User talk:Mütze
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, Mütze, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
- How to edit a page and write a great article
- The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
- The handy Manual of Style
- And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Happy editing!
-- Sango123 17:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
[edit] Horribly shocking picture!
Please, use an extra colon (:) in front of the title of an image, like [[:Image:whatever.png]], when listing pictures on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions in the future. This will prevent the image from being displayed when innocent people like me, who never want to see anything like that, look at the page. You might as well have sent me to goatse! I did delete that picture though. Thanks for the help, --Phroziac (talk)
- Whoops. I totally forgot that. I guess that's what the preview function is for. :-) Thanks anyway, looks like something good came from it all - it got noticed quicker. Mütze 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] on scribe Mail
it looks weird, like there are two uneeded lines of spaces at the top of the article. do you know how to fix that? I'm retarded w/ infoboxes. KɔffeeDrinkerMcIzzl 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Encouragement
Hello. I thought I'd drop by with a message of support. I hope you haven't taken any recent accusations levelled at you to heart! I am speaking of accusations of having a dishonest hidden agenda, after you merely asked politely why the contribution in question was so important to the person who submitted it. I - and others, I think - believe the individual's behaviour is beyond unacceptable! Your contributions here are valued more than somewhat - I hope you will keep up the good work. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nice words. :-) I thinks we have here somebody, who is very new to Wikipedia and – even though he said otherwise – has NOT read or understood any of the guidelines concerning editing on Wikipedia. He continuously tries to post a paragraph that can be described as a review at best and is hardly relevant, especially if one considers the otherwise very brief nature of the article. If there is any piano that deserves a more in-depth treatment, it is the practically legendary Imperial 290, and even then, the description would have to adhere to encyclopedic standards. But our friend's problem seems to be, that he is fervently convinced that he owns his words and deserves to be "published", while no such right exists on wikipedia. He also hands out frequent threats and insults to the many, many people who have reverted his changes, remaining convinced of his opinion, although everybody else is against him. I dare say that his idle threat to call a "Wikipedia censor" (I think he means an Admin, there is no censorship on Wikipedia) will get no one banned from editing but him. Mütze 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry about the long delay. A software tool I'm using is not good with 'ü'.)
 |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| For your valiant efforts to tune the Bösendorfer, I award you this cheerful barnstar. Peirigill 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
- Thanks a lot; this is great. :-D My very own barn star, and such a funny one. — Mütze 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FIFA World Cup
What was this edit all about [1] ? How can two teams finish first ? It's very simple by the way, the tie-braker rules are mentioned --LimoWreck 23:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I see now. I didn't read up properly, just went ahead, being bold in updating pages and certain that someone would certainly correct it with no effort, if I was wrong. Thanks for the hint, and I think I'll leave my unprofessional hands away from the Fußball-WM pages from now on. Mütze 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1 of 2 Bösendorfer
Hello. I wanted to provide you with verification of my Bösendorfer add regarding that there are only 2 in the world.
- [2] USA Today article citing 1 of 2 in the world.
- [3]Aol City Guide quoting value and rarity.
- [4] Starwood Hotels news release mentioning piano and rarity.
- [5] 7/1/06 St. Petersburg Times article mentioning rarity.
- [6] Epinions rating on Bösendorfer model 214 that mentions 1 of 2 rare Bösendorfers in Orlando.
Thanks,
Redlark 12:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That specific design of the Bösendorfer Imperial Grand has only been produced twice. Fine piano manufacturers like Bösendorfer typically produce limited edition designs of their regular pianos. They still are of that specific series (like the 290 Imperial), but have a special design, for example to make them look like from the victorian times. I think that is the case here.
There definitely are more than two Bösendorfer Imperials in the world. It is just the biggest of the Bösendorfer series, but they make those constantly. I have once had the immense pleasure of playing one, and that was not one of only two of its kind.
The Bösendorfer Imperial is mentioned as a regular series piano on the Bösendorfer web site. That site also explains how several artists rely solely on the 290 Imperial, including Tori Amos, who own (at least) one, which she takes with her on tours.
Mütze 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Also: Please let us continue this discussion on Talk:Bösendorfer. — Mütze 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Languages
Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not everybody has "Flat Brush" installed. ;-) And no, I'd rather spend my time in the Wikipedia community on more constructive things. These messages *can* beconsidered Spam, by the way. — Mütze 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Penis
I did, and I don't see how it was a bad move. It allows those who wish to view that content, but doesn't impose it on anyone, and it doesn't count as censorship because you are still capable of viewing the image on the wikipedia server. It is also present on other articles. Chooserr 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The point is, that there *was* a discussion on the topic and that (at least somewhat of) a consensus had been reached. The pictures were acceptable within their context and there is no concievable and justifiable (within the WP guidelines) reason to hide them.
- If it is your opinion that this solution is better, you are welcome to argue that point, but as the comment (that you deleted) already said: A (somewhat) removal of any pictures without giving ANY reasons in your edit summary are very quickly going to be reverted. If you feel that the pictures are to be changed, you have to argue that point on the Penis talk page. — Mütze 18:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Radiance
The equation you "fixed" was correct. the d's there are differential operators, not variables. They can't simply be "eliminated" from the equation, without making an approximation.--Srleffler 04:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, I won't touch the article anymore. — Mütze 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preview Button...
It takes forever to do these, which is why i bypass the preview button, unless its an uncommon change —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grande13 (talk • contribs) .
yeah i realized that, its just taking longer to redo all these pages than I thought so i get impatient at times...in the end things should be better though
[edit] Quotation marks in The Root of All Evil?
Hi there. Thanks for your question. The main reason I chose to alter them to ASCII/typewriter as opposed to typographical quotation marks was in an effort to standardise the apppearance of said marks across wikipedia. You may have noticed that typewriter quotes are a far more common occurrence in articles, and while perhaps not being as aesthetically pleasing as their counterpart, are not inherently "wrong". As you may have read from my responses to other wikipedians on my talk page, I am more strict about the distinction between hyphens and em dashes — in this case each serves a specific purpose which, in my opinion, ought not to be confused.
I apologise for the digression, but in conclusion, I would say this:
- I prefer to see a uniform, standard appearance for quotation marks. Given that typewriter marks are currently in the (vast) majority, I have considered it simpler to alter any remaining typographical marks, rather than the other way round.
- According to Wikpedia's manual of style, neither form of quotation mark is correct over the other, unlike the difference between hyphens and em dashes.
- Finding and replacing every typewriter quotation mark with a typographical one is a fairly enormous undertaking, especially when you consider that new edits will be made all the time which eschew them in favour of the more easily-to-input ASCII/typewriter mark. Granted, this is also true for hyphens, but I remain convinced that their incorrect usage must be stopped. Furthermore, it is fairly straightforward to replace incorrect hyphenation, but somewhat less so when dealing with quotation marks.
Many thanks, 80.177.20.202 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hook (film) article
You recently added the wikify tag to Hook (film). I was wondering what you think needs changing on this article? Thanks Rich257 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would have thought that was obvious, but you are right. I should make decent edit summaries and post things like that on the article's talk page. This time I didn't, vecause I just passed by the article and thought that somebody should be made aware of it.
- Anyway, the main issue would of course be the almost rediculously long "story line" section. It retells the film almost word by word, and isn't very stylistically consistent about it either. I am not trying to be a pain-in-the-ass complainer, but the article could really profit from a clean, to-the-point sypnosis, like, for example, the Star Wars: Episode III one has, just as somebody on Hook's talk page noted.
- I will post athat on the Hook talk page, too. — Mütze 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree that that section is overly long, I would suggest a copy-edit tag as being more specific than wikify which is more about layout, format and links? Rich257 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- After lookinginto it again, I believe neither of the tags are appropriate. One concerns layout and the other spelling and grammar. What we need is the "cleanup"-tag. I will put it in momentarily. :) — Mütze 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] a baby’s arm holding an apple
I'm noticing the Amazon link no longer works, so that needed to go — disappointing because it was the actual page where Lenny Bruce says this thing. But why delete both the link and the Lenny Bruce reference? Someone is going to want to know what that saying means. The Tubes link is inadequate since the saying is widely attributed to Bruce, and predates the Tubes by at least 15 years. – edgarde 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I was a bit quick when removing that. Please feel free to re-add it, or change what is now there, but make sure that at the same you add your source correctly, so the end-result will not be confusing. Keep up the great work! — Mütze 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for clarifying. I'll throw in a footnote since the expression's history (and hence, linkage) is complicated. edgarde 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] N64
Of course. :D Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ice Cream of Margie (With the Light Blue Hair)
I don't think that fact needed deleting. --The Dark Side 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ebaums World
They did it.
- That's swell. What the hell are you talking about? — Mütze 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This may be a dumb question
I didn't really understand this edit summary (diff). It's common practice among the Futurama articles, though maybe this is incorrect, that when discussing a minor character that does not have its own article to link to the episode in which the character appeared for purposes of identification. Do you consider this bad practice or was there another reason to remove the links? Just curious about the reasoning as it may apply to some other articles I watch. Thanks!. Stardust8212 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know there's a general rule against "surprise" links but I hadn't considered that to apply to these. I probably won't bring it up at the project since the talk page there seems to be dead and nobody ever replies to me (which is too bad really) but perhaps you're right that it isn't good practice. I'll have to think further about it and read up on the subject. Stardust8212 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stephen Hawking1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stephen Hawking1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jazz bassists
In the edit history for Teddy Kotick, you asked: 'How much clearer than "jazz bassist" do you want it?'
My reply is that, although I know "jazz bassist" probably means that his instrument is the double bass, there are also such a thing as jazz bass guitar players, so it would be helpful to have some kind of explicit statement of which instrument is meant in this case. --Paul A (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
