User talk:Mind meal

You're adding a lot of articles! Please be sure to give [[Japanese]] a real link, such as [[Japan|Japanese]], [[Japanese language|Japanese]], or [[Japanese people|Japanese]] when you write your articles. You've been adding a lot of redirect links to the Japanese disambiguation page. Thanks! Dekimasu 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Japanese

Thank you Dekimasu. I am very new to Wikipedia and already i know I know nothing about it! But I am learning as I go. I'm not even sure if this is how I reply to messages or not, but I'm giving it a go. Anyway, I'll look over my pages to make any due corrections as time permits me to do so. Thanks again! (Mind meal 12:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Mind meal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

By the way, thanks for all the new additions you've been making. Just a couple style pointers: the title of each article should appear bold (like '''article title''') the first time that it's mentioned in that article. Also, it's good to categorise stubs by type; for the sort of things you work on, good choices are {{buddhism-stub}} or {{zen-stub}}. By the same token, it's a good idea to add some categories, like Category:Zen, Category:Buddhists, Category:Zen Buddhist monks and priests, etc. (Now that I look at your more recent work, and you seem to be fairly up on the categories and stub types think. Anzai Fuyue could be under {{poet-stub}} and {{Japan-writer-stub}}). One more thing, we are supposedly having an effort this month to have everybody work together on the San Francisco Zen Center article; nobody has really done much about it yet, but, if you're so inclined, it would be great if you focused your work on that some. Cheers. —Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nat. I hope you didn't mind some of the changes I made to the San Francisco Zen Center article. I have a question for you. I recently created an article on Shohaku Okumura, but accidentally titled the article Shohaku Okumara. I was wondering how I can change to title of the page? Thanks! {Mind meal 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi! Up at the top of your screen, near the "history" and "edit this page" tabs, there should be a tab for "move" (if you're using a different skin—most people don't do it, but I think it's a good idea—the move tab might be in a different place). This lets you move the page to a different title. If you do this, make sure to check to see if it has caused any broken redirects (the articles you've been writing probably don't have any redirects at all yet, so it's no problem then). PS - There are different schools of thought about what the best way to respond to a message on your talk page is. The most popular way is to place your reply on the other person's talk page; this means that each talk page will have only have half the conversation on it. On the other hand, some people prefer to keep the whole conversation on one talk page. When using the latter form, it's probably a good idea to leave a short note on the other person's talk page saying, "Hey! I saw your message to me and replied on my talk page. If the conversation continues, check back there for my additional responses." Anyway, don't worry too much about the getting the formalities right—you seem to be picking up on things quickly. A pointer: you should usually try to maintain the pattern of indenting that I'm using in this conversation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I tried and tried to find the move link to no avail. I changed skins, read articles on moving pages...but nothing. I was thinking if you had the time, maybe you would be willing to help me turn most of my red links into BLUE!!! links in some of my created pages. Many Zen centers and teachers that I reference in them that I could use some help in creating articles for. I only ask as I see you have some interests in Zen. Anyway, thanks for making feel welcome here! I plan to expand Wiki's Zen database extensively while I'm on board, as I'm retired and have lots of free time. To me this is fun. Thanks again. Mind meal 19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm glad you're having fun with your articles and it looks like you're working on a subject you are really interested in - good for you! I would like to ask that if at all possible, you add citations to your articles. It really helps to add credibility to the article (especially about people - sometimes the glowing prose about Zen teachers can sound more like a press release than an encylopedia article). At any rate, I find looking up the citations from outside sources and stretching myself striving to write in a neutral point of view to be quite satisfying and fun. Not to mention that I've learned a lot along the way, even about topics I thought I knew really well. If you have any questions about how to add citations, feel free to check the help pages or comment here or on my talk page - I'll be happy to help. Nightngle 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-auto|207.69.137.36|violation of WP:NLT}}

You seem to be editing from a different IP address now. Do you still need the autoblock to be lifted? --  Netsnipe  ►  13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. That IP address is a random one Earthlink gives many users, so I logged off and back in and I guess my IP changed. I didn't know what to do at first, but I guess should I face this situation ever again I'll just log out and back in through earthlink. Kind of strange. I had nothing to do with whatever ban was placed. Thanks for responding to me! {Mind meal 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi, Mind meal; welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been working hard on the Rennyo article which I started. Thank you so much for your help in rewriting and expanding this. However, I wanted to point one thing out; you use the word "Shin" a lot to refer to a type or sect of Buddhism. As I am sure you are aware, "Shin" simply means "new" (新), and is not the name of a sect. I think it would probably be better to use "Shinshū", instead of just Shin or Shin Buddhism. After all, it's a "new sect" (新宗), not a New Buddhism. Thanks. LordAmeth 14:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there LordAmeth! I agree totally, and I've gone in and made the proper changes. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm glad to see the contest wasn't too harsh, as I have lots of material here I'm sifting through, attempting to create a cohesive storyline. It is a bit of a tap dance, as I don't want to wipe out what is already there about Rennyo. I have two books filled with information on Rennyo and Shinran, one by Hawaii University Press and the other published by the Indiana University Press. The information in the latter is so heavy and detailed that it is going to take me a while to form the basis of an article. But with these references as a guide, I think I may be able to come close to telling Rennyo's complete story. Since you are the originator of this article, I want to ask you if you want me to run my final draft by you before making further changes? Maybe we could do a back and forth rendering of the material, doing edits and making suggestions, in order to present a polished product. What do you say? {Mind meal 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I just want to add that all of the new material I just added needs no new reference and will not conflict with current references, as I derived the bervity of information from the Dobbins book, though this was the 1989 Indiana University Press edition (not the 2002 edition). Hope all is well! {Mind meal 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I really appreciate you asking, but please do go ahead and make whatever changes you would like. I've already done what I can with my generic History of Japan texts - I don't specialize in religious history, and neither do any of my books. So go right ahead and make it your own ^_^. LordAmeth 17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for interloping here, but isn't the "Shinshū" in Jōdo Shinshū actually "真宗", meaning "true sect", not "新宗" meaning "new sect"? This being the case, I think that it's best to write out Jōdo Shinshū in full, rather than using Shinshū ("true sect of Buddhism" and "true Buddhism" seem like about the same thing to me). I do think that "Shin Buddhism" is an accepted shorthand for Jōdo Shinshū in English, but it probably would be better to use a more formal and clearer term.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Nat. Shin does mean true, and shu does mean sect. So Jodo Shinsu can be said to mean "The True Pure Land Sect". The two references I am using (both printed by University Presses) use the terms interchangeably. While it would be nice to include "Jodo" in every reference with Shinshu, it isn't really that important in my opinion. Here is why I feel that way: All we are doing is differentiating Jodo Shinshu from Jodo Shu, essentially. So Shinshu clearly differentiates itself from Shu, and allows the reader to know that Shinshu refers to Shinran's sect, and Shu refers to Honen's sect. Another reason I have been reluctant to use Jodu Shinshu in every instance concerns the earlier sects of Shinran's tradition. While technically it is correct to say these early sects were in fact Jodo Shinshu, they had many factions with sectarian names. I am afraid it could confuse the reader, unaware of these earlier sects, if I refer to them simply as Jodo Shinshu. They may fail to render, as a result, the fact that Rennyo had to bring all the factions together and unify everyone. So I have been referring to pre-Hoganji sects as Shinshu, so as to highlight a difference that existed there. Mainly the lack of unification. I don't have a problem referring to the older sects as Jodo Shinshu, because in fact that is what they were. I also think a text reads better when the reader does see the same term used in every other sentence. In a way, this helps train people to identify what others could be talking about in other works when they simply say "Shinshu" instead of Jodo Shinshu. Having familiarized themself with the various terminologies, I feel they will be more adept at absorbing the various terms folks use when referring to Jodo Shinshu. I just wanted to let you know the reasoning I used in choosing to do otherwise in certain spots. Hope all is well with you. {Mind meal 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

• bonk* Right. Of course. True sect, not new sect. I was jumping to conclusions. Sorry. But I think the end result is the same, no? LordAmeth 08:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shinshu is fine Lord. Like I said above, Shinshu clearly differentiates itself from Jodo Shu. It is just shorthand that most of the scholarly work I've been looking at seems comfortable with using.{Mind meal 08:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Hey, thanks for working on Dogen; you're doing good work. However, for all those references to Moon in a Dewdrop, you must put page numbers, refer to the author's name and not the title in the footnote, and—if one reference to the same book is the next numbered footnote (i.e., two references to the same book in a row)—put it as Ibid. plus the page number. Cheers. —Saposcat 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me and for the compliment. You've established a good platform to work on for Dogen. I love Wikipedia, don't you? I'm new here so I still have not quite mastered the art of footnotes, but I'm learning. I'm confident in being able to follow the example you've given me, though. Thank you for fixing the references for me, btw. I think I'll have a little more to add shortly. As a side note, do you agree with the new section heads I added? {Mind meal 06:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I almost forgot to ask concerning the page numbers. The dates and information are all referenced through the book, though I did alter the text while staying on message so as to not infringe on any copyrights. Are the page numbers still necessary when I am using the book as a general reference? Your thoughts. {Mind meal 06:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

No need to thank about the references: I love doing that sort of stuff. (Thank you for your compliments, too, by the way.)

The section headings were a good idea; well done. I just changed one slightly: "Dogen in China" to "Travel in China" (better not to self-reference the person the article is about in a section heading, if it can be avoided).

About references: one main thing to remember is that not every date needs to be referenced. Perhaps on occasion for big events (i.e., I kept the reference about Dogen getting Dharma transmission), and certainly for controversial or disputed dates (though I don't think there's really any big controversy with any of Dogen's dates)—but for the most part, a date can be left stand without reference unless someone challenges it. Also on that note, if you're using a book as a general reference, very often you don't need to give a footnote reference; and if you choose to, you can do something like "E.g. Tanahashi 75" or whatnot ("e.g." meaning "for example").

Keep up the good work, and thanks again for the compliment. Cheers. —Saposcat 06:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I noticed you requested a citation, but the material I am referencing offers no name for the master. It merely states "He was even offered dharma transmission by one of the masters but politely refused it." Tips? Advice? {Mind meal 07:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

My advice would be to do research, both on the Internet and in other books (if possible), to see what you can find. For the time being, just put a reference to the book and page number where it says that ... that ought to be enough. Cheers. —Saposcat 07:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've been doing some editing, which I don't have any problem with. So long as the crux of the points are there, no worries. However, I would like to point out that I was merely trying to give a little info on Rújìng to readers, as there is no article associated with him to reference. I would start an article on him, but I don't have enough material to justify it. I suppose I could make it a stub...{Mind meal 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I would suggest a stub, as it can always be expanded upon later (and I'm sure a bit more info on Rujing/Nyojo can be found somewhere). Cheers. —Saposcat 07:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start one later. One more thing, there are some conflicts with my reference and what exists on the early information of his return to Japan. Namely, in my reference it states here that "Returning to Japan in 1227, Dogen stayed at Kennin Monastery in Kyoto, where he had first encountered Zen." The existing text states he was at Mt. Hiei, which my reference makes no mention of prior to his retreat to Kyoto. I'm going to edit that part about Mt. Hiei and mention Kennin in place of it.

What do you think of devoting a section to Dogen's masterworks? {Mind meal 09:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

sorry for my note in the Dogen history page, I didn't know what Ibid is until just now. I thought you were replacing my footnes with your own! Silly me. Anyway, the article is coming along good, huh?{Mind meal 16:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi. Thank you for uploading the photo of the statue of Shinran; however, you did not give proper copyright information. Consequently, the photo may be deleted (although if necessary, it can be undeleted).

Who took the photo? A friend of yours from the LionCity forums, yes, but which friend? Under which license does that friend release the photo?

"If you created this media file and want it to be kept on Wikipedia, remove this message and replace this with {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain."

Let me know. DS 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding the image File:Nishi.JPG which I deleted from the article Nishi Honganji. I deleted the image because under the image licensing you indicated that the image was copyrighted with all rights reserved and that only Wikipedia has permission to use this file (or that permission was granted only to use the image for non commercial use). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, since explicit permission to use it was given, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with this restriction on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it.

I appreciate you sought the permission of the copyright holder to use the image on here, but in order for us to use the image you must request that they make the media available under a free license. If you have any further questions please feel free to leave a message on my talk page or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I'm afraid I've just had to remove File:Shinran.JPG and . If you wish to be able to use the images you will need to contact the photographer and get their consent for them to be released under a free license (which makes them available to everyone, not just Wikipedia) prior to re-uploading them. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Honen Shu.jpg. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love your drawings. It is important that you put the name of the author (you) on them or there might be problems down the road. The GNU free license is not valid without an actual name on it. Alas, "me" or "myself" will not work. Keep up the goos work! Killerbeez 00:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne Juliana Gonzaga, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mighty fine, but it's really strange that the article body has nothing about her life after the death of her husband... So she did nothing interesting during these 30-or-so years? There is also no explanation whatsoever to her name change. Circeus 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to respond so late. Today i am going to work more on the article, as when I began writing it I took a break from the project and haven't returned to it until now. Absolutely, there is a lot she did after her husband's death. I simply grew tired that evening when I created it. This morning I am inspired to tell some more of the story. Thank you for the interest. {Mind meal 10:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

You've been adding Category:Jazz saxophonists to people already in Category:Jazz tenor saxophonists. The tenor category is a sub-category of the overall category, and a few months ago people were putting effort into moving people (like Sonny Rollins for example) into the more specific category. AllyD 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the concern. There are hundreds of artists listed under jazz saxophonists, and I have not removed specific tenor, alto, or baritone specifications. I am merely adding to the categories, so that people who happen upon the category jazz saxophonists will see a greater variety of players. By the way, it is the head category of all the sub-categories. Why should we not include their name in both? Jazz saxophonists is a general heading, and is by nature non-specific. {Mind meal 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

When a subcategory is added, it is placed in the parent catagory aswell. All pages in Category:Jazz tenor saxophonists are automatically in Category:Jazz saxophonists. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but "jazz saxophonists" is the first page everyone sees. In my opinion, it should be the most comprehensive category (including all players); the less people have to click, the better for the site. People could still click the sub-categories to hone their searches, but since we have this category head we may as well include it. That is my feeling, anyway.

PS: I'm listening to Lester Young just now....ahhhhhh.{Mind meal 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi. I changed Johnny Dodds' birthplace back to Waveland, per interviews with brother Baby and Johnny's own reminscences of Missippi Gulf Coast childhood. I suspect"Waverly" originated with the "Jazzmen" researchers in '38 - '39; possibly as a typo, sloppy handwriting, or mishearing. However if you have a good source that it was actually Waverly, please add it back with a citation. (Having looked through lots of the original "Jazzmen" notes in the Bill Russell collection, there's lots of evidence on how they were starting jazz history from scratch with incomplete info-- a couple of drafts and interview notes refer to "Johnny Dot" (sic) before they figured out that the actual name was "Dodds"!) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Black Benny, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 72.75.73.158 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article a bit and removed the tag. Certainly those of us familiar with the early New Orleans jazz context are awaree of his notability, but articles should make such notability clear to those unfamiliar with the subject. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the material on the pianist. In the future please use the "move this page" link rather than cutting and pasting, which loses the original contributor histories. If you ever need help there's also WP:RPM or you can ask an admin. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link and for touching things up for these articles. If I ever need to perform actions similar to those I took for another article, I will refer to the link provided or contact an administrater. (Mind meal 02:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why did you move him to Johann Faber (theologian)? Gareth E Kegg 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thought also. I have moved him back and he should stay back until we have a consensus or until the name is needed for a more prominent 'Johann Faber'. TerriersFan 02:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to create a Johannes Faber, a jazz musician, but was redirected to Johann Faber. So I screwed up badly trying to create a disambiguation page and trying to move some pages around. Thank you for sorting out the mess for me. (Mind meal 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No problem! BTW if you want to create an article for Johannes Faber go ahead and do it - I have deleted the redirect to clear a space for you. TerriersFan 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the link to the Sandy Williams page. I'm Vernon's son-in-law and his two daughters remember Sandy well. User:Lguzenda 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. {Mind meal 23:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

I am disappointed to see that after taking much of the information from the site that I run on Chris Biscoe's behalf at http://www.chrisbiscoe.co.uk you found it necessary to remove the link to his site that I placed there yesterday. I will correct that in the hope that you will allow it to stay. Chris53 13:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. While I was editing the discography, every time I tried to save it it said their was a bad or banned link on the page that first must be removed before saving. I tried several times to save my information. Unfortunately, the only way i was able to add it was by removing the link. I've never had such a thing happen before, and if I had the choice I would never have removed the link. FYI, I actually used little if any of the information on the site for my information.{Mind meal 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks for your response. There were some odd things happening yesterday regarding the saving of edited information on some pages with links that were suddenly blacklisted. That seems to have resolved itself today. I am intrigued now that you say that you didn't get the discography information from Chris's website. As far as I know this information isn't that readily available elsewhere. I'd be fascinated to know your source. Chris53 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the last message... I have corrected a few errors in the discography. It's good to have an entry for Chris Biscoe on Wikipedia. I had been considering creating one but other work had taken priority. You beat me to it. Good work! Chris53 16:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right on Chris. Come to think of it I must have been using your site for the discography, as I can't find the other website I've been using for other artists. I've been creating and editing so many jazz articles as of late that sometimes you start to remember things which never happened! Anyway man, you know I think there should be articles for several jazz record labels that simply aren't on wikipedia yet, such as Enja Records. Enja released a lot of material. There are so many record labels that deserve a link. I think that will be my next project, jazz record labels. {Mind meal 00:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Italian jazz bassists, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Italian jazz bassists fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

category name mistake

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Italian jazz bassists, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{birth date and age}} (or {{birth date}} and {{death date and age}} for dead people) in infoboxes. As well as adding the age (which is calculated, and changes on their birthday), this makes the DoB appear as part of the hCard microformat (see WP:UF). Thank you. Andy Mabbett 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learn something new on here all the time. Will do Andy, thanks. {Mind meal 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you. Just to clarify; for dead people, use {{birth date}} (omitting "and age") for the birth date; that doesn't produce an age. Andy Mabbett 23:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What do I do when the date of birth and/or death is approximate? {Mind meal 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Revert to the old method, without the template. Andy Mabbett 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks again for everything. Very useful and interesting tip. I always wondered if there was a way to calculate ages, so now I know. I've seen so few articles using this format. In fact, this is the first time I recall encountering it. Thanks again. {Mind meal 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Ypou placed {{cleanup}} on this, but without formatting it correctly or explaining why (you also marked the edit as minor, which it wasn't). I've removed it, as I can see no grounds for it. If you do have reasons, could you explain them at the Talk page? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on other projects, so just tossed it there to bring the article to the attention of others. Date of birth and death (if applicable) are absent, and the page reads more like a "who he worked with" page than anything relevant to him. References, infobox, birth dates in proper fields, et cetera. No big deal. {Mind meal 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi. I notice on your edit to Michael White (clarinetist) you said "replaced image with a "better one"; please discuss if you feel the other was more illustrative". I agree the image you uploaded is of better quality, clearly a studio portrait of the subject by a professional photographer. It is also not free licenced like the one you replaced it with (nor a few other photos of the subject availible on Commons). While excellent quality free licened images everywhere would be the ideal, of course, I believe you will find that adiquate quality free licenced images when availible are prefered over copyrighted images under limited "fair use" argument. Also, I have requested a citation for the statement you added that White's birth name was " George Allen Russell" as I'd never heard about that before. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the George Russell Mistake to my attention. I use a template that I edit when creating infoboxes, and sometimes if I am not careful I can let an error slip by. I have no true preference for the photo I placed there, I just figured since it is part of a press kit and so professionallu done that we may as well use it. Thoughts?{Mind meal 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you for your extensive work in expanding the article. However I must strongly take issue with your action in what you describe as removing "bad" or "dead" links. Please understand that Wikipedia is a project under construction, and there are a great many important topics we still lack articles on. Do not be afraid of red links-- they are valuable markers showing areas where Wikipedia needs to expand. Please restore the links to notable artists and bands. Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 03:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose one only should link to articles that actually have been created, as the dead links lead viewers astray and are overall detracting in appearance. If there is not an article on someone you feel is worthy of their own article, please begin one. That is my proposition. And thank you for your contributions also. I hope we can work on this article and come to compromises with one another. Most importantly, everything must be referenced. I used to leave dead links as well, but I've learned that when peer reviews are done to articles they are in most instances removed. I'm sure to hear from you again, so cheers! (Mind meal 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Red link. If you wish to make a proposal that "one only should link to articles that actually have been created", I suggest you bring the matter up for general discussion, as that would be a very significant change of policy from how Wikipedia has functioned up to now. Meanwhile, what should be linked should be determined by the relevence and importance of the topic. By removing the wikilink, you make an editorial decisision that, for example, Papa John Joseph is less deserving of an article than Kid Shiek Cola-- if you think such is the case, please be prepared to explain why without regards to the fact that someone has started a Wikipedia article on one but not the other. As to the suggesion that I should please begin the relevent articles; I would love to. I have created thousands of articles over the past several years, and circumstances permitting I hope to create thousands more. For two of the subjects whose links you removed, I happen to have written articles some years ago for a defunct magazine that I could rework into Wikipedia articles, but if there aren't links to the relevent names from other articles, it is a clear message not to bother as Wikipedia is not yet at a state where it could use such articles. -- Infrogmation 04:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry if what I just wrote seems a bit snide. Understand that from what I've seen I think you are a generally excellent editor and valuable contributor here; I just think you have misunderstood the purpose and importance of "red links" in Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I contend I have made no editorial decision as to their notability, however. I have merely removed the links because there is no article to correspond to it. You are right in stating there is no rule against having red links in the article, though if we are to ever submit this article for GA status that will be a critique we will receive. Has this matter risen to the level of disputation? (Mind meal 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

To clarify, I meant to say that since their notability has yet to be established here on Wikipedia that I made no judgment as to their notability. It has not been demonstrated as of yet. In some instances, perhaps it has. But I don't think, for instance, the Young Tuxedos Brass Band will ever become created, because all relevant information pertaining to the group can go into Michael White's article and be redirected to Michael White. Meaning, we could create a sub-section under Michael's career for the Young Tuxedo Brass band with all relevant information going there. Then create a page for The Young Tuxedo Brass Band that redirects to that section in this article. (Mind meal 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh and concerning the Young Tuxedos, I just learned it was started sometime post WWII by clarinetist John Casimir, who also does not have an article. I am in favor right now of keeping the Young Tuxedos Brass Band delinked and linking who it was started by with the reference. Until an article on Casimir pops up, I see no reason to start a different article from the one we are working on. They have been around since at LEAST the 1940s.(Mind meal 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, the Young Tuxedo (not "Tuxedos") certainly has a history from before Dr White, another reason why that splendid and historic organization ought to have an article. Thanks for starting an article on John Casimir-- wonderful clarinetist, and one of Michael White's early influences via his recordings. However I believe that you'll find Herman Sherman was the leader by the time White joined. I want to see a Wikipedia where we have articles on such figures as Papa John Joseph, Chester Zardis, etc. as well. The links I put in were to figures I thought were important, notable, and deserving of articles. Please put them back, so that not only you or I, but any other interested users can see we still need articles on them. Please see Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Removing the links absolutely makes a statement that you are discouraging the creation of those articles. You are declaring that an article on the subject is unwanted. Should the articles be created while the links are gone, they would be less useful and some other user would be more likely to tag them for speedy deletion if they were orphaned. Again, I ask you to stop your purge of links to notable article subjects, and to please get more input from other experienced wikipedias if you find no value in my input. -- Infrogmation 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly give some thought to what you have said. I understand the need for some red links. I will have to be more relaxed on this in the future, and the GA review board would point the dead links out if there were more than just a few. BTW, the sentence was not meant to imply he was leader when White joined. Hopefully the prose does not imply this. If you would like to add some of those links back, go right ahead. You know, I'm also doing some stuff with the Kermit Ruffins article. I hope you don't mind that I de-linked his 8th grade school. I will seriously consider what you have said. I envision the same sort of Wikipedia that you envision, more or less. We are both aiming at the same goal: perfection. Cheers to you. (Mind meal 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AlCohn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BarryHarris.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]