User talk:Cenedi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Cenedi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Timeline of Portuguese history (Fourth Dynasty)

Good work in Timeline of Portuguese history (Fourth Dynasty)! I was wondering when someone was going to pick that up and continue... The Ogre 14:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, please

Hello Cenedi,

Your recent edits to Johannes Brahms are literate and thoughtful--but you're not stating where your information is from (i.e., in the form of scholarly citations). The Wikipedia has recently been trying to crack down on this--see the policy Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research. So could you please return to your work and provide suitable references? Thanks very much.

Yours sincerely,
Opus33 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

<Cenedi replied on Opus33's talk page.>
Hi Cenedi,
I can suggest a few things. (1) Label the reference section, e.g. "The following three works are the primary sources used in the biographical material above." (2) Find the cases in the text where not all scholars agree, and say things like "In the view of Smith (1984), ". (3) See also what User:Raul654 did in Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)--you put <ref> and </ref> around a reference source, and it automatically makes a footnote and adds the reference to the bibliography.
As far as details go, I can't help much, since I've never read any books about Brahms (which I why I don't usually edit the Brahms page). You would be the best judge.
Why is this worth doing? Two reasons: unless you have an utterly steel-trap memory, you'll find that in editing you occasionally misremember what your reference sources say (I certainly find this to be true in my own editing.) Also, it helps serve as an example to other editors. In particular, we want to hold back the nitwits who uncritically repeat the myths they were told as children (these are numerous in classical music). The best way to do this, I think, is to insist on a source for every edit.
I hope this helps.
Yours truly,
Opus33 20:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi there, I noticed that on a few articles you placed the category tags in {{}}, which produced some strange results. Better to use square brackets! Cheers, David Sneek 10:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morgaine edits

Hi Cenedi. Thanks for your edits to The Morgaine Stories. Judging by your handle, my guess is you might want to take a look at some of the other articles in Category:C. J. Cherryh. There's a lot of work to do in terms of getting some of these articles to full potential, and your efforts there would be most appreciated! Thanks again for your contributions. Fairsing 03:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime military history

Hello! As I see you have an interest in naval history I just wanted to let you know that a Maritime warfare task force has been established under the WikiProject Military history. Why not take a look? :) Inge 11:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1928 International Columbia Graphophone Competition

Hi, Thanks for providing references for this article - it makes an interesting read! However, I am a bit confused, though, because the titles of all the books etc cited run in together. Would you kindly put a * at the begining of each line and this will start a new line for each work referenced. Thanks for the input! DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schoenberg and Brahms

Would you care to leave a comment at Talk:Johannes Brahms about your source for the statement about Brahms having approved of an early form of his D minor string quartet? I'm interested in looking it up (I'm a big Schoenberg fan), and I think others might be too. - Rainwarrior 18:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for correcting me on the Schumann-Brahms meeting; 1 October is clearly correct. The point of my addition was to correct the impression given by the previous editor, that Schumann single-handedly discovered Brahms' genius without anything to go on! As you no doubt know, Brahms had already impressed Joachim, and written three piano sonatas! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 11:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Napier (naval officer)

Isn't it normal in Bio articles to give a dead subject his more senior title? E.g. No King or Queen were Kings and Queens for all their careers either, yet are always referred to as such. This article should at least be entitled Sir Charles Napier, so by dissociating him from Charles James Napier, (also a Knight) his cousin and General officer in the army. Although I have done it myself in earlier articles, it seems that the use of information in parentheses in the title, should be reserved for the main article or info on a disambig page. Cheers Brendandh 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadrian

Thank you for finishing the section of Hadrian concerning the emperor's journeys! EALacey 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/n/User_talk%7ECenedi_7ad5.html"