Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alansohn (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 21 October 2007 (Reversions at Ghosttown, Oakland, California). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My policy on discussions:

• If you leave a comment here, I'll reply here. That way both sides of the conversation are in one place, which should theoretically be easier.

Arkivs of old stuff:

• /archive 1
• /archive 2

String in pegbox, your edit comment to Viola

Hey, there: no biggie, but strictly speaking, "The little bit of string inside the pegbox isn't going to affect the sound to any detectable degree." is incorrect. There is a difference sometimes audible that even depends on how many wraps around the peg the string takes. It's not so much about the steady state tone or the vibration of the short section of tight string in the box, but more about the way the speaking length responds as the player goes more or less deeply "into the string" with the bow. Easier to hear on a cello with the bigger dimensions involved, particularly on the lower strings. I heard this from Ken Meyer, a top-tier cello fixer in the Boston area, as he was remedying just exactly the number of wraps on my C and G pegs.

The part you trimmed out at that time probably deserved to go, since it was fuzzy and unsupported. Just wanted to pick the one little nit... __Just plain Bill 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait; just to be sure, are you saying that the little piece of string behind the nut can affect the sound of the instrument? The little piece betwixt nut and peg? If so, sorry, but that sounds like the worst sort of mythology and pseudo-science to me. I'm sure you can get any number of otherwise respectable players to testify to all sorts of nonsense. If I'm misunderstanding or misconstruing this, please let me know. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The string behind the nut, and all the way around and around the peg to that little hole that it threads through. Not mythology, but a bit of practical optimization. Pretty much all the other things about the instrument have to be set right before you get much gain out of it, though. Consider that "the sound of the instrument" includes the way it responds to the things the player does. That much string has a little bit of stretch to it, and the more there is, the more it can stretch, and, in gross terms, the more the note bends when played vigorously. Difference between walking a steel rail and a slack wire is one image to explain it with. Talking about something you could hear with your own ears here, but it would be an extreme stretch to put it into any part of the pedia I can think of just now. Later, __Just plain Bill 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still not impressed; this is pseudo-science as far as I'm concerned. I'll concede that there may be a minute but discernable difference in how a string feels and responds depending on how much is left free inside the pegbox, but that still falls into the realm of lore, not any kind of measurable phenomonon. I'm sure, for instance, that there are plenty of guitar players who will swear that it makes a huge difference to coil the free end of the string past the post of the tuning machine; we've all seen their guitars bristling with their coiled-up strings. (I wonder if this is the same set of players who are likely to use the projecting end of a string to park their lit cigarette?) +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about bowed viola (& cello) here, not some plucked fretted thing with steel strings and a headstock instead of a pegbox. You a scientist or an artist? I ask because measurement and perception are pretty well studied and refined these days... never mind, if you haven't experienced it, there's no need for further concern. Next time I've got a gut C on, if I think of it, I'll give the length in the pegbox a poke and see how many cents it goes sharp and how long it stays that way under what conditions of bowing. Meantime, be well, __Just plain Bill 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to ensnare you in my little joke there about git-box players and their strange proclivities. (I take you have seen what I'm talking about, coiled-up strings boinging around like little Slinkies.) Just trying to be funny by using an absurd example of musical mythology.

It sounds like you're talking about the thing where you can actually tune a violin (or viola) string up a few cents by pressing on that little piece inside the pegbox; I've used that trick a time or two.

Regarding your experiments, no matter how crazy they may sound, I'm always interesting in hearing the results if you care to post them, peer-reviewed or not. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I always figured they coiled the strings up that way because they didn't have somebody else's fingernail clippers handy to nick the extra part off with. __Just plain Bill 13:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Richmond Medical Center

At present every editor is rearranging the deck chairs on this sinking ship. I'm not going to get at all involved with the article itself, but I do think that substantive edits need to be made. This is like a peace conference deciding on the shape of the table, not talking about peace.

I encourage you to 'be bold and make the great swathes of edits the article needs. That list, for example, needs pruning to a common sense and short paragraph. References to web resources could do with {{cite web}} and the whole article salvaged. Fiddle Faddle 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I cared at all about this article, I'd do as you suggested. I don't, so I probably won't. I was one of the people in favor of outright deletion. I'm afraid you're on your own on this one. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You care enough to rearrange the deckchairs. Your tinkering with the references is a perfect example. It is possible that an uncharitable editor might suspend an assumption of good faith. I suggest you either edit wisely and well or leave the article alone. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that I represent that remark, as all my edits have been made wisely so far as I know. And I don't remember any rules (or even guidelines) 'round here that regulate the frame of mind one must be in in order to edit an article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trivia

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Geolocation numbers

Oh, I get those numbers on Google Map and Yahoo! Map. You know there are bunch of numbers on the map link in the browser. Those numbers actually represent the coordinates of the center point of the map screen. Chris! _{my talk} 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen

The lines I added were legitimate misheard lyrics, no more absurd than the misheard lyrics in the rest of the article. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not only absurd ("one ton tomato" for "Guantanamara"? that's straight outta the old Billy Crystal schtick from "Saturday Night Live"), but unreferenced to boot. Sorry, but that article is pretty well full up with good, cited examples. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation , but I'll leave it out of the article, since I see can see that this is too important for you to admit you might be wrong. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it; it has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the article, and everything to do with my ego. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the link's there for you to look at, as well as the rest of the results from google (or yahoo, or your choice of search engine) for "one ton tomato". BTW, my dad sang that to me as "one ton tomato" a good 7 to 9 years before Billy Crystal was on SNL. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 04:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, but seriously, it's not a mondegreen. It's something, all right, and moderately funny, I'll grant you that; but it's an intentional mangling, not an accidental mishearing, somewhat akin to a malapropism, but not quite that either.

Besides, shouldn't that be "One ton of fan mail"?

By the way, you get points for editing Unicyclopedia. (Even more if you were involved with Encyclopedia Dramatica or some of the badder parodies.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believed it was "one ton tomato" when I was 3 years old, meaning it is a mondegreen as defined in the aritcle. And no it shouldn't be "One ton of fan mail", since my misintreptation proceeded that sketch with Dana Carvey and Patrick Swayze (NOT Billy Crystal) by several years. Finally, if you look at my user page you can see that my main wiki IS Uncyclopedia, though I was being serious here. I don't know why you need to insult me by comparing my work to Encyclopedia Dramatica, but if you do you could at least use a modicum of correct grammar (it's WORSE pariodies NOT "badder" ones!)--Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, meant "badder", not "worse"; ironic and edgy, dontcha know. And I think you meant to type "preceded" instead of "proceeded", no? By the way, do you realize your "sig" takes up more space than most of your comments? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you the purpose of another bus picture.

You see some other transit pages have some pictures of their fleet. The images I put on pages, (for example, these images) kind of demonstrate the history of the San Francisco Municipal Railway, as some of the buses are being phased for retirement, so it's important to preserve some of that history. Not only that, I have a lot more images coming up.

Goodshoped35110s 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A question about this

Wouldn't that imply that the last movement is in A minor, F major, and A major all at once? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so (although that would be a perfectly legitimate point of confusion in, say, a piece of Charles Ives's). I just thought more conventional punctuation ought to be used, while still conveying that the movement shifts keys a couple of times. Don't you think most readers will work out for themselves that these are successive keys? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps, although I didn't think that →s were unconventional. Is there maybe another clearer way to show that it moves from A minor, through F major, to A major (you probably know about the short A minor section between the last two, but the key listing bordered on too long as it was)? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, tell you what: if you change them back to the arrows, I won't undo that, even though I think it's kind of "unencyclopedic" (even though it does illustrate the modulations graphically, I'll grant you that). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this; I don't have your page on my watchlist. OK, I'm going to change them back, and I know they are unencyclopedic, but I can't think of a much better way to (accurately) get the information across. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still don't like it and consider it unencyclopedic, but as I said, I won't challenge it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

A user recently opened a wikiquette alert in reference to your comments at Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline. I have to agree with the user who opened the alert, in that your comments crossed the WP:CIVIL line. Please try to stay cool and maintain yourself with civility at all times when discussing matters with your fellow editors, especially as I see some of your comments here on your own talk page could be seen by some as contentious at the least. --Darkwind (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture was "generated"????

Hey, you're a very funny person (no, really). The reason why I wrote (picture was "generated"????) was (OK. Fine. I admit it. It was intended so that way railfoamers can "Not WORRY" about those stuff). But, it was also intended so that way a "Muni Version" of the Boeing Vertol can be shown on this page. It may be converted into a wrecker, but there's no way to justify that because you know MTA won't tell it on their website. But, Nathaniel Ford, last year, has approved a measure that would rehab torpedoes currently stored at Pier 72, and that includes current wrecker 1008. When that's rebuilt and stuff, the Boeing will be converted into one of them. Thanks!

Goodshoped35110s 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

spiccato/staccato

Hello! I think we may be referring to two different things on Violin. When I saw the sentence about "up-bow and down-bow versions" I figured it was referring to the type of up-bow staccato in which many fast, accented notes are played with one sweep of the bow (the most famous example being Dinicu's "Hora Staccato.") Spiccato is similar to sautillé and is played with fast, separate strokes. Is that separation what was referred to by "up and down bow versions"? Best, Florestanova 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to spiccato, which has up- and down-bow varieties. Of course, you're correct; there's up- and down-bow staccato as well. But we're talking about spiccato where a string of notes is played rapidly in one direction or the other. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Foamers?

I actually agree with you for the most part on your attempts to contain out-of-control image proliferation on many of the transit pages; however, I'm not sure if you realize that "foamers" has a rather perjorative connotation, and I've noted a couple of times that it's your very first comment on a page. It comes across as pretty condescending, and it just strikes me as the sort of thing that would cause the exact sort of people who might be editing these articles to get their backs up, and not particularly conducive to productive conversation on the topic. --Jfruh (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the connotation, and it's intentional; that sort of cruft really has no place in articles such as these. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point is that you can remove cruft without launching personal attacks against those who add it. --Jfruh (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"better" image

do you really want me to give you a link to the discussion where you were the only person who thought that the current image is better? Really? —lensovet–talk – 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rift zone

Is rift zone the same as a fault? Because here says something different. I don't know. Perhaps you can show me. Chris! _{my talk} 23:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not the same thing, which is part of my beef w/Cholga on this. It turns out that the article here you linked to isn't entirely correct either (surprise, surprise). For a quick look, type define:rift zone into Google and look at the 3 links that come up.

What I told her is that the map calls it a rift zone because an earthquake fault (the San Andreas) runs through it. The fault is still called that, a fault. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then is the article I linked to has the wrong definition? Cholga can be difficult sometime to accept something new. But she is not a bad editor, so please be more patience when you explain something to her. Thanks Chris! _{my talk} 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I and Cholga just come up with a compromise in the article. So take a look and comment on it. Thanks. Chris! _{my talk} 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, are you saying that the map is wrong. Chris! _{my talk} 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hey, Just wanted to drop you a line, I noticed that your conduct is being discussed at ANI.... Anyhow, thread is here.... Thought you'd want to know about it. SQL 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your revert at Arthur Miller

I disagree with the "unrolled" references on aesthetic purposes, but please be aware of what you are reverting in the future; I did in fact fix reference fifteen, which was not closed properly and therefore disrupted the citations that followed. If you had read the page history correctly, you would have known this before blindly reverting me. I fixed the ref again, but kept the formatting as was. I also suggest you attempt being a little more civil in your edit summaries; a little decorum is always received better in such circumstances. María (críticame) 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had indeed fixed something in that edit, so that was, as they say, my bad.

I do disagree about unrolled references: it shouldn't be, as you say, and "aesthetic" issue, but one of readability (of the edited text, not the displayed text, which of course is the same in either case). It's just damned hard to make out where all those parameters are when they're all squished together. But you're right, I should be more careful about not undoing valid edits. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I realize now I should have used a more detailed edit summary, so I'm at fault as well, and I apologize for that. I understand what you're saying about the references and how readability should be of utmost importance; I think my preference of "white space = bad!" comes from my early days on Misplaced Pages when people would "clean-up" my citations, so I've just fallen into the condensed references as a habit. When I edited the one section in the Miller article, I automatically began eliminating the white space after I fixed the typo, and even considered going back later to sweep through the rest of the article, which is why I put it on my watchlist. Next time I'll discuss such changes on the talk page first. Take care, María (críticame) 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Compact disc Logos

If you want to discuss, then by all means discuss. Summary deletion isn't discussion. Until then, I'll keep restoring the Logos section. --John Navas 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

West Marin

Well, I look at the West Marin article. It seems to me that there are some references in the article. (I don't have time to read thru those refs) But if those refs show that West Marin is in fact a region, then it is quite difficult to have the article deleted since this procedure requires Admin attention. If those refs only refer to West Marin as a simple term to describe western Marin County, then it is likely that the article would be deleted. Also the deletion process takes more than 5 days, Cholga in the mean time can research for more refs or improve the article. So it is hard to say, it is up to the Admin. Cholga sometimes doesn't understand Misplaced Pages policies and might insist on her position, but as I said, she still a good editors.

By the way, the Oakland articles I tagged haven't been deleted yet, because again the process takes more than 5 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishomingtang (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, Cholga can remove the template any time, if she thinks she has addressed the issue. So if that happened, don't revert or readd the same template as that is not standard procedure. But if the article is clearly a problem, then we would have to do it through Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Opps! forget to sign, this is the first time that happened. Chris! _{my talk} 02:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also nominate template:WestMarin at Templates for deletion citing concerns over whether the template violates original research. Chris! _{my talk} 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there IL2BA i think you were a little overzealous in trying to get the article deleted, i didnt create it just to have it mentioned in dogtown, i did create it because i had allready mentioned it in dogtown and it doesnt yet exist at that point, having said that heres a buttload of references if you truly don't believe me, but if you were just being spiteful im sorry for you dude. as for it being mentioned in dogtown that is a whole differant story, and it should definatly be mentioned your arguement is that it does not exist but it does, two of the existing dogtown references "helen" and "hhs" allready mentioned west marin and dogtown, the county health report even defines dogtown as part of west marin, check em out and google it and lets put this behind us.Cholga

[http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/HH/main/ems/documents/Annual%20Reports/Annual_Report_2000.pdf 9 West Marin is defined as Bolinas, Dillon Beach, Dogtown, Inverness, Marshall, Muir Beach, Nicasio, Olema, Point Reyes, Point Reyes Seashore, Stinson Beach, Tomales and Lagunitas], this is directly from the county of marinCholga 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• ,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, okay let's see community groups, a school (West Marin School), newspaper articles, a bus service called West Marin Stagecoach, and newspaper which mentions their West Marin news section, mentioned in San Francisco Chronicle, its mentioned in reports from the county, business websites, realty listings, a soccer leage West Marin Youth Soccer, a community radio station which says its a station for West Marin, i hope this is convincingCholga 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnatic tuning

Dude, I'd like to think we're both on the side of Truth and Justice (tm) here, but I confess I bristled at your edit summary (and, regrettably, sniped back) regarding Carnatic tuning and violin playing position. I've added an external link to Musical styles (violin) for your enjoyment. Unsourced statements are one thing, but provocation ("likely untrue") seems useless and superfluous in this context. Be well, __Just plain Bill 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Marin Independant Journal

Hi, I am wondering if you can comment (positive or negative) on the article for deletion of Marin Independant Journal. Thanks Chris! _{my talk} 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

References and citations

Hi. I believe you are mistaken here. You're confusing references and citations. A citation is something that is specifically cited in the article. A reference is anything that was referred to in the course of writing the article: the sources of information, whether or not they are specifically cited. In particular, I referred to both of the books listed as references in the course of editing that article. A bibliography is a list of relevant reading materials, which are not necessarily sources of the information in the article but which may be useful to the reader interested in more information.--Srleffler 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of others' comments in AFDs

In the AFD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants you apparently deleted my comment when you added your own !vote . This should never be done unless in enforcement of some Misplaced Pages policy such as WP:BLP or to remove completely off topic material or spam I have restored the deleted comment. Edison 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no frigging idea how that happened. I thought I was just adding my vote/comment; I edited the section and saved it. How did that happen? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the removed material basically agreed with your !vote, it appears to have been inadvertent. happens to everyone from time to time. A cut and paste from earlier complete versions would fix it, but I'm not sure if that is in accord with attribution rules. I don't want to just rollback or revert, because that would similarly lose later additions by others. Edison 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read prod tags before instructing others

Anonymous,

If you would bother to read the prod tag prompting deletion you would find that it says tag can be removed upon article improvement or objection by anyone to the deletion. If you want to delete an article this badly just place it on AfD to hear from others. By the way the tag was further inaccurate in that it said the article is unreferenced; it has three sources. sincerely Anlace 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

pt. isabel

would you read the comments on the laci peterson section on the talk page before edit warring, you must agree its not really some insignificant factoid, mind letting it stay until we reach agreement on the talk page, feel free to rewrite it if you think its too detailed, but please comment on the actual talk page since there is a discussion going on. thanks.Cholga 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Flagstaff

Sorry for reverting your improvements; I was trying to restore the standard demographics wording and didn't mean to remove the capitalisation. Nyttend 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No harm, no foul; I've done it, it happens. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

hwy 1

Dude, according to the MOS it only has to use the official name in a link, but if we don't link we don't have to use it, and the parenthases is a way around it. I mean c'mon who would say CA SR 1 for San Pablo Avenue or CA SR 1 for 19th Avenue or whatever # El Camino Real is.Cholga 08:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

genre

you don't consider classical music a genre? --emerson7 18:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alpha list of panflutists

I notice that people are just adding names. I alphabetized it, but I don't want to have to do it over and over. It seems that a note should be made. Some people think it is in order of status perhaps.. in the music world that would be normal. As long you keep it in order I don't mind if it is there or not. If you don't have time for that, then add the note about proper order of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article, as lists like that are implicitly assumed to be kept in alphabetical order, and advisory notes like that would only quicly clutter up articles. However, feel free to add a note (using <!-- comment -->) in the edited text if you like; that ought to keep some folks from adding names willy-nilly. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghosttown, Oakland, California

I already warn User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) about WP:3RR. So one more revert from him, I will report him. Just letting you know. Chris! _ct 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Ghosttown

I completely agree; the source is completely unreliable, and the article looks hoax-y. But that does not justify your continued removal of the source without consensus being reached. I don't care of you don't like the word; it's the way this wiki works. Please try to calm down and discuss things in the future before reverting blindly. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

wp:points

this one is all you: "'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct)"

which one is me?Cholga 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Link in Criticism article

Are you suggesting by inserting it that there's consensus to include that link? -GTBacchus 08:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what does ex post facto mean, in that context? What has the concept of something being retroactively enforced got to do with consensus? -GTBacchus 16:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Paper recycling

The article on Paper recycling needs a lot of work, IMHO. I moved the "History" section from Wood-pulp paper to Recycling only because it did not belong where it was, not because it was a particularly well-written piece. I have busy working on a number of articles within the Pulp and Paper category, but haven't had time to seriously tackle the Paper recycling one. Are you able to assist? Silverchemist 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flagstaff

Hi there. I understand your point about copyedit vs. proofread; the reason it is labeled that way is that I performed the "proof" (or second review) of the work that another member of the WP:LoCE had already performed. See the "copyedit" box on the talk page to see what I mean. Thanks! Galena11 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversions at Ghosttown, Oakland, California

Your pattern of reversions at Ghosttown, Oakland, California is placing you on the cusp of violating the WP:3RR rule, if it has not been violated already. Any further reversions of material may subject you to being blocked. Alansohn 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)