User talk:Bluewave

British music, folk baroque and hi

Thought I would just say hi and thanks for your contributions to folk baroque, and in general. Not used to finding people with a mix of musical tastes as eclectic as mine. On the UK classical music article: I plan to split it this weekend (unless there are major objections) and do a clean-up of both bits - be great if you have time to take a look at it after that. Keep up the good work. (So glad I don't have to edit the national anthem - I feel the same way about it).--Sabrebd (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally got the Early music of the British Isles done, had to split it at 1707. Take a look and see what you think.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to get back to the Classical music article when I have recovered, maybe we can find some more experts to help.--Sabrebd (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hamsters

Thanks for your support as well as you input into the discussion on the talk page. Even more thanks for the additional citations. I'm finding it difficult to find neutral 3rd party sources online. As you probably know the audience's demographic is more in line with paper publications rather than online information. As I don't read music mags (I'm of the belief that music is for listening to, not reading about :) ) I'm not always in a position to know where they are. Anyway, I just thought I'd like to say thanks for your work on this. --WebHamster 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Olim Memnisse Juvabit

Why yes, they do bring back some memories. Maidstonenses Gaudeamus. Feel free to "email this user". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

His Dark Material task force

I am thinking of starting off a His Dark Materials task force. Please place your comments here. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A task force has been created here, please sign up. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Clayrealbum.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Clayrealbum.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Clayrealbum.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clayrealbum.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Hat.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hat.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:100tonchicken.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:100tonchicken.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Corries.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Corries.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Recorder

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a lot of concerns with the referencing and the licensing of images which you can see at Talk:Recorder/GA1. Consequently I have de-listed the artcile. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sceptical circles.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sceptical circles.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Anthems.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Anthems.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Pais (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Classical composers timeline

Hi. I see you have been working on this. I'm wondering whether it might be possible to fix this so the colour tabs are long enough for the names, and also so the names don't run into each other. At the moment it's difficult to read. Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It really is tricky, isn't it! Leaving aside the content problem (who is in and who is out), the graphic design is a big problem. Maybe we need to fid someone to re-do the whole thing in a completely different way? --Kleinzach 10:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's always difficult to get people to agree to a set of names. You might try to get agreement on a number. Perhaps we should take this over to Talk:Classical music? --Kleinzach 10:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Bluewave! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 193 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Tokio Uchida - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Mark Norris (technology writer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR notification

Letting you know I've opened a good article reassessment for Bert Jansch, to which you are the main contributor. You can read my concerns at Talk:Bert Jansch/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks

Hi Bluewave,
Thanks for that, actually I was just feeling I was an idiot for getting carried away with it. I am up for trying to help improve it, but in fact this has been a minor diversion from a real task I am wrestling with, outside this great enterprise, which is giving me brain fever - and there's a deadline for that which I have to meet. If Bollocks survives I will gladly look in and try to assist but I can't promise a lot of help right at present. But I think the plan is good, and will support in principle as and when I can. Cheers! Eebahgum (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, our arguments seem to have succeeded. Bollocks is saved for everyone, and we are among those responsible. I suppose now we must do something about it. That's what comes of talking so much Bullshit. See ya there, quite happy to confab if necessary. All the best, Eebahgum (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having just glanced again at the beginning (and it's a very long article) it looks to me as if it has suffered from the kind of 'drift' you refer to for a long time. I see from the Talk page you have been its advocate and guardian for many years. High Warden of the Bollocks - pretty good, I'd put it on a customized barnstar for you if I could remember how to do it. The opening paragraph (i.e. the lead-in) needs totally reworking to suit the new improved content, so it should be left till later. I think the whole question of its etymology and early uses needs to be got out of the way before tackling the subject of its modern identity. I don't like this idea that it is Anglo-Saxon. Even the word 'ball' ('beallu', etc) is only an inferred one, based on a Teutonic (technical term for a particular phase of very early German, i.e. Continental pre-Anglo-Saxon) root, which means that it doesn't survive in the Old English literature. The '-ocks' ending is a perfectly common form of diminutive, as in 'hillocks' or 'tussocks' or 'hassocks' or (probably) 'buttocks' (but not rowlocks), and to be frank these look like early Mediaeval (i.e. Middle English) formations to me, not Old English: but I stand to be corrected. The BBC recently broadcast a drama about King Henry II, Richard and John, in which King Henry (d.1189) used the expletive 'God's Bollocks', but this might have been anachronous. Old English should be asserted only as the probable source for the root-word 'ball'. Then there's all this stuff about priests which needs to be referenced and put in order, because the famed Professor James Kingsley of ye Universitie of Nottinghame (stap me vitals) is not adequately referenced by that footnote to Richard Branson, and all the thing about the Straits Fleet is entirely anecdotal. Only facts will do at this stage. Once all this is cleared up, and any intrusive additions have been put in storage ready for re-locating elsewhere in the article, one can make some headway. What say you? Eebahgum (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your last. Do yew set on, bor, an' this'n'll foller up togither arter. Eebahgum (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

edit conflicts

I've been watching the Meredith Kercher page and have refrained from commenting until now. It is heavy slogging for you over there. Just had to chime in, I thought you were about to go under a big wave. No pun intended.Malke2010 23:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Go see Gwen Gale's talk page. She's an admin and I've mentioned all this to her. I've put up a warning on the talk page of the editor in question. Don't give up on the page. You have the right attitude regarding the neutral edits, making the project better, etc. The editor is a single purpose editor (SPA) and seems to be connected to the boyfriend. Has this user had other accounts that he/she has edited under that you know of?Malke2010 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. It would be easy enough to check with the IP being used. I don't know if there's any rule about being blocked and then opening up another account. But I imagine if you came back and did the same behaviors, you'd end up with the same consequences agin and again. They probably do have a way of checking these things. Well, I'll keep an eye out. Maybe some other editors will come along to help out, especially if they see they aren't alone there.Malke2010 10:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. Especially the last bits. The POV pushing is almost like this editor is re-trying the case on appeal.Malke2010 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's looking better already.Malke2010 11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

For the way you're handling the MoMK page I hereby award you this editor's barnstar! Salvio giuliano

I feel you deserve this for keeping up the good work, despite vandalism. Salvio giuliano (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Conspiring to Obstruct another Editor

Bluewave, it is very upsetting to see these tactice you are using on these editor Talk pages. Looking at these I see that you are conspiring to have me blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned to prevent or obstruct me from editing on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Those are nasty tactics. You are spreading rumors and trying to get other editors to do your dirty work. You and Malke seem to have some sort of conspiracy going where I am being accused of being associated with Sollecito or otherwise have some connection with the case, am an unlawful sock puppet, or have otherwise broken some rule. You sink to this level because you do not agree with me on the content of the article. Then you say on the article Talk page that you want the article to be more polite. What you are doing is not at all polite but very rude. Please stop with these conspiracies and getting meatpuppets to do your dirty work. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)