User talk:Sam/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome! I'm writing to ask for your opinion on Talk:List of musical topics: is jegog a genre? Hyacinth 21:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Jegog is technically a genre of Indonesian Gamelan. But Gamelan just means ensemble. I saw "Jug Bands" and "Musical Bands" on the list, and "Ballet" and "Dance". So I didn't see the distinction of genres. I've made suggestions on the musical topics talk page. "List of musical topis" is a very broad term. I think you should be able to get from there to every specific music entry in two clicks in an understandable, non-ethnocentricly organized way. --Sam

Great work on Gamelan. Hyacinth 04:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Georg Spencer Brown

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome too! I just reverted your move of the content of George Spencer Brown to G. Spencer-Brown. I did this for two reasons: firstly, Wikipedia name policy is to use the most common form of the full name. I'm not sure if this is "George Spencer Brown" or "George Spencer-Brown"; in German language texts by Luhmann I only have see the former. So I made George Spencer Brown again the main entry and turned George Spencer-Brown as well as G. Spencer-Brown into REDIRECTs. The second reason is, that for moving a page -- which is essentially what you tried to do -- you should use the "move" function. It copies not only content, but also history. If it doesn't work, this means there is an article with history already; in such cases maybe an admin can help by deleting that article. BTW: If you want to use abbreviated names in an article, you can do so like this [[George Spencer Brown|G. Spencer-Brown]]. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 19:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds difficult. Maybe you are right that G. Spencer Brown is much more common than George Spencer Brown -- I know the name form German works (i.e. Luhmanns), and there it is always George Spencer Brown. So I assumed that this is what is commonly used (a similar probleme arised between Theodor Adorno and the more common form -- in Germany, but not in English literature -- of Theodor W. Adorno. If this isn't the case in the English-Speaking world, than of course it should be G. Spencer Brown. (BTW: Is Spencer a part of the surname or of the lastname?). Maybe we should ask some third person for an opinion? For that I copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If Spencer-Brown is a combined last name, then I think we should use George Spencer-Brown; the other cases you showed did at least list one first or middle name, or am I wrong here? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: The Laws of Form website lists him as George Spencer-Brown in the title of his vita [1].

I appreciate your help at VFD on 6-10-04 on The Cumulative Progressive Spiritual Intelligence of the Universe. I would also appreciate your opoinion at VFD 6-10-04 Creed of Transcendentalism Today. Let me know how I can reciprocate.kkawohl

Indonesian Spellings

I'm flattered, but I actually haven't seen a discussion anywhere. Check: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I would also guess that you would find little opposition (or interest?). Hyacinth 21:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Its more accurate to say I attempt to be civil. I do telephone surveying and its easy to just hang up the phone, there are a hundered other articles one could be editing, there's not much point in fighting in circles. I do also find that one should always give fellow wikipedians a second chance, as even the best, most accurate, most polite, editors have bad days. Hyacinth 07:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Manual of style

I'm glad this is on the talk page now. It's true we could use more specific guidelines for foreign language use, but many points of this go against the already-established guideline to use the most common names in English to refer to a subject in its article title (although the native language version definitely needs to be in the first paragraph of the article, and probably also made a redirect to the article). This is, after all, the English language version of the Wikipedia. Even if, for example, it were possible under the software to make article titles in Cyrillic (which it's currently not) it wouldn't be appropriate here any more than using the Roman alphabet would be on ru.wikipedia.

Also, sorry for being abrupt with the revert. Didn't see at first that you'd posted on the talk page, and I'd be happy to discuss it there, hopefully there will be enough input from different folks that we can come up with something that's agreeable to everybody. - Hephaestos|§ 15:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anime

Anime is just Japanese animation, but what the Japanese consider as their best animation and what the west consider as there best. Akira and Spirited Away are at least what North American's have considered the best, but as for what the Japanese would consider as their own best I'm not too sure. CyclopsScott 19:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wayang!

Wayang kulit. Hyacinth 21:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LGBT film

Wondering about your changes to LGBT film. Where is the style guidelines on Film that you refer to? I'm specifically wondering about the removal of Angels in America. I don't think it is a TV mini-series, but a two part movie that happened to be made for HBO. I see nothing wrong with putting made for TV movies on the list. It seems like an artificial distinction to keep Angels off the list. --Samuel Wantman 01:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are three issues here. Angels in America is a TV movie and belongs in the article dedicated to LGBT TV; the film article is geared toward theatrical releases. The second, is WP guidelines on all articles, which include the standard that our content is not original research and is verifiable - conjecture that films like Rebel Without a Cause or All About Eve LGBT are neither - although they do have a large gay following. Third, the style issue is the change from "movies" to "film" - which was a long-ago WP discussion to avoid confusion of both American-centrism and TV/theatrical releases. Davodd 07:01, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sundanese Suling

Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, I know not much about Sulings in other region than West Java. Therefore, following your suggestion, I created a new sundanese suling page. Dian Nugraha 03.10.2004 23:23 CET

Hard chord

Unfortunately I don't have the song available for listening, as that sometimes clears up immediately whether notes are coloristic or not.
I would probably agree with you: call it a pandiatonic cluster (whose root is D). However, there are two things I notice about the chord:

The pitch classes can be lined up in a cycle of fifths: F-C-G-D-A-E
The pitch classes can also be lined up in a series of thirds: D-F-A-C-E-G

Neither is suggested by the spacing or inversion, except that a series of thirds seems more likely in popular music and having D in the bass suggests itself as the root. One could thus interpret it simply as D11 extended chord. Hyacinth 01:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, every piece of music is analysed in many divergent ways. If this wasn't the case analyses would not need to be done as the "truth" would be immediately apparent. The best service we can do for readers is to provide at least a sampling of the full variety of interpretations of a given piece.

Second, I don't know who considers the chord a G chord of any variety, but that is extremely unlikely, in my opinion. According to Alan W. Pollack's notes [2] the chord "functions as a surrogate dominant (i.e. V) with respect to the chord on G which begins the first verse". Given this I would feel fine about removing the claim that the opening chord is any G chord, and that would reduce the variety. Hyacinth 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also note that Prof. Brown doesn't interpret his data at all and that a chords function should not be confused with its structure.

I also attempted to indicate clearly in the article Everett's analytic situation. He is more likely to interpret the chord as a bVII because he is only making that point as part of a larger argument that the bVII is important and often used in The Beatles' music. He also has a much more compelling reason, which is that the bVII is used throughout "A Hard Day's Night" and thus the opening chord is more likely to be (re)interpreted as a bVII. Hyacinth 22:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No offense, you greatly improved the order of the information. I readded the technical details you removed. Hopefully they are written and located more clearly. Hyacinth 22:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How does Dm7sus4 make you feel?

Employment

Yes, I quit. I've never had such a demeaning job, including when I worked for the same company two years ago, and four months working at McDonald's during high school while becoming a vegetarian (I only still ate fish at that point). I'm looking for office work, ideally, but it looks like I will settle for a high paying (relatively) direct care job. I worked for adults with developmental disabilities in Billings and Helena, MT, and with adults with mental illnesses in Seattle. The smaller the town the worse direct care is (meaning in Helena, pop. 40,000, it was horrible). Later. Hyacinth 22:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Diatonic functionality

See Talk:Diatonic functionality. Hyacinth 07:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Order of references

See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Have a nice day. =) Johnleemk | Talk 09:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit on A Hard Day's Night (song), because links are valid references (as stated on Wikipedia:Cite sources), and both links were indeed used as sources for writing the article. Sorry for the inconvenience. Johnleemk | Talk 08:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's much of a policy on having both references and links duplicate each other, but I guess you could be bold and duplicate them. Removing them completely from the references isn't a good idea, though. Johnleemk | Talk 09:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Ikat

Hi - the picture is of an ikat that I bought in Lombok. As you point out, it might not be from Lombok. Never assume, I know... Feel free to change the caption if you think you can localise it better - it sounds plausible that it might be from Flores. Intrigue 19:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

It's merely because the current layout looks too much like a copy/paste. In most article credits are formatted using bullets (*) in the code, and m-dashes instead of dots. Not policy, but simply consistency. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:32, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Anon's vandalism

Per my bigwig status, I listed 68.231.134.110 on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. After reading Wikipedia:Blocking policy I blocked the IP for 24 hours for "repeated vandalism". Hyacinth 21:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving of film-stub

Please stop moving {{film-stub}} to inbetween categories. Cburnett 15:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Supercategories

If an article is already in a more specific subcategory, it should not also be in the supercategory. – flamurai^TM 19:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. – flamurai^TM 01:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you should propose this as a software enhancement rather than having editors add things to their supercategories. There should be a way on a category page to list everything in that category and all its subcategories. That would avoid this issue altogether. – flamurai^TM 01:27, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I-84

I-84 is part of the Thruway system, just not tolled. [3] I think they took it over in the 1990s as part of a deal with the state. --SPUI (talk) 11:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but the bridge isn't. I'll clarify that. --SPUI (talk) 11:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)