User talk:Classicalfan2

Welcome!

Hello, Classicalfan2, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Greetings -- just noticed your talk page was a redlink. Thank you for all that work you are putting in to lists of composers. I'm the nut that wrote most of the Renaissance music stuff on Wikipedia, but I haven't been very active in that area recently. Let me know if you need any help or questions answered. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have taken the liberty of moving your question on this page to the reference desk. The talk pages of articles are mainly for the discussion related to improvement of the article, general questions about the subject are better placed at the ref desk (and also more likely to be answered). Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly explain to someone not familiar with such differences? Who perhaps not even understands what "nationality" means in the composers list? I simply copied "British" from the father to the son, in the Waterhouse case. I'll watch here for an answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. You had an edit summary that seemed a little confusing to me (and perhaps others). First of all, England is currently a sub-nation, which means that English is a nationality. Second of all, "English" technically describes a lot more of a person's nationality than would "British". I hope this helps. Classicalfan2 (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying, "What's the big idea with changing the wording?! Don't do that!" is not very

Be Bold policy. When reverting, it's good to briefly explain why you're reverting, and/or what policy you're adhering to. Ordering another editor not to change a passage's wording because it's not to your aesthetic liking is not within the authority of any one editor. Nightscream (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"(For the love of God, please check out their genres in the infobox before removing "pop" from the lead.)" I truly thank you for this. :)) It made me laugh, and brightened my day! Thanks again. My God, is humour not appreciated here? Don't answer that... :))--andreasegde (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a vote taking place and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are trying to argue against Mojo Jojo being the archenemy of The Powerpuff Girls. Mojo Jojo is the most frequent villian in the entire series., and wreaks far more havoc on the Girls than Him does. Claiming that Him was their archenemy would be going against the majority of sources that confirm Mojo Jojo being their archenemy. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read

Regarding your edits: 1. The reason I placed The 4 Seasons first is that, in context, the group had hit recordings first followed by Valli solo hit recordings second. The group used the moniker Frankie Valli and The 4 Seasons later in their career. 2. The play "Jersey Boys" focuses on the four original members of the group (with a nod to Nick Massi's replacement Joe Long). The word "original" is appropriate as, later in their career, the group title was retained even though the members had changed. 3. I don't believe anything is permanent, no matter what marketing strategy is used. Eventually, "Jersey Boys" will disappear from Las Vegas. Maybe another word could be used or "permanent" removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrownlie (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your recent edit removed TV appearances by Frankie Valli. In your change description you used the word "you". I hope you were referring to a general "you" because I have no idea who entered this information. I am puzzled though why an entertainer's filmography or TV appearances wouldn't be relevant even if his major career course was as a musician. I wouldn't refer to it as "useless"; it seems unnecessary to make anyone feel small. I know you left some room for it to be added back in, but why is removing it so important versus this issue of sources. Is there no room at all for known information in cases like this? What is an acceptable source in this case that may help others who find their info removed? I have no plans to add it back myself, but I feel for the person or persons who added it in the first place. As regards trivia, especially that which is biographical in nature, trivia makes up much of this type of knowledge that may mean something to a segment of an audience versus the wider general public. It may be a pointless arguement as Wikipedia has its rules and they are known and should be known, but it seems sometimes like this bulldozer treatment that I see in some of the history of the articles I read (I haven't participated in too many articles as a writer) is as harmful as some of the incorrect information I also find.Bbrownlie (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current