User talk:DavidBrooks/Archive 1

Dream of Gerontius

Came across your article while I was rewriting the article on A Sea Symphony (Vaughan Williams). It's one of the better articles on a musical composition I've come across so far. Thank you! Best wishes, --MarkBuckles 02:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello David, thanks for the note on my talk page. Singing under Britten certainly does give you bragging rights. I note the many unanswered comments and queries on the Gerontius Talk Page and I know sometimes one wonders whether anyone is even reading this or cares. I've been working on updating several of the most important choral works. Most of the existing articles are awful stubs. Feel free to drop me a note if you want feedback on anything or have any suggestions for work to be done. Best wishes -- MarkBuckles 07:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 toward GA

I saw your work on the B's. I'm working on the A's as you could see on the A's first page. I try to copyedit (to my best) and fact-check the articles in an alphabetic order. Lincher 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ballia

I noticed that you copyedited the above article, but added 'still needs improvement' to your edit summary. I did some further cleanup on it today – what do you think of it now? So many India-related articles suffer from spelling and grammatical errors, and the moment you clean them up, some anon comes along and screws them up again. I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle here :( — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's greatly improved, yes. Good job! The next step in improving its style would be to reduce the number of short paragraphs - I think the "op-ed" style chops things up too much. Even with the existing text, just running some paras together would work. I came across this in passing when verifying the EB1911 articles under Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification; I have no expertise in the topic. David Brooks 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I only got there because it linked to a disambiguation page, and then I got the mad urge to fix it up :) I'll see what I can do about the choppy paragraphs. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Song-symphony

This is from the author of the article. Please check out Talk:Song-symphony for my comments regarding the possible erroneous nature the article. I very much appreciate your notifying me before editing my article. See also my own discussion page. Thank you very much.

Europus 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am enlightened

Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions, which are always very reasonable. While I may have had a bit of a problem with "MJD", I have no problem whatsoever with you. I thank you heartily for your effort in guiding me through this erroneous situation of my own crafting, and I now have a much greater understanding of Wikipedia and its policies because of it. I will certainly be much more cautious in my authorship/editing of further articles, but I will surely not cease to take part. Mistakes exist for us to learn from, and I am now enlightened. Besides, the information that I included in the article would make a good essay at least (with a few more sources). Again, thank you.

Europus 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Faust Overture

You may also want to check out my only other article on Wikipedia: the Faust Overture by Richard Wagner. It is much more suited to Wikipedia than the song-symphony article was. Come to think of it, I believe I recall having read once about a Faust Overture by Robert Schumann as well. I'm not so sure about that one, though. If one exists, it should also be mentioned in the article.

Europus 02:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1911 Question

Hi: Several months ago I was on the team finishing up the 1911EB transfer to Wiki. When I went to the Category:1911 Britannica page today, I noticed there were only about 70 articles in the category; it used to be populated with thousands of them. Did they get moved or something (to the verification pages?) thanks in advance, --FeanorStar7 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

re: New category for 1911 template

I did not have enough time to fully complete the move last weekend, I will try to do so in the next few days. I agrre the current categeory name is somewhat long. I'm very open to suggestions for a shorter name (renaming should be quite easy after I have updated the articles which remain in Category:1911 Britannica). The old name did not properly reflect its function in my opinion and I would prefer a name which start with "Wikipedia" to indicate it is a maintainace category, and not an article category. Cheers, —Ruud 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

re:Nuttall

"It may be the only encyclopedia that has entries for fictional characters from Charles Dickens' books, but at the same time lacks entries for fruit."

I think I parsed that sentence differently to how you did ;) Tim! 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Expandable Articles

Hi, there's a discussion on what to do with expandable articles here. As you've discussed this before I would appreciate comments. JASpencer 18:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote?

Hello David,

Can you take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Instrumentation

and perhaps enter a vote?

Yours very truly, Opus33 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you asked for it... David Brooks

This is fine, thanks very much. Opus33 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DBrooks_head.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DBrooks_head.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

flats and sharps issue

You made a comment regarding the use of sharps and flats at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). Your suggested solution has developed somewhat since your last comment. Please feel free to weigh in on the proposed solution at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)#Unicode template for sharps and flats. --Dbolton 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

EB 1911

Hi

thank you for explaining your views - like i said i found it too uncomfortably close to the general whitewashing of the past in TV and movies - which is a pretty great insult to those who suffered - especially women like my great grandmother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.246.234 (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardinalist

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Cardinalist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sammamish Symphony Orchestra

An editor has nominated Sammamish Symphony Orchestra, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammamish Symphony Orchestra and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of David Welsh

A tag has been placed on David Welsh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Plrk (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

apologies

I see I was more sharply critical than I intended. But I do serious doubt there is more than a few scattered subjects where the information in EB 1911 is even approximately satisfactory. (I love the work by the way, and own a paper copy of the American small-print edition. But then I like reading old scholarship--but I know its old.) I'm trying to think of a practical way to go forward. I suppose it depends on recruitment in general and the cultivation of newbies.DGG (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Wikisource EB1911

I did the post-processing of two quarter-volumes (Bréquigny to Bulgaria and Bulgaria to Calgary) of EB for Project Gutenberg, copied the articles to Wikisource, and put the tags onto the WP articles. It seemed a good idea at the time but I am not aware of any policy to continue this practice. The PG EB project seems to have stagnated - no sections have been released since I did those two.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I saw this edit, Could you clarify for me what part of "attribute PD sources" is not covered by "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source", and Wikipedia:Citing sources? Jeepday (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Point conceded on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. David Brooks (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cardinalist

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cardinalist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Sorry to template you - just working through French orphaned articles. This came from Nuttalls, but a quick check didn't find much other reference. Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Messiaen's future wife

I meant to say this at the time - thanks for catching my mistake. Tempo rubato (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Jewish Encyclopedia

Inspired by what you've been doing on the 1911 verification project, I've proposed to change the Jewish Encyclopedia topics project WP:JE, to an ongoing tracking list, rather than a missing articles crossing-off list.

I'd very much welcome any thoughts or advice you could add, at WT:JE#Changes. Jheald (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Brewer

Template:Brewer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Beatus

I have been doing some work on the Beatus of Liébana articles and found your message on Talk:Beatus of Liébana. Perhaps you could look through the changes and let me know what you think. (Both the German and Spanish articles on the Commentary are very detailed.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I think I have got about as far as I can with this now. It can either be improved by someone with special knowledge of medieval art or by a lot of translation from the French, Spanish or German articles.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

bheemunipatnam

Dear David,

I'm writing in response to the article you worked on which is Bheemunipatnam in the year 2008 and now I want to add some more to it. So kindly visit the article Amir of Bimlipatnam where JohnCD has said that he would add some part of Amir of Bimlipatnam to be added in Bheemunipatnam. So kindly look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altaf shaik (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

You request for information about EB1911 has motivated me to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. So now that you have and I have, I have copied you comments to Wikipedia talk :WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica and intend to reply there so please put it on your watch list. -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

using display=display name see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Re the edit to George Abbot (author), they are "endnotes" in the EB1911 article, one can use other terms such as "sources consulted by the Encyclopaedia Britannica" or some such but in my opinion "endnotes" is sufficient and fulfils the spirit of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT although that is not strictly relevant here as they could also be moved out to further reading (but if they are do we need 100+ year old second hand sources in that section?}. -- PBS (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Attribution header

I have noticed that you have been adding this header to a number of articles, and whereas I do agree with standardizing and consistency, I am not sure where/when this header came from and when it became standard practice. Can you give me some info or background on its use, as I am also working on reference sections and such and KI don't want to end up bumping heads/policies with you or anyone else in the future. Thanks for your help speednat (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)