Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (confabulate) @ 20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about the article on Electrical transcriptions. The pictures that you mentioned will be a good addition to it. After reading the Transcription disc article, I felt that something needed to be done to focus more on the programming and distribution aspect of ETs. Having one longer article that encompasses both aspects sounds good. I don't know how to merge articles, but if you would like to do that, it's fine with me.Eddie Blick (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This probably should be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I'll move the discussion there. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were busy while I was away from my computer! Thanks for moving forward with the proposal. I posted my agreement under your comment on "Talk:Electrical transcription." What is the next step? Does Wikipedia have guidelines about how long to wait after proposing this kind of change?Eddie Blick (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know. I think perhaps a week, to give others a chance to comment, they may have angles I don't see. I notified another user who I think would have particular interest, but AVarcheologist hasn't been active here for about 6 months. I also notified wikiprojects Radio and Record Labels. Do you know of any others that are pertinent? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about posting something on Talk:Transcription disc to catch the attention of anyone reading that article? And I noticed there a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound production. Should something be posted there? Just a couple of thoughts.Eddie Blick (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a merge notice in the article space there, I am under the impression that is the "proper way". I think a notification to the sound production project would be a good idea. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can't think of any other places to post. If I can help you with the process, please let me know.Eddie Blick (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 78, I haven't logged in since early December and so just got your heads-up (for which thanks) about the proposed merger. The Transcription disc article as it now stands is 80 or 90 percent my verbiage, for better or worse. As I recall, like much of my work in these climes, my editing was reactionary in the literal sense of the word: IIRC, when I first saw it, "transcription disc" was effectively equated with "acetate [sic] disc" and various irrelevant applications thereof, and the article bristled with major and minor problems screaming out for surgical intervention. As usual, once I got started nipping and tucking, it was hard to stop, which is why I ought to confine myself to short articles that won't take years to work through. I've been unusually short of discretionary time and energy the past two months and am now finally attending to some unfinished business elsewhere in Wikipedialand, so I've barely scanned the new "Electrical transcription" article yet, but it is plainly the product of considerable work.

On general principles, I would agree that the older article should be merged into the new, broader one, after which "transcription disc", referring to the physical medium, should redirect to the appropriate subsection; I'll post comments on the talk page after I have a chance to contemplate the new article properly. However, after an initial spot check just now I note that the paragraph about the introduction of electrical recording rather muddies those waters. I am also surprised not to see any of Elizabeth McLeod's online material cited—or am I overlooking something? I believe it was she who enlightened me that "electrical transcription", which has always struck me as a delightfully bizarre construction, was the official term prescribed (and also created?) by the Federal Radio Commission (the FCC's predecessor) in the late 1920s. Her scholarship, and of course Dr. Biel's, can shine great quantities of light on this subject. AVarchaeologist (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Michael Biel, for a project I did a couple years ago, I purchased a PDF of his doctoral dissertation (The Making and Use of Recordings in Broadcasting before 1936). I'd be happy to ask Dr. Biel to permit me to send it to anyone who's working on the article, which is something I don't have time to do at present. It's 1100 pages or so, and fascinating for those of us who are fascinated by this sort of thing! ReverendWayne (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Biel's legendary and alluring but budget-busting tome has long been an object of my perfervid desire, but assuming the generous ReverendWayne will not get permission to disseminate clones (is one not automatically entitled to sell, lend or give away one's own copy, as with a physical book?) the reality is that it would probably better serve Wikipedia in the hands of the new article's author. I only wish Dr. Biel and other real experts on matters phonographic (if I am any kind of one around here, it is only by default) would sign on as Wikipedians and revolutionize the quality level of the related articles. Biel is now retired and ought to have some time to spare, but on the other hand his capacity for suffering fools gladly seems to be minimal to nil and that could generate some heat. AVarchaeologist (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AVarchaeologist: @ReverendWayne: @Teblick: Thank you for your valuable input. I think I am soon going to make a bold move and try to merge the two articles, the discussion has been open long enough. The delightful thing about this is that the merge should be quite clean, given Transcription disc deals mainly with "hardware" while Electrical transcription deals mostly with "software". I am of course familiar with Dr. Biel and Elizabeth McLeod. Was Biel's thesis officially published? We've discussed this before, but I'm afraid any references to it, even as incredibly authoritative as it is, will be deemed "original research" and deleted. I think McLeod at least has a website, which should be deemed reliable given she's a noted expert on the subject. She's also done work for the First Generation Radio Archives, which is another page that could possibly be referenced for this subject. Apologies for delay, I quite understand regarding "discretionary time". I'd like to put some real energy into this, and bring it to "good article" status, and after the merger I think it has potential for "featured article" status. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 78.26: Thank you for editing, arranging, and approving my first submission to Wikipedia. Just as my college newspaper (GW Hatchet) editor always did, you rewrote my lead sentence. I was surprised to find a topic that wasn't covered in Wikipedia and am honored to spread the good word about Alfred Worcester. Sincerely, AgedCare14 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. There are lots of subjects that aren't covered yet by Wikipedia. take a look at this list. I look forward to seeing your future contributions. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Qwertyus. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Henry Dasson, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started, translating from German, and look for sources. Melchior Hoffmann was there, - do you have a precise source for time and office? De has 1705 to 1719. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, always good to hear from you. At the time I wrote the article, I included everything I could find. I don't have any reference to his service at St. Matthew, although if the start date is 1705, it looks like he succeeded Telemann in both the Collegium Musicum and this church. Do you know if the two positions were related? In any case, he couldn't have held the position as late as 1719, as he died in 1715. Since writing the article, I have discovered a source at the local library, which has an unusually nice music department for the United States. I'll see if it has anything on Hoffman's tenure at St. Matthew. Cheers! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging. He never worked at St. Matthew, because that name came up only in the 19th century (I didn't know which of six or so possible names I should take, so used a neutral English one.) Best information seems to be in the German Collegium musicum (and yes it has until his death in 1715, I overlooked that), - a translation of at least a stub would be nice, and - more important - a source ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have something for you later today. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for responding to the users from the ANI to inform them not to worry about the discussion. However, take care what you say about other users yourself, to say I "misunderstood" Wikipedia's policies is simply not true. Where is the policy that states, make sure when you're patrolling new pages that you keep in mind it might be a training event? This was simply a situation I hadn't come across before (and I've been on Wikipedia for 9 years), and wasn't sure how to handle. So I thought it was best to ask help from the admin's rather than ignore it. I'll admit I probably should have checked their user pages first, but the thought simply didn't cross my mind. And I was careful in the ANI not to accuse anyone of any wrong doing for the simple fact that I didn't think this was blatant vandalism and didn't want to cause any issues. Unfortunately, some other editors took it badly and in the end I guess I should've have been a better investigator. Anyways, I know your words weren't intended to insult me in anyways, I was just a tad annoyed to see that each person was explained that the reason the discussion started was simply that I don't know Wikipedia's policies. On the contrary I believe that as training events grow more popular this is an issue we need to address in order to better notify the community that they are occurring. Thanks for your time. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how a group of editors, even if new, creating well-sourced and neutrally worded articles about notable topics could be a problem. My intent was certainly not to disparage you, but to do the little bit of good I could by potentially keeping a productive new editor "in the fold", as it were. I abjectly apologize, however, for not using language wholly unoffensive to yourself. Cheers! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello 78.26, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing,  - T H (here I am) 11:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Many thanks, that is very kind! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Kersey's death has been reported by local news sources and various sports reporters. You could have spent the 2 seconds it took me to confirm his death, but rather you had to go on a power trip and warn someone about "inserting incorrect information." You should be ashamed of yourself. 68.80.26.166 (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You "couldn't find any evidence of his death?" A Yahoo NBA reporter verified it 48 minutes before. https://twitter.com/SpearsNBAYahoo/status/568247003521511424 Portland news stations reporting it 28 minutes before. https://twitter.com/KGWNews/status/568249829115228160 Yes, Twitter is full of hoaxes, but those are both verified accounts. If you want to err on the side of caution when reverting, fine, but don't say "I couldnt find any evidence" when you obviously didn't even look for any, and don't accuse someone else of vandalism because you didn't feel like looking. 68.80.26.166 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney. In fact, I went to to google news, and the Oregonian, to try to confirm. I spent 30 minutes looking. No one added a citation to make the information verifiable. Please use citations in the future, and all will be good. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High five! Valfontis (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for all you've done for this article. This is why I volunteer at Wikipedia: I learned information about a subject I previously did not know enough about. Plus, I got to meet and collaborate with a delightful person. High Five! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A notification of thanks from you showed up today shortly after I added the record information to Abbott and Costello. After a bit of a delay, I'm curious as to how you knew so quickly about the edit. Did you happen to look at the page, or did you get some kind of notification? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was on watchlist patrol. Your edit summary was "discography", so knowing you and knowing my favorite subject, I immediately went to see what you added. Abbot and Costello also released a later record of "Who's on First" for Enterprise Records, as a benefit for the Lou Costello Foundation. I'll add it if I can find a reliable source. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will either of these sites qualify? I found the record listed for sale at popsike.com and at RareRecords.com. Both have good images of the label (Castle 1253). Also, Billboard has an interesting article about the record on page 19 of its June 5, 1948, issue. It reports on a lawsuit involving Castle and United Artists Records. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use either Popsike or RareRecords as a reliable source, and as the images aren't critical to the understanding of A&C, probably don't qualify for fair use. The Billboard piece is perfectly acceptable. What an interesting article. If we found another source like it, we could create an article on that record in and of itself, and then the images from popsike/rarerecords would be fair use. Although I'll bet I could get one of my record buddies to scan a label from their collection. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to stay alert for other articles related to the recording, especially the legal case. If I come across anything along those lines, I'll let you know. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what turns up when I look for her. You know, it's funny-today I was looking at some new news stories for Elmo Tanner and was wondering if you might want to work with me to take a shot at a GA for him. We hope (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be most honored, not to mention it sounds like fun! Funny thing on my end, I was just thinking of trying to get that to Good Article status myself. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike--let's see if we can make Tanner into a GA! :-) We hope (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? We hope (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect, of course. Laurie will have to wait now that you've got me chomping on the bit to tickle Elmo. Where do you want me to start? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere is fine. I need to get some news stories clipped (don't know if you have Newspapers.com or not) so we can both use them. His second wedding was written up a bit more. Seems he did everything while he was working. Between a couple of acts, he got the marriage license, between the next 2, he bought her a ring and between the next 2, they said "I do". There's also a story that when he received the offer from Ted Weems, he was also "in negotiations" at the Chicago radio station. The station was aware that Weems had made him an offer and they were countering with the same amount of money to stay at the station. However, when Weems offered $100 a week, Elmo took it so quickly, he forgot to notify the radio station that he wouldn't be back. We hope (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I only have newapapers.com--the MUSE is on the way-just approved. I added what was there re: newspapers.com and while there, found something interesting which I included as a footnote. Tanner was listed with 2 record companies as having made some "race records". It appears that he, like Gosden and Correll and many others, was an imitator of African-American dialect. The 1935 description of him is that he was wonderful with dialect and that his "Negro imitations bring down the house". I expanded on "Heartaches" because there's more to it than we previously had in the article. Went into that there were two records-one with Victor in 1933 and another with Decca in 1938; Tanner and Weems re-cut the song when someone forgot to choose a "B" side for the record they were planning on making. Tanner cut the song one more time in 1953 for Dot, but not with Ted Weems. Didn't go to OTR but did check to see if U of Wisconsin's "Lantern" had anything in their old media magazines. Found a bit more of Tanner's "movie career" (with Weems) and added that. Would love to see anything you might find at JSTOR, or the others! We hope (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding the dialect reference. Often straight-ahead white music was issued on Race records, even on Black Swan Records. I figured he sang it straight, but I've never heard one of his Paramount or Vocalion "race" disks. Haven't seen one either, they are very uncommon. Now I'm really curious. I'll look on JSTOR. I just got access, several months after being approved. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like his imitations were part of the Weems show at one time. It also looks like he and Red Ingle, when they were both with Weems, often teamed up for comic skits. They were mentioned re: the short The Hatfields and McCoys and Ingle was many times thought of as a "wild man" with his comic bits. Let me also take another turn at Lantern, as there are many years worth of back issues of Variety there. There might be something additional on the comedic aspect. Have thought about signing up for JSTOR but am wondering if the subscriptions will be extended, as they end in June. We hope (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope:, I finally got around to seriously digging into JSTOR. It was a fruitless endeavor. There was a brief mention of him in the American Music journal, merely presenting the fact that Tanner sang for the Jimmy Noone orchestra, but the article already establishes that. Sorry. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what I read in back copies of Variety was nothing new either. Added what turned up at newspapers.com a while ago, so maybe we're close to having a go at this? We hope (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: There is an autobiographical book by Fred Lowery I'd like to check out, fortunately a local library has a copy. I'd also like to check to see if there are any books on whistling as an art at this library, in hopes of finding more on Tanner. If I don't find anything (a highly likely scenario) I think that's about everything we're going to find, and indeed we should submit it to GA review. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could use an article on Fred Lowery as well. :-) We hope (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am re-copying this as your talk page suddenly went to Neverland. We hope (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was really weird. I received the notification correctly, but then everything was gone. Anyway, Fred Lowery already has a page, but it is in need of substantial expansion. I might add it to my to-do list. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know he has a page--I remember it was a red link for some time. Let me see what's at Newspapers.com, if anything. Tanner and Lowery always seem to come up together when the talk turns to whistlers. We hope (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because I spelde hiz naem rong (I just fixed it). There was no article for Lowery when we wrote this Tanner article, though. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nd iyam (Popeye lives!) finding lotz of newzstorees about him. :-) We hope (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope:, I found out more from the sources mentioned above. He not only fixed cars in the 1920s, he raced them. And when he wasn't singing or whistling with Weems, he played a guitar. Softly. I plan on adding these tomorrow, I'll let you know when I'm done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'd seen photos of him with a guitar and assumed he did play it, but had nothing except the photo of him with it to build on. The amazing part is the auto racing! :) We hope (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: I've added all the additional information I can find. There are a few grammatical tweaks I'd like to make, and then I'm ready for the GA submission. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK-I'm ready when you are. When you're done tweaking, just put it on the GA page. We hope (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Harry Yerkes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to wrap up this review. It looks like you've fixed the problems in the article, but you haven't proposed a new hook(s). Do you need help, or do you plan on adding new hooks yourself? Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I think the hook is supported, but objectively that is just because I have been collecting that type of music for so long. I'll try to propose a new one that is "interesting". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I'm very confused that you would say that the "hook is supported" after I explained the problem and you provided the source material illustrating the problem I described. Harry Yerkes was not known for his xylophone playing, nor was he known as an important musician in the transition from ragtime to jazz. As the sources you provided (and the others) show, "Yerkes, who first recorded in [1905] as a xylophonist, became a successful band contractor, and between 1917 and 1924 he booked many sessions on Columbia and other labels using various groups under his management, sometimes with results of interest as ragtime or rudimentary jazz". So he was known for his work as a band contractor, not as a xylophone player or for musical recordings of his work, and he was known for booking other music groups under his management. He had no interest in jazz nor was he known for it. So I can't understand how you could maintain the idea that the "hook is supported". I would prefer not to oppose this, but I am genuinely confused. As I previoulsy explained, the current hook is not supported, because it infers that Yerkes was known for his jazz musicianship and for his work as a xylophonist, both of which are manifestly false. Multiple sources make it clear that he was known for promoting the music of other musicians, which happened to be jazz. To claim that Yerkes was an important figure in the transition from ragtime to jazz, seems to ignore what the sources actually say, when he in fact, did not play or influence any of the music. All he did was bring the musicians together as groups, and the hook should reflect that fact. Malcolm Gladwell might call this sort of person a connector or a maven, but presenting him as an influential musician misses the mark entirely. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Yerkes was known for his xylophone playing. He was among the earliest recorded, and he continued to record until 1923 as a solo artist. The sources also clearly say he was interested in jazz, and promoted it as an art form. Nor is it manifestly false he played jazz, as he does record with some of the groups he contracted with. Although he clearly recorded ragtime, and likely recorded with outfits performing jazz, I don't think he had a "talent" for jazz proper, but that would have to be proved empirically by listening to the dozens of sides he recorded with his groups. What is important is the role he played in both the ragtime era and the development of jazz as a recorded musical form. Nonetheless the hook seems to be confusing, so I will re-write it. Perhaps the confusion is in the phrase within the article "hough he was not often an active contributor" by which I meant to say that often his recording sessions did not include himself, but I did mean to imply that he was involved personally, as a musician, in many of the sessions. To say "he did not play or influence any of the music" is just as incorrect as to say "Yerkes was the most influential jazz performer on the xylophone of the early 20th century". I'm sorry to have confused you, and the term "jazz" gets very murky in the developmental years, and different experts have differing opinions about which performances from the era are truly "jazz" or not. Therefore I will try to come up with an interesting hook that is less open to misinterpretation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the above is in your page history. I deleted it because I was only repeating myself again. In any case, you've offered a new hook; however, I've offered you another alternate hook to try and use on the basis of your original hook, with minor modifications. Please see the DYK page. I'm not looking for a DYK credit, so if you offer an ALT3 based on the ALT2, with changes acceptable to you, there's a good chance I'll pass it. Otherwise, I'll review the ALT1. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you posted on my wall to change my username. I requested it be changed yesterday. I was working with a number of editors who showed me how to do so.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklyUniversity (talk • contribs) 13:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's the guy who added "dirty dirty dallas", this is a legitimate nickname in hip hop culture for Dallas.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Triple+D

definition was upvoted by almost 1000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.26.2 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, and if you can find a reliable source it would have been ok to add to the article. Urban Dictionary, as a crowdsourced platform, is not a reliable source. Should you find a reliable source, I wouldn't add it to the infobox, where you added it, as that is for the most basic information about a subject, and Dallas is not generally known by the nickname you added, at best it is known only in certain subcultures. Thanks for taking the time to write and explain why you made that edit. I hope you enjoy your time at Wikipedia, and I encourage you to create an account. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

Sorry, RL stuff has kept me busy today. Glad to know Elmo is awaiting someone for a review. I always like working with you, too! :-) We hope (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask Dr. Blofeld to take a look at the article if you'd like. We hope (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me! The more eyes, the better. The (ahem, good) Doctor is one of the best. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've called the Doctor for Elmo. ;) We hope (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elmo Tanner you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Elmo Tanner for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jacedc (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Elmo Tanner Elmo's doing an encore over there! :-)We hope (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a comment for you on the Talk Page of 20th Century Fox Records. Hope it helps.Pinikadia 22:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Good Article Barnstar
	Elmo Tanner is now a Wikipedia Good Article ! We hope (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finom! Thanks so much. Don't know what I did to earn it, but my palette is not complaining in the least! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're happy if you're happy! :-) Have just gotten access to Wikipedia:Project MUSE and in taking a look at what's there, I think it would be very helpful to you; if you haven't signed up yet, you should consider it. There are so many music and musician books and journals there. :) We hope (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Adrian Kraus (talk · contribs)
  • User:Adrian Kraus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I was wondering if a bit more detail could be shared on the reason why this article page is too commercial (some examples would be great as well). As you have seen, I posted this article a few months ago and re-wrote it removing any PR like content and information as per the feedback provided previously.

That would be great, thank you Adrian Kraus (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for such a tardy reply. As it stands, the article reads like a sales prospectus, and I'm not sure how to fix that with the sparse sources that are given. For example, this sentence: "They combine the social experience of a hostel with the service, design and comfort of a boutique hotel, a new concept in hospitality for discerning travellers that the company have spearheaded" is inherently promotional. It then proceeds to show the benefits of the properties, i.e. "free wi-fi!" Then there is the list of properties with promotional language such as "elegant residential building." The article as a whole just does not read like a neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia article, it exists to promote the product. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you're always welcome! :-) Let's hope this means a lot more GAs and DYKs with photos! We hope (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hai sir

I am very happy talking with you. I don't no Wikipedia some Condition's Please Help me sir, Thank you agein.--Nomula Prabhakar Goud (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my tardiness in replying to your question. You will find Wikipedia's most important "conditions" (called "Policies" here) in the Welcome! message I left on your talk page. Specifically regarding your article, first, the title needs to be in English, this is the English encyclopedia after all. Second, the article subject must be notable, in other words there must be something about the subject that makes it worthy of notice by an encyclopedia. If there is something notable about the subject, it must be verified by reliable sources. Yes, there are lost of Wikipedia "rules", but I've outlined the ones that are most important for your purposes, and I hope that is helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring smooth jazz to the list of genres on the Kenny G article. I noticed you also included some sources on the article's talk page. However, I think it would be a good opportunity for you to chime in on my complaint at WP:ANI. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 00:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, go to ANI? What did I ever do to you? half kidding. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This instrument is very unlikely to have existed. I've never seen anything like it in any book on musical instruments, nor is there any reference to it online. Combining strings with a brass instrument would make no sense since (1) there would be no way to both hold the instrument and play it, (2) strings require a sound board to couple energy to the air which isn't possible in this configuration, and (3) the length of strings required for audible notes could not be accommodated in the instrument as described. Further, there's no point to mixing these instruments as the sound in the horn will not substantially change the length or tension in the strings, and the motion of the strings will not affect the sound of the horn.

If a citation can be found, that citation is likely to be reporting a one-off instrument, or itself is a joke. At best this article would be describing an obscure gimmick or hoax, and would not be notable enough for Wikipedia. So unless substantial improvement in the article is forthcoming, I'll submit this for deletion.

I marked the article as a hoax, which was reversed by the article's creator, Peridon (talk). This does not appear to meet Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes which states that multiple editors should investigate a possible hoax. Robert Hiller (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax[edit]

(Copy of message posted to Robert Hiller's talk page) It did really exist and the description of the appearance is based on a picture in an encyclopaedia of musical instruments. I can't cite it because I can't remember the name of the book, unfortunately. The sound of the thing is weird - the strings are like a fairly simple harp because only one hand could be used, and the horn part has a sort of almost wailing sound. It must have been a 'brass' type of mouthpiece, because reed instruments need more fingers to produce the range. The use of 'saxophone' describes the shape as being like one of the larger bent saxophones, with the strings stretched between the angled parts. If you still have doubts, I will to take a photo of the record I possess a copy of, and try to upload it. While I am a writer, and the creator of quite a few humorous fictional examples on talkpages (for the illustration of various points of policy), no way would I put something not real into an article. Peridon (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you hear it, it sounds like two instruments - but the recording I have was an acoustic recording made into a horn. No double tracking then. It was made originally in the USA in 1909/10 (referenced) and later issued in the UK presumably during the First World War, as the German-sounding artiste's name 'Selzer' has been changed to 'Silstone'. (German names were not popular at that time.) I'll see if I can upload a picture of the label. If I am lucky, I might be able to make a recording from the record and upload that too. It may be decided to be non-notable - I realised that when I posted it at first, but hoax it most definitely is not. Columbia thought the record worth issuing, and I don't think Phoenix would have issued it had it proved a dud in the USA earlier. Peridon (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a matter of mechanics that the instrument described cannot produce the sound described. And, as I wrote above, there are good reasons that this instrument is unlikely to exist. In fact, a closer look at the first reference [1] states that the musical recordings mentioned in the article were played on a Hungarian Taregatto, which is a conventional woodwind related to the clarinet. Without a citation to the encyclopedia of musical instruments that you mention, this article has no basis, and should be submitted for deletion. Robert Hiller (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that reference - mine are two and three. Number One seems to be a reference for the song (or tune as it is performed here, no words being used - both sides of the record have titles that sound as thou they were originally songs). I can't see any mention of the tárogató at reference one. All I can see is a brief extract mentioning something by (Irving) Berlin, and Mrs A. Stewart Holt, whoever she was. There does seem to be a mention of liberty-horn listed as being on page 147, but it's not visible to me. I've not seen that reference before, as it was added today by User:Gobonobo. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 says a "rendered by A. Selzer on a Hungarian 'tarvgatto' or liberty-horn". If you email me, I can send you a screen image of page 147. I agree that there's no evident verifiable basis for the instrument described in this article, but if you find that encyclopedia you saw, then there could be... Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it - but for some reason I'm still only getting Berlin and Mrs H.... I've looked for that book quite a few times. I found it in a library (from where it went years ago) while looking to find what a strange thing was that a girl had given me. (Turned out to be a three stringed fiddle from South Ossetia - I know it as a fandur but it's known as other things. Can't play it - don't even know what you tune it to...) I'm not objecting to the article being deleted on the grounds of notability - I was rather new when I created it and expected it to possibly go - but I do not like being accused of creating a hoax. Hoax is deliberate misinformation, and this was created in good faith based on what I knew at the time about it. (As an editor and admin with 20,000 edits (not including admin actions that don't enter the edit count), I would probably not put it up as a new page now. OR and/or synthesis/whatever).) If the record is of a tárogató, there's an uncredited second performer on something with plucked strings. OK - got it now at http://www.archive.org/stream/nationalmagazine32brayrich/nationalmagazine32brayrich_djvu.txt The Google one in the ref is to a copyright book of extracts - this is the now public domain text. Well, well. I wonder why it was known as a liberty horn - no need to conceal Hungarian origins, unlike when the performer was changed for the UK release. If someone would care to prod it, or would a G7 work with there being your contributions and Gobonobo's reference? Peridon (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have agreement that we have no sources for this, so I filed an AfD; then I read that you said PROD it, but that's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A couple of weeks ago, you should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete to receive access to RIPM. If you did not receive the email, please let me know. Otherwise, please complete this form as soon as possible so we can process your request. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My phone turned off the Wiki email notification, so I truly appreciate the notification. Done. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interest. See Peak organisation. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perfect. I'll pipe that in the article. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I didn't notice that it was initially "beak" and not "peak." Must have been my phone's "auto-correct." I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to thank you for stopping User:Music2015 from vandalising Cheiron Studios. Thumbs up! :)
He is still hijacking Cheiron Records, but I see that you have created a request for page protection, so hopefully he will stop soon. 84.209.76.114 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is back to edit warring again. I've listed the article for deletion, so we'll have some more eyes looking at this. Please don't revert him again, let him edit war, but keep your own hands clean. You, like any other editor, can comment at the AfD, of course. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I have not reverted him this time, but I did post a comment on the AfD as recommended. Unfortunately nobody else has yet (except you and him of course), but I hope that does not mean nothing will happen(?) 84.209.76.114 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. I've seen truly notable labels deleted, and I've seen non-notable labels kept for lack of consensus. And maybe this iteration of Cheiron Records will start producing numerous, massive hits, gaining it the notoriety currently claimed, giving the label true notability. That's fine, I just don't like seeing this encyclopedia being used for promotional purposes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vince Cardell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Philafrenzy (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Wild Things! at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 78.26 I just wanted to thank you for reviewing my DYK nom of Eleanor Butler. Regarding the offline sources used in the article, in fact the relevant text sourced can be found on Google Books for all of them if you're interested -- I opted for {{cite book}} instead of a Google Books link because I've been bitten by Google changing which pages are part of the free sample before, so this seemed more future-proofed, particularly for what I expect will be a low-traffic article. It has the obvious downside of making verifying the sources more difficult though. Anyway thanks! Eniagrom (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eniagrom! No worries. I've run into the same situation before, where a reviewer to one of my DYK nominations had to AGF on a Google Books source, because the page viewable to me was hidden from them. I absolutely believe your hook can be tied to your source, I was merely commenting that your hook could also be tied to a source that was viewable by myself. That is a really interesting article, thank you for writing it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Glad you passed, well deserved. Now, keep your head on straight! (egads....) Also, keep your signature, I know it was brought up, but I like it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, thanks. I'd hate to lose it - I'm going to try and keep it for a while, at least. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So glad to hear it. I don't use mine very often, but I like to keep it handy, just in case.... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC) 78.26 just realizes that Ser was talking about signature, not head. See what I mean?....[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your thank you from the DYK project (pass it on?) Victuallers (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]