am aware of the "cite news" citation template, but I am not in the habit of using them. I have read that the best articles usually stick to one or two citation styles (template or no template) so I am fine if the editors decide by consensus that, for that article, templates should be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham. I added a web cite ref to the article, and do not know if this would need tweeking. Pls R+R. Cheers. Sam Sailor (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Graham. I finally finished reading Ice by Shane Johnson, and the Apollo 20 CSM and LM are not named. Also, the reason only the commander is listed for Apollo 20 on List of fictional astronauts is that the other two crew members are historical astronauts (Slayton and Irwin). The Aitken Basin is referred to in the book by the fictional name "Marlow" as part of the book's alternate history. The fictional Bruce Cortney also served as CMP on Apollo 18 (alongside Haise and Gordon) in the back-story of Ice -- should that also be on the list? Gildir (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Syros may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[http://www.festivaloftheaegean.com/home.html Festival of the Agean] (Official website of the music festival that has been held on the island since 2005.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Études Op. 42 (Rautavaara), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seventh (music) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found:

1. "the super express bypass line to Forest Hills in Queens", \
2. "three lines in Queens- the "super. express .bypass"-from Sunnyside to Forest Hills, the south. east Queens line and the Jamaica Avenue "L" replacement", $"This Iink is known as the "super-express" bypass and would be built parallel to",
3. "The Queens bypass is the so-called "super express" and
4. "Soon, MTA officials said, such projects as the Queens Express Bypass may be trimmed substantially. This subway was designed to extend the 63d Street tunnel" at the NYT and I think
5. "The Queens bypass thrown out by Mayor Koch 10 years ago would not disturb those neighborhoods." at Newsday.

Do those help? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: You seem to call me a "troll" regarding wolf page and you revert my edits. I've discovered that a prime info source for page actually rates an appendix in what is probably the most significant federal document on wolves ever written. I'd like to have this fact discussed at some extent on the article's talk page. You want to revert my comments as a "troll." That's DAFT.

Please don't revert this discussion. Thank you. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wolf attacks on humans. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the fascinating link to Professor Hogwood's lecture. It was interesting that his talk follows our article almost point by point - even using some of the same quotes - yet his conclusion is almost the exact opposite - while we lean (along with most of the sources) toward a quasi-programmatic analysis of the piece, he adheres strongly to an abstract approach. Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Template:Unreferenced does it say that refs in the infobox don't count? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references only cover disabled access and how many people use the station. Neither of them cover anything that written in the main part of the article.Graham1973 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, where in Template:Unreferenced does it say that only the refs in the main part count? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to ref-improve.Graham1973 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tal Brenev. I've recently left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, in an attempt to revive the WikiProject. I will try to send a message to everyone on the list of participants, so as to get more suggestions and/or ideas. If you would like to participate, leave a message at the WikiProject Talk Page, or on my talk page. Thanks!

---Tal Brenev (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Knowles Paine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[As You Like It Overture (Paine)|''As You Like It'', Overture, op. 28

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You added a page for this work (by another composer I've never heard of)... but I really suggest it would be better to add this into the composer's page. I think that unless it is likely to become an immensely popular work, or to be very greatly enlarged, the amount of content is simply not enough for an article. If this is one of those "unknown gems" then just add a section to the composer page (at a glance I sensed that most of what he wrote was not very significant).

I am not a WikiPro, so ignore/correct if you wish. I just added a composer, possibly even more obscure: Walter Schulthess if you are interested.

Please reply here in sequence. Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you replied on my talk page, I have left a message there. Please 'watch' the page. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Whilst I don't oppose the creation of articles for lesser-known musical works, and am all in favour of collaboration, I do think that it is bad practice to create stub articles and just hope that someone else will add the references for you. If the work is notable, it should be possible for you to find the references yourself and add them when you create the article. Deb (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am very much in agreement with Deb here... of course the material is useful, but I do not think huge numbers of tiny pages (really not amounting to *articles*) are the most effective way to add this. In the case of an obscure composer, like Guy Ropartz, Thomas Täglichsbeck, or Walter Schulthess‎ (for example), it would be much more helpful to put the information directly into the list of compositions on the composer's page. After all, it's basically a list of movements, a composition date and a very short note. (Personally, I would just go to IMSLP to look at works.) I know there are musical works well worth a single article, but even away from the obscure: if you look at Brahms piano solo works... List_of_compositions_by_Johannes_Brahms_by_genre#Two_hands then surely one really good article on the "last piano works" (117, 118, and 119) would be better than rather scrappy articles at present. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with the others here. But first I want to ask: are they any performances? Are there any recordings? In general we cover in detail each work only for major works of clearly major creative people in any field, and in separate articles for all of their works usually only the ones who could by some stretch be called famous. Even by the extraordinarily broad criteria for popular musics we wouldn't have this article. Nobody is going to come here to look at this by title of the work--they would automatically and naturally look for the composer. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG asked me about this. Per him and the others, I feel articles like this (especially for relatively minor composers, but even for major ones) shouldn't be started unless there is evidence of performance or recording and preferably published commentary on the composition. The above article doesn't even tell you what key it's in. Where you have only minimal information, it's much better to add it to the list of the composer's works. Some are in articles on the composer, others are free-standing with various degrees of complexity from the relatively simply laid out List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number to the rather complex List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. It does a disservice to readers when they click on the link in the article on Ropartz, only to be taken to a sub-stub that tells them little more than what is already in the list, less in fact, because the list of compositions gives the composition date. I also tend to agree that it's bad practice to create an article if you're not willing to put in the minimal work to make it of service to the reader and expect other editors to do that work for you. Perhaps it would be worth opening a general discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music to get more views. Mine may not be representative. Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've "expanded" and referenced Two pieces for wind quintet (Ropartz), as much as is probably possible, i.e., not an awful lot. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to String Quintet, Op. 4 (Beethoven) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a second trio was added to the former and a new alternate theme was inserted in the latter.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allmusic.com/composition/string-quintet-in-e-flat-major-after-the-octet-op-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graham -- Forgive me if this is inappropriate, but I've been feeling concerned and guilty lately that you haven't been editing the List of fictional astronauts article. I realize that you might simply be doing other things, but I'm afraid that the amount I've been adding to the article lately, and the length of my to-do list on the talk page, might be intimidating. (The nature of my job gives me a lot of time to read, so I've been reading lots of novels about spaceflight.) Your contributions to that page have been exceptionally valuable, and I wouldn't want to interfere with your work on it in any way. Once again, apologies if this was inappropriate or overstepping. All the best. :-) Gildir (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have included an edit summary for my last edit. :-) Gildir (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham1973, and thanks for this. It's a very unfortunate situation. In the past months, GraemeLeggett, SonofSetanta and I have been editing the article to solve a WP:CITECLUTTER problem. Regards.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Submarine 1922 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Indonesia|accessdate=2006-12-31 |work=Centre of Volcanology & Geological Hazard Mitigation}}(</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graham1973, I removed 2 Miniatures from the Vasily Kalinnikov page as it was composed by his brother Viktor Kalinnikov. Hrdinský ^〒 15:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention mending a broken link is appreciated, but please don't bulldoze your preferred citation style: please read WP:CITEVAR and redo. Regards, Tim riley talk 17:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham1973! In this edit, you added {{unreferenced|section=yes}}. Since {{unreferenced}} doesn't support |section=yes, could you please use {{unreferenced section}} in the future? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Violin Sonatas, KV. 55–60 (Attributed to Mozart), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I saw the EL you added, and read it. Interesting.

Also the Grove 1907 article (linked from the sources section) was something I had added after I had created the stub based nearly exclusively on the Everist source.

The (content of) the Pajot source and the Grove 1907 source both merit more attention in the article.

Feel free to add, it's not like I own anything you know. I'll probably return to the article sooner or later, don't know when. Don't feel constrained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Cambridge Mass (Vaughan Williams) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{cite news|url=[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalconcertreviews/8362244/Vaughan-Williams-Fairfield-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 995th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 995 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Stanford's violin sonata! We'll sing his Beati tomorrow, - a sad stub, - would you perhaps have met sources for that, to expand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beati grew so much that I also included the other two. - For the sonata, I think a link to the pages where Dibble speaks of it might be of help, - revert if you don't agree. Would you perhaps take some more from there? Then we can go for DYK ;) - actually it's long enough already, but the Brahms comparisons seem worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't include the composer's surname in the title for no particular reason. Generally this might only be done for purposes of disambiguation, i.e., to distinguish two different compositions which happen to share the same title. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horn Trio (Holbrooke), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horn. 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) 09:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the revert on the List of Mayday episodes article, man some people just can't stand being proven wrong. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham1973. Thank you for your comment on the edit summary of XXXV Airborne Corps: 'Have you been holding fake discussions again'?

In accordance with the community consensus at the discussion in Archive 117, I have created United States Army deception formations of World War II, and incorporated the airborne corps article into Operation Pastel. This is the best way to make sure that these notional formations are not mistaken for real ones. I would remind you that this was the community consensus of 2013, and that you were requested in the Archive 117 discussion and at User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#About_that_apology_you_owe_me to be more WP:CIVIL. I would again request you remain civil in these discussions.

I am about to upmerge the remaining notional U.S. formations into United States Army deception formations of World War II. If you disagree with this implementation of the community consensus as discussed in the Archive 117 discussion, please again raise the matter at WT:MILHIST. Please do not start a useless series of reverts accompanied by uncivil comments. Should you just revert and continue making uncivil comments, not assuming WP:AGF, I will take the matter to AN/I. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comment Graham. I cannot locate the discussion that you say includes three unsigned comments followed by a comment of mine. Happy to try and clarify should you be able to point me towards the discussion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to put that in quotation marks, to not be accused of a personal attack ;) - Thank you for adding to Ah! perfido. I couldn't believe that a work like that had no article yet and just started. Feel free to expand, I have two more things waiting for my attention first. Thank you also for better referencing. If you ever feel like posting for people generally interested in article improvement, try WP:QAIPOST. Please check if what is there - just started - is comprehensible, and improve. Ideas welcome for templated entries of recordings and movements of larger musical pieces. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta laugh sometimes. Ta. Moriori (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rogue Moon 1968.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Carter string quartets requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the activities of that rampaging troll, I have semi-protected your talk page for a week. If this is against you principles, any admin will honor a request for lifting the protection, though my guess is that you're happy to get some peace and quiet. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Many moons ago you created maintenance tags @ 1976 swine flu outbreak. The article looks OK to me at this point. Do you agree? Can the tags be removed? If not, why? Regards Tapered (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

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 Frederic Hymen Cowen page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (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) 00:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for uploading File:Atari LeMans Flyer.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I