User talk:Bluewave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi Bluewave, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doing well!

Hi, I ran into one of your edits during RC Patrol and it looks like you're doing very well! Keep up the good work! Regards, --JoanneB 11:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your remark "Wikified as best as I can" in the edit summary of Thailog drew my attention and then I checked some of your other contributions. There are quite a lot of them and from what I've seen, they seem of high quality to me! So again, keep up the good work, Wikipedia needs more editors like you! JoanneB 12:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive

I have come across two of your edits, both very impressive. Ogg 18:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English folk music

I've been picking up on the great work you've been doing on the '60s/'70s English folk scene. Excellent work. I'm listening to No Roses as I write, which always puts me in the mood to write more about this amazing period. Some website's I've had bookmarked on my 'To-Do' page which you may or may not know about: [1], [2], [3]. Hope this helps with your work. Cnwb 23:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lyke Wake Dirge

I haven't heard the Young Tradition's version for a long time, and I no longer have a recording - did they really sing those 2nds in bar 2? Paul Tracy|\talk 22:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Just wanted to thank you for your additions to the page, which I found quite informative; and for supplying with a scan of sheet music for the song. I may work that into a MIDI file so that people can actually hear the tune. Smerdis of Tlön 08:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viola da Gamba

I notice you made the templates for the viol, thanks! But I noticed it wasn't on the Wikipedia:Instruments page. I've tried to add it, but since I don't have experience with the templates I can't figure out why it now won't link to the user viol-1 etc. pages. Could you check it out? Thanks.Makemi 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Now fixed (I think!). See reply on Makemi's page Bluewave 08:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dolmetsch and Authentic performance

It was an accident. His book certainly should be there, as well as Donington and some others. Please re-add it. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windsor

Yeah - it needs a lot of work - I think the important thing is to get the information there first in chronological order. I think the King's reign heading is a little clumsy, but it's an easy way of ordering. St G's chapel may well need a subsection of it's own, as I suppose too should the state apartments. Thanks for the copy edit I can never see my own mistakes however hard I look. Glad you think that ugly and dull list should go too, I had made up my mind to shunt it off to a separate list page on its own. Where it should have been in the first place. I just thought I would wait and see who was watching me;-)! Life in the castle is not much better - do you think it need to be there at all. I think I'll just leave it for the time being perhaps what is there will eventually be able to be absorbed elsewhere. It's going to be quite long eventually as the George IV section will have to be quite lengthy. Please add anything you like, I don't want it to look like I am taking it over. Aspern 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I expect I will offend someone starting here Constables and Governors of Windsor Castle. Oh well be bold as they say here! I think I'll probably change the list of monarchs to something like Tudor Period and Plantaganet Period something like that and lump them in together, I just want to get thing sorted into some sort of timescale first. That's if no one reverts me first!!! Aspern 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I like your plan - have you seen what I've done to the older one? Could you make the numbering on yours larger - say to the size of the plan I've uploaded now, then we could just insert yours in place of the older one. I just want to get up to finsh off the Wyatville stuff, and through the Victorian restorations and then leave it there for today, and tackle medieval stuff later. Aspern 13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No I think I'll prefer yours, its brighter and clearer. I'll stop editing and you can set it up etc. I'll leave the inuse there to stop anyone conflicting you. I won't edit agian after I sign this untill you remove the inuse OK. I've made several references to the letters on mine in the article, if yours are different they may need to be changed. I didn't maryk the towers etc because that old plan was to vague, a good idea on yours though - over to you - it's all yours untill I hear. Aspern 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's much better isn't it? Brighter and cleaner altogether more concise. I wonder who uploaded the old one - hope there won't be any offense - it's not really needed now. There's a bit more to add yet about Quuen Victoria and Salvin, and his restorations, and there is quite a bit of repetition. This is the trouble with adapting an old article, often easier to start from new. There is oads more information to upoad on the earlier stuff, that's why I left the King's headings like that, but have removed tham as I'm writing properly, if you see what I mean. At least if its chronological order if someone dumps a great whad of information on the page as people often do it's easier to slot it in somewhere and keep the page readable. I don't think Charles I's portrait is quite right there either, I just put it there to try it out. What do you think about the rooms, there are so many - do you think it's just easier to mention the principal ones as they crop up in the history. There are so many of them, and if they have to have a description of the paintings and the furniture it will be a book not an article. I think we have to keep Charles I somewhere and slot in a few paintings from the collection too that are already out of copyright and availabel to give a flavout of the interior and keep the page looking interesting and atractive. I read Palazzo Pitti the other day and quite like the layout and style there - take a look. Well done on the plan it's great. Aspern 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Very poetic indeed. I would not put it in the page if you want it to make a Featured article. I've been watching carefully what goes on over there when it's something like finished we have to insert hundreds of footnotes to almost every fact. Although this is all very straight forward we should not need too many, just for quotes and things. Have you done a FAC before? It seems we can't say its beautiful or indeed anything complimentary, not too much about the Royal family, not even that a room is majestic or splendid. If you check out the two featured article attempts they took to get Buckingham Palace through you'll see what I mean. I'm not sure I agree with it all, but it's easier to play by the rules I suppose. Aspern 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Did you see I have created [Category: Windsor castle]] its surprising how much there is on the subject and its tangents. I wondered how toy felt about syphoning off the Security section, where it could be handled in far more depth than on the page itself. It should also include things like the defence and security, beginning with the siege of 1215 etc. I'm sure there must have been hundreds of incidents over the centuries concerned with this sort of thing. There is still a hell of a lot to go in about the castle proper, I know page length does not matter, but we want to hold interest to the end. If you look at what is in the Cat Windsor Castle there is probably quite a lot more that could be placed elsewhere. St. George's Chapel is though is a poor page which could be expanded considerably. What do you think? I think security looks incongruous where it is, especially as it could be so enlarged. Aspern 12:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was covering myself with "one of" if you have the Guinness book of records can you re-insert "largest" with a footnote to the GB o R. Yes I see the page is being copyedited and added to, it's funny how the second there is large movement on a page, it draws others in, that is what is so good about Wikipedia. If someone dumps on the page now at least we can see where to put it, albeit on another page!
From what you say there is a lot more to add, I wouldn't be surprised about The Queen Mother story - it's amazing what seeps out especially to the locals. Sadly we cannot have a page Rumour and innuendo of Windsor Castle - or could we? You haven't committed yourself to your view on moving security to another page. from what you say there is a lot you could add, especially closing so much of the castle in the name of security, that is easier enough to prove, I have bought and early 20th century guide book which announces the tower is open - so that is easy enough.
Yeah FAC is just so tightly policed, it's looks almost impossible to get a long page through. Giano who writes all the architecture pages seems to be completely pissed off with it too - it seems to be quite a widespread feeling. We'll just have to write this page and then have a good look at it, but I don't want to leave important information out, just because of space and POV interpretation, and FAC regulations. Aspern 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. The day job is a little pressing at the moment so not much time. The problem is going to be deciding what is directly concerned with the castle, and what can be shunted off. I think it would be a good idea to have seiges and battles on a security page, we could call it something alittle more exoting which embraces all aspects of defence over the centuries, Venn's cunning plan sounds interesting wonder what it was. Hope to have some time later this week.Aspern 17:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dunwich

Hi I agree that my Dunwich contributions need more work but am pretty new to Wikipedia. How do I include footnotes and what particular parts need working on? I'll do my best to improve them --Edchilvers 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beverley Martyn

Thanks for the encouragement! I'm a novice to Wiki and I'm just dipping my toes in at the moment - mostly trying to expand the John Martyn album list (its still only the bare bones at the moment). Cheers --twitter 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Fawkeshdq.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Fawkeshdq.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wizz moody.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wizz moody.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/u/User_talk%7EBluewave_2b88.html"