In this article we will analyze the relevance of User talk:Trumpetrep in the current context. User talk:Trumpetrep has been a topic of interest in various fields and its impact has been felt in different ways. The role User talk:Trumpetrep plays in society and how it has evolved over time needs to be thoroughly examined. From its origins to the present, User talk:Trumpetrep has been the subject of debate and study, and it is essential to understand its importance in the current panorama. Through a comprehensive analysis, we will explore the different facets of User talk:Trumpetrep and its influence on various aspects of daily life.
Welcome!
Hello, Trumpetrep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Trumpet repertoire, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wperdue (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Trumpet repertoire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wperdue (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I realize your edits are in good faith, but this new category looks completely redundant. We already have Category:Compositions for trumpet. DavidRF (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback, but there wasn't anything in 'Trumpet repertoire'. I'm just following the pre-existing naming convention for other repertoire categories. That's the most reasonable way to proceed.
Just search 'repertoire' and you'll see the protocols that have already been established for Piano trio, Organ and Euphonium. All I'm doing is adding to the knowledge base, which is non-existent on the subject here. Trumpeters will really appreciate. Your rolling edits are hampering my efforts to centralize what little information there is on Wikipedia about trumpet repertoire.
You're also proceeding from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'repertoire'. Mahler 5 is not a 'composition for trumpet', it is a composition for orchestra. However, it contains such extended solo passages for the trumpet that it is an important part of our repertoire. You guys are sticking to a category that wasn't correct in the first place. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you please sign your posts? with four tildes: ~~~~ Just do it and click save. Your signature will show up. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
There are no other categories by the name of <Instrument> repertoire. There are articles, but no categories. I went ahead and stubbed the article here, and recategorized them. Q T C 03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you guys 'the admins'? Again, 'compositions for trumpet' isn't the protocol that's used for other instruments on Wikipedia, and it's also inaccurate. Thanks for the sandbox. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've added a lot of new material to Trumpet. Please be aware, though, that Wikipedia aims to be a collection of published, sourced material. Your edits seem to contain valid information, but none of it is cited as to its source, making it original research. Also, please avoid inserting your point of view or opinion into articles - e.g., assessments of the importance of a piece or a player, or claims about what constitutes common practice are only valid in articles if they are from a published source. You're adding lots of information, but any editor would be completely within his rights to remove all of that material for the above reasons. Happy editing! - Special-T (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That article, and that sentence in particular, is an example of what shouldn't be here - unsourced claims laced with pure POV and opinion. Of course, lots of articles started out with editors just adding what they thought was true, but check the links in the Welcome message above and you'll see that just because there's some sub-par editing out there, we still need to stick to published, cited facts. - Special-T (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Brass Quintet Repertoire, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brass Quintet Repertoire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You added the Haggadah to the category of musical allusions in Ulysses. I can only assume this was a mistake and reverted it, however if I was mistaken please let me know. The Haggadah is a text that is used to guide a Jewish ritual known as the Passover Seder - it is not musical at all. (Well, you can sing it I suppose, but you can sing any written text if you want). Please let me know if I misinterpreted. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on Logorama. I made a couple of changes to your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy but please don't let that discourage you from continuing to improve the article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I can buy "compromised security", sinceActually, no I can't, but I'm not going to quibble further at this point. I mostly wanted to show up and point out that by a strict reading, we're probably both past 3RR on that article, so let's not give anyone further excuses to block us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Sheilaism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'd be very happy if you could help with this request. Particularly with the image which will soon be on wikipedia's mainpage as DYK. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy new year! | |
We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for your continuing edits. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings. I'm doing a little research for my quals on split-tone multiphonics. I've been searching for notated pieces that use them, but I haven't found many. Do you recommend anything?
Also, I have the score to that Isabel Mundry piece mentioned on the split tone page. I doesn't appear to me that there are any multiphonics of any type in that score, although the player is asked to crossfade between the bells of the double-bell trumpet. Do you know anything about that piece?
Thanks! Phembree (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You're been around long enough to know that BLPs aren't built upon "C&C" sections. GraniteSand (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Is any of the C&C section poorly sourced? No. Meanwhile, the "Career" section of his article is a bunch of bullet points from his bio. Please spend your time bulking up that section, rather than undoing edits which cite mainstream resources.Trumpetrep (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
You're right that one of the two links doesn't work. However, the other says:
Did you read this part? The reference to cats sounds more than "hissing," doesn't it? Adam78 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the answer. I'd be very sorry if this article were deleted, since—among other things—such articles (and their particular perspectives) make Wikipedia richer, broader and (last but not least) more enjoyable than a paper encyclopedia.
In fact, the category that you suggested does exist but its content cannot be provided with footnotes, so the insertion or the removal of an article will be more likely to lack reference (within articles). In addition, page changes are more difficult to track in categories than in articles (if an article is removed from a category without justification, it is rather difficult to restore). I would appreciate if you withdrew your proposal for deletion. Adam78 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If nothing else, then solely the most striking cases of music impacting on the world of art, this particular overlap between the domain of music and society, seems sufficient in itself to justify that the article should be retained. If there is music psychology, how would anyone question the most tangible instances of music sociology? Irrespective of the condition of the article (and a dozen examples are far from few), the topic itself lends significance to the article. Adam78 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
To tell the truth, even one single real incident ("riot") that actually happened (which certainly exists, to say the least) would be sufficient to show how music can influence society. And the fact is that there are more than one. You can arrange the other instances in whatever way you like, sort them by intensity or classify them as you like, but it doesn't affect the significance of the tangible overlap between music and society. Adam78 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mr. Robot (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mr. Robot (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Alex|The|Whovian 02:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Great job! You've now reverted a total of six times! A listing at ANI will now be filed against you. Alex|The|Whovian 02:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.. --Drmargi (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I have no interest in discussing with you further on this, and it appears that you haven't the faintest idea of the meaning of words you are writing. The narrator being able to control what he is doing does not meant being able to control Tyler. The discussion has balloon out of all proportion because I had to deal with you irrational rambling and nothing you said made sense. I would not respond to you in any way on this issue. Hzh (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey there... I got a notice you "thanked" me for an edit on the Mr. Robot talk page. Thanks for that. Just a question, how do you do that thanks function? I have never seen that before. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
You've done a great job of cleaning up the mess that the article was and you found and added reliable sources! Very nice work! Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
A lot of years ago, you worked on the Clarion trumpet article. I reworked it with different sources, and it was a struggle. Reading it, it makes sense to me because I just wrote it. I wondered if you would look it over to see if you notice any factual errors or points needing further clarification. Best wishes, Jacqke (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phineas Finn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gregory.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Trumpetrep; I have fixed "duplicate parm" errors in Madama Butterfly by doing the following:
You may want to adjust my changes to suit. Davemck (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome, welcome, welcome Trumpetrep! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:56, 1 February 2024 UTC via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)
Hi, I was reviewing some of your contributions to the unreferenced articles backlog drive. Please note that in La Salette of Quezon you have used a WP:PRIMARY source, which I now tagged as such. Please only use reliable secondary sources as references. Would you mind quickly checking the articles you edited? If you used primary sources in other articles, it would be great if you could find higher quality sources. Thanks again for helping with the backlog! Broc (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar | ||
For good work during WP: FEB24 drive! Davidindia (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dry for wet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Backdrop.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Citation Barnstar | ||
This award is given in recognition to Trumpetrep for collecting more than 500 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Nightbreed, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)