User talk:Mako098765

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Please start a new section (at the bottom); I'll reply to your talk page. Scattering a discussion across two talk pages doesn't make very much sense to me, but whatever.

-mako 23:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Modal jazz

Aloha. Regarding Kind of Blue, you wrote, Its compositions "So What" and "All Blues" are prevalent jazz standards. I'm not sure that is worded correctly. I'm a big jazz fan, and I'm familiar with jazz standards, especially in the live venue as well as on recordings, and I've never heard anyone cover those tunes, even though they are familiar to jazz musicians around the world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps you meant to say that they are jazz classics? See this link for examples:[1]. --Viriditas | Talk 00:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a strict historical sense, a jazz standard is a popular song composed by a non-jazz musician that is performed by jazz musicians. Fred Kaplan, popular jazz and music critic, is one proponent of this definition. However, a more general definition allows for many jazz songs to be referred to as standards. Jeremy Wilson's web site, jazzstandards.com, attempts to redefine the jazz standard, and include a list of 1000 jazz standards ranked by compositions that jazz artists choose to include on their CD recordings. Wilson's site redefines the jazz standard as a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations. "All Blues" is ranked at number 248, and "So What" is ranked at 435. The site recommends referring to the top 750 compositions as "jazz standards" and the last 250 as "minor standards", which I find interesting because they mostly focus on the top 100 standards, many of which were not originally jazz tunes, thus reinforcing the nature of the original definition. I suppose it is fair to say that even though these tunes are not part of the standard jazz repertoire, and are not ranked in the top 100, they are still considered to be jazz standards in the general sense, as the definition has evolved over the years to be more inclusive. I have self-reverted on Modal jazz. --Viriditas | Talk 03:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Steps moves

The Giant Steps disambiguation exists to help the user find what they are looking for. It is generally assumed that the user will be searching for the album, not the song. The current article on the composition should be either merged and redirected to the main album page, or if expanded, disambiguated with the term "composition". --Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, as I have Lewis Porter's book in front of me. If you plan on expanding the article, and I think that's a good idea, it should be moved to Giant Steps (composition) with Giant Steps pointing to the album. --Viriditas | Talk 04:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It may not be easy to move it back without admin rights. You want to preserve the edit history, so it may have to be done by an admin. --Viriditas | Talk 04:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia:Google test returns the album as the hit, not the song. Also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Music. ). When necessary, disambiguation should be done using (band), (album) or (song)...use further disambiguation only when needed... Unless multiple albums of the same name exist (such as Down to Earth), they do not need to be disambiguated any further. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is an unrelated example. Wish You Were Here (album) and Wish You Were Here (song) is another. The original names were appropriate and the current names should be reverted to the original versions. --Viriditas | Talk 06:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your argument only applies to musicians like us, or jazz aficionados. As a popular encyclopedia, naming conventions apply to the most common thing, in this case the popular Jazz album by John Coltrane. There is a google test for everything, and Coltrane's album comes out on top in terms of music. I don't think you can argue that the song is more popular than the album, because more non-musicians know the album rather than the song. Please try to see this from the perspective of the average reader and not just that of a musician. When someone types in "Giant Steps", it should go to the album. While you and I agree that the composition is more important, that is not going to help the average person searching for Giant Steps. --Viriditas | Talk 07:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The point is that the song is on the album, and users can get to the song from the album page, and that is true for all albums (I gave you examples above) that include songs of the same name. The second point is whether there should be a disambiguation page named Giant Steps (disambiguation), and from looking at the google results, there doesn't appear to be a need for it at this time. Another thing to keep in mind is that the original disambig (song) was not non-encyclopedic, but is part of the naming conventions page. BTW, you appear to have lost the original history of the edits of the song page by not moving the page correctly. I'm going to try and fix this and restore the history until there is a consensus. Since you are interested in naming conventions, you might want to also contribute to that policy page. --Viriditas | Talk 09:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You may want to keep in mind that we are on the same side of the fence, and that we both have the best interests of the articles in question. Regarding naming conventions and moving procedures, disambiguation and redirects, these are fairly small matters that we should be able to agree upon easily. I'm going to attempt to review all the relevant documents and update you with any progress. We should also think about editors who may be faced with this problem in the future, and attempt to contribute to the policy pages to their benefit. Personally, I don't see a problem, but the current pages are fairly ambiguous, so we may want to clarify these issues further. I would prefer to work with you, not against you. --Viriditas | Talk 00:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not really "my" argument, but a matter of policy that we should name pages using the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Disambiguation discusses aspects of this: Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion..When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", would they expect to view any of the articles listed on the disambiguation page? Finally, the song, Giant Steps is classified as a subtopic of the album, even if they share the same name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) addresses one aspect of this: We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication. I think a good argument for keeping Giant Steps pointed at the album (unless we have a dab page) is to check out the results of what links here for the album. It is safe to say that more links refer to the album than to the song. I've previously given you other examples of where song titles point to the album, with dab's reserved for the songs. I think it's clear that when a user links to or searches for Giant Steps, they will most likely be linking to or searching for the album. There isn't any precedent to direct them to the song which is a sub-topic of the album. Articles should link and redirect to primary topics where necessary. If there is an argument for directing the user to the sub-topic instead of the primary, I haven't yet heard it or observed it's implementation on Wikipedia. It might be a good idea to check the Wikiproject pages, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. I'm sure you can find answers there. Have you tried posting to User_talk:TUF-KAT? He is responsible for the vast majority of music articles and might have a good, informed opinion. --Viriditas | Talk 06:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I agree with you about policy, and would be greatly interested in helping you develop it. --Viriditas | Talk 09:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May Revolution

Great job, thanks. -Mariano 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Account Sign up

Thanks for your kind comments. I'm considering signing up when I have got a bit more used to 'WikiWorld'

Alan

[edit] Nausicaä

This is kind of a minor point, but why do you want the Nausicaä manga to be first in the infobox and not the film? Obviously the manga was begun before the film, and was worked on for many more years, but the article is cleary more focused on the film, the infobox image is of the film box, and I imagine the majority of users look up Nausicaä to find info primarily on the film (being pleasantly surprised to learn that such a well-thought-out manga was also made in the same vein). For all of these reasons the Nausicaä film is more "important", and that's why I had it listed at the top of the infobox rather than lost at the bottom. I don't think chronology is the better guide here at all. —Tarnas 22:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject:Electronics

Welcome to the project. I hope you will enjoy contributing, and hopefully you'll learn things to help with your studies at the same time! BTW I hear you're into Big Bands. So am I, and run my own band over here every week!--Light current 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bands

As regards brass muting, I am guessing slightly as to the analogies between the different mutes and electronic filters based on my personal hearing & opinion. I havent got any spectral measurements yet altho' I could maybe get some by recording the different mutes versus open sounds then putting the recordings thro Cool Edit to look at the spectrum!!

I also intend to let my brass players read the article so I can get some proper feedback on this muting thing. I have a trombone player who is also physics high school teacher so he'll be able to give me some sensible comments I hope. The harmon mute is the hardest to describe, I think, due to the number of possibilities you have with it.--Light current 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrino

Thanks for the good work on Hydrino_Theory. Almost everything I agree with, that you have improved the presentation. except this: "+ These results have not been widely replicated or confirmed by the scientific community at large; hence the standard of reproducibility has not yet been met." Who has repelcated this? NASA did not. ( that was a cold fusion experment ), Did you read the newer cited source? After I read both the book(CQM) and the NASA paper, and looked at the website, did I quote the NASA paper, and show that the USN, didnt confirm anything. I am not questioning your accuracy, just did you read the cited paper?

Yours, -- user:Artoftransformation

[edit] Infobox coloring (!)

Errr, I noticed that you've changed the coloring/style for Template:Infobox animanga. Please please please don't make such changes without prior discussion at Template talk:Infobox animanga. - mako 09:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gray was ugly and I was being bold, I'll post there but I really felt a discusseion is wasn't necesary. Tonikaku, I'll be more careful in the future. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles in infobox

Actually, I tried putting in a space in between before, but it didn't make a space in the infobox for some reason.

[edit] River Plate

Given your previously expressed interest at Talk:Viceroyalty of the River Plate, you may or may not be interested in the rather heated discussion going on at Talk:Río de la Plata. Tomertalk 09:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC


[edit] Amplifier

Yes I know it to biased towards audio. Thats why Im making into a hub page to try to make it more general. Please bear with me!--Light current 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITER

Thanks for the edits. The wikipedia rocks. I'm always blind to my errors on the first draft... Danielfong 05:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Impostor

What makes you think that? User:Faseidrnan has been around since many months ago, whereas ClockwrokSoul existed for a few minutes on Friday. If User:Faseidrnan has made some dubious edits, take it up with them on their talk page. -Splashtalk 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, my bad. I'm tired and was taken in by the redirect. I've now indef blocked and reverted all the remaining edits. The edit to Champerty and the IP address's talk page was fairly good evidence. -Splashtalk 04:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga

You are listed as a participant of WikiProject Anime and manga. A recent change in how participants are listed — using a category — will result in your inadvertent removal from the project. If you wish to continue your participantion, please check the the project page for details on how to add yourself back to the project. - Squilibob 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film stock

Thanks for deleting the redundant See also section and cleaning up some of the prose I missed. However, I must vociferously protest the illogical deletion of three very informative and relevant links (Kodak, Fuji, and a detailed page about video to film transfer methods) in favor of linking to a Kodak subpage alone. Choosing to favor the Kodak mainpage over that page is debatable, but deletion of the other two links, especially Fuji, is completely improper considering that they're the only other major film manufacturer! I've reverted the external links section (as well as adding a category to the article). I hope you will agree with this. Many thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Alternate" vs "alternative"

In most varieties of English other than U.S. English, "alternate" and "alternative" have very different meanings. An "alternate" is something that alternates with another, while an "alternative" is another choice or possibility. In fact this is sometimes still used in the U.S., even very occasionally on CDs by Blue Note, Verve, and others, though the distinction has almost died. As "alternative" means the same thing in all varieties of English, while "alternate" means different things, it's best to stick to "alternative". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

What did I do wrong? I couldn't get those refs to show at all. :( Kyaa the Catlord 09:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troubling patterns of edits and what to do about them

Hi, can you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder and User:Omegatron are very upset over my recent activity in trying to correlate anon IPs with each other and in a few cases with real life identities, in connection with explaining concern over a possible conflict of interest. Obsidian is threatening to ArbCom me and Omegatron apparently believes that I posted personal contact information, which is absolutely not true. ---CH 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think things have calmed down; there's not much I can add at this point. - mako 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] African American

regarding the message you left on my talk page, my belief is this. i am African American myself. my ancestors were slaves who were brought here from Africa.

however i look at the issue as this: not a single article on Wikipedia refers to Caucasian people as "European Americans" or "Caucasian Americans". so why should people of color be designated any differently? 12.100.11.146 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

So what if the article isnt peer reviewed? Neither are Grisha Perelman's papers on Thurston conjecture, but that didnt stop him being awarded Fields medal, which he refused out of contempt (and you can ask yourself, what is exactly that he despises!).

And btw, the claims added about Klein-Gordon equation are published in well established texbooks quantum mechanics (see quotation in the article you pettily object as not being "reviewed"), and are certainly not contraversial. So, if you keep removing them, I will keep reinserting them - this method will lead you nowhere. The fact that Klein-Gordon equation has these solutions is certainly of interest in this context and should NOT be omitted from the article. If the electron had spin 0 there would indeed be this hydrino state according to accepted physics. Hydrino theory may be "woody science", but this interesting fact about the spin-0 and spin-1/2 particles should be included as a very related and relavant curiosity!!!

  • You refered me to wiki policies, yet it seems you have not read them yourself. Note

1) Fact that Klein-Gordon equation hase these solutions is scientific concensus (and indeed it is easy to check - the solution is fairly explicit) well known for decades (and is not discovered in the quoted article, which is to a large extent expository - and in fact elementary, to the degree that I seriously doubt your good faith). 2) for profesional researchers the folowing is stated in policy - well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material

Be aware that you are the one who violates the policy, by pushing your POV. You may restate the claim, but it has to be included as it is clearly relevant! Hvarako 05:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separating article on hydrino from that on mills "theory"

I see that you are removing my adition of Klein Gordon etc from the hydrino theory article. While your argument is wrong (the fact that there is this solution is well known and not disputed), it is also true that you have a point that this is only tangentially related to the mills theory. indeed, his "theory" (an almost complete nonsense in my opinion) covers much wider subject and pretends to replace quantum mechanics. On the other hand, hydrino hypothesis - that there are states of hydrogen, or of hydrids for that matter, with much lower energy, is strictly speaking independent from the theory, and is a legitimate hypothesis. His experimental results are supposedly related to this subject, and even rathe and other give them some merit. So I believe that it is best if the article is separated in two - one, mills nonsensical theory, and other, the hydrino issue. This would only do justice to the subject. The theory itself, while largely nonsensical, is curious and ought to be given fair treatment. Inconsitences should be pointed out (and these are verifiable, since book is out there), while plausible ideas (modeling atom classically - by nonradiation condition) should be explained, as they largely are now. While theory is misguided (to say the least), there is posibility that experimental results have some merit and might be explained in the framework of mainstream physics. in any case, clearly hydrino idea is something which IS considered not only in connection with miles nonsense theory, but is subject to attention of some mainstream theoretical work. Hvarako 05:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply - relevance of Klein-Gordon

Well, electron has of course spin 1/2, but that does not mean that spin-0 is not relevant in this context. For instance, when you add two spin 1/2 particles together, then clebsh gordan decomposition is going to give you one spin 1 particle (3 dimensional) and one 0 spin particle (1 dimensional) (i.e. decomposition into irreducible representations of a tensor product is going to be sum of those two subspaces). So, while it might not be relevant for the hydrogen atom per se, it might appear formally in some calculations for systems (i.e. for molecules - hydrids, or pehaps ions). So, even though this is far from clear, there might be some overlooked possibilities which ideed give some compounds which are more tightly bond then hydrogen (and that is what supposedly experimental results claim). In any case, and thats my main point, this fact is curious. Indeed, I have found another archiv article that builds on further on this hydrino solution and shows that if you change point charge with a small sphere as a source (i.e. cut off potential near the origin) this solution dissapears (though, it appears to me that there is a crude error in his argument - he did not consider most general solution near the origin, omitting a square integrable Const cos(qr)/r from consideration). So it seems not to be physical even for spin 0 particles even though it is integrable. However, the whole point is that these things are being considered in connection to the hydrino idea, and so, as a subject of research, it ought to be discussed. Also, that guy mills might be delusional in his theory (if he is not outright dishonest) but his experiments might correspond to some real phenomenon, only he might be misinterpreting it. This is similar to the cold fusion claims - while the idea is highly controversial, the experiments seem to show something, replicability problems aside - often, discoveries are made in this way. So, I think the subject should be given fair treatment, including all related curiosities. Hvarako 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "foreign" network/publisher

Do you interpet foreign as being any non-Japanese, non-English release, or any non-Japanese release? I'm assuming the first is correct, since the original source and the english editions are what we, on the EnWiki, would primarily care about, but a couple users have claimed this is somehow POV. The original should obviously be included. What's your take? --tjstrf 08:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply here, btw. --tjstrf 08:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to say non-Japanese. In my view, the original takes precedence, as the rest are translations. - mako 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but this is the EnWiki, and the English versions should be included. It's a translation, but it's the English translation. Well, I'll just boldly use my method (as I have been) without changing any occurences I find of the other and see if it becomes an issue. You do whatever, and if it becomes a problem we can aim for a centralized discussion on it. The bigger issue right now is getting people to actually use the function. I need to sleep now, good night. --tjstrf 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save the List!

They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!! -Bilaber 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion would be greatly appreciated

Hello there, I am a fellow member of Wikiproject jazz. I was wondering, if you had a moment to spare, if you would be willing to give your opinion on a matter at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 15 concerning a category I created. The category is [[Category:Jazz musicians of New Orleans]], and it has been proposed that the article be merged with Musicians of New Orleans and American jazz musicians. This is precisely why I created the category, because it seemed to me the birthplace of jazz music and continous modern symbol of jazz certainly deserves a category unto itself. Regardless of your opinion, I would greatly appreciate your input there so as to have a discussion over the matter. Thanks. (Mind meal 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] New categories for jazz musicians

Hello fellow member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz! I am delivering this message to all members of the project to inform them of a major addition to the evolution of this project. Please see Category:Jazz musicians by genre to familiarize yourselves with the new categories for jazz musicians. Most of the genre categories contain sub-genres in their drop-down menus, so be sure to open them up! I am sending this to everyone to speed up the population of these categories. The sub-genres have been carefully researched to ensure they belong under their corresponding "mother genre"! And please, when in doubt do not categorize something via an assumption. Well, that about covers it! Any help in this regard will be greatly appreciated.(Mind meal 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:JacoPastorius-PunkJazz.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JacoPastorius-PunkJazz.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:John Coltrane-Miles Davis-So What-The Sound of Miles Davis.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:John Coltrane-Miles Davis-So What-The Sound of Miles Davis.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. —Angr 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title field in Infobox animanga/Manga

In the usage notes for the infobox (Template:Infobox animanga#Usage) it says that the title field should not be used when the article title and the manga title are the same. However, as seen in the right side column of the article Blue Drop, where there are multiple manga boxes, the top manga entry doesn't have a title field. I thought that this non-uniformity in the article could be somewhat confusing, unnatural, etc. So I intuitively added the title field, but was correctly struck down based on the official usage explanation. For you, the person who originally wrote the template and explanation, is having multiple manga boxes next to each other within the same article something that wasn't envisioned, and would the Blue Drop example change your thought on this? —Tokek 01:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:AnnieRoss Mulligan.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AnnieRoss Mulligan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)