User talk:Mugregg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pbroks13 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kkdavis1910.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kkdavis1910.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 06:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Llewellyn

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Grant Llewellyn, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.hughkaylor.com/Llewellyn/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Art Song

A very useful addition to Wikipedia would be something which allow the cross referencing of composers and poets in English 20th Century Art Song eg even the John Masefield entry contains no link to John Ireland. The lists of songs in composers' entries virtually never mention the author of the text. Are you aware of any helpful online resource that one might be directed to? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.44.176 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The place most folks go for this cross-referencing is www.recmusic.org/lieder, a web site for art song texts in many languages. Mugregg (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Mugregg
Thank you very much for this - it has already proved very useful to me. Looking back I noticed that a link to this site is there on the English Art Song page. Since I'm new here, please forgive this question: within WP rules might there be a more explicit description about what this site offers? To the casual user of WP there are so many links it is easy to become blind to them; I think that such a useful site deserves a little more flagging Almost-instinct (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference and tag edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Boston Conservatory. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. More specifically, removing a proper reference section and adding two general college guide references without footnoting anything, does not constitute a "refimprove" and would not warrant the removal of a refimprove tag. Aepoutre (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mugregg, the message above is a stock tag for reverted edits. Vandalism is essentially anything on Wikipedia that makes the article less encyclopedic and useful. It is not a personal attack; none of this is personal, and the editing process with go smoothly if we all avoid taking umbrage at others' edits. Two of the reasons Wikipedia prefers that individuals with personal connexions to a particular subject not edit articles pertaining to it are conflict of interest (and the resulting POV language) and the inevitable personal offence at a conflicting edit. My reasons for undoing your edit are thus: you removed the References code from beneath the heading, making it impossible for the article to register any well-cited sources there, and you added two relatively-poor sources (college guides) in its place. As I said before, it is not an improvement of an article to do so. The articles require standardization as well as good citation and sourcing. In response to your footnoting comment: yes, footnotes are better. As a faculty member, I'm sure you understand how to properly research and cite sources in a paper or publication. Wikipedia isn't too different in this respect. Happy editing! Aepoutre (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)