User talk:Kylegann

Greetings! Noticed your much-needed additions to Elodie Lauten; delighted to see a name I recognize join us editing, too. Judging by your contribs thus far I don't suppose you need too many of the helpful welcome links, but just in case:

• Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
  : a concise overview of all the rest
• Wikipedia:How to edit a page
  : more than you ever wanted to know about wiki-markup
• Wikipedia:Manual of style
  : self-explanatory
• Wikipedia:Help desk: general Wikipedia-related questions
• Wikipedia:Village pump: closest thing Wikipedia has to a corkboard and some thumbtacks
• Wikipedia:Community Portal
  : pretty much anything you'd need to find as an editor is linked from here

You might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers—a gathering place for editors writing about composers to discuss style, standards, and articles that need work. As a side note, it's recommended that you sign your posts on talk pages with "~~~~", which adds a link to your user page as well as a timestamp. Welcome and happy editing, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Composers are now doing the work that musicologists used to do, while the musicologists are all off doing gender studies" -- ain't that the truth. Wow. Never really thought about it that way, but I guess I'm in that club too. The pay at Wikipedia ain't the greatest, but I think you'll find this site a lot of fun--certainly I have! Btw thanks for the excellent contributions to Elodie Lauten, Nancarrow and others. Take care, Antandrus (talk) 28 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Hello, I notice that someone keeps changing "Jerome Wahman" to "Jerome Walman" without explanation in the Mikel Rouse article. This is supposed to have been Rouse's teacher of Schillinger Technique. Is the change valid? I figured if anyone would know this other than Rouse himself (who doesn't seem to be a contributor here) it would be you. Thanks, Badagnani 06:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checked with Mikel, "Walman" is correct. Thanks. Kylegann 15:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction and all your other edits. It occured to me that your asking Rouse may be considered "original research" as described by Wikipedia:No original research: "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia.". As Kyle Gann I trust you entirely, Wikipedia policy may feel differently. Happy edits. Hyacinth 00:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is unverifiable: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hyacinth 07:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you suggest? Put the incorrect name back in? If you're telling me that Wikipedia is not a place to write about living composers that no one else has written about before me, then I have other places to take my efforts. Kylegann 15:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was telling you that other users may have this view, so as to prepare you. I apologize if it came off as suggesting that you not contribute. A question, raised by Aaron A. Fox, out of curiousity, when you get paid to write about this stuff, why do it for free? Hyacinth 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! One of those questions almost too good to answer. The paying world has shrunk tremendously in ten years. The number of places I can get paid to write for is small, and content and length are very restricted. If someone's not already well-known, the commercial sector won't allow you to tell the world about them. The

Village Voice can now only give me 600 words, which enforces extreme superficiality. Internet mags that used to pay have, in some cases, had to quit. For other paper mags I've written for, most of the music I do write about is so unknown as to be off their radar altogether. I can blog, I can write books, and even the latter brings in little money. I do still have a column at Chamber Music magazine, and a teaching job to subsidize all my other activities. In academia, writing is considered an obligatory pro bono activity anyway. So while I do have other places to write, none of them pay. Sorry if I seemed snippy about it. Wikipedia is a nice place to get detailed information out without readers suspecting that it comes from a subversive source like myself. Kylegann 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Answering someone else's questions about sources I came across the relevant: Wikipedia:No original research#The role of expert editors. I don't imagine I would ever challenge your contributions as original research (and I presume most music editors wouldn't either), and you should also keep in mind that you can challenge the policies. Hyacinth 10:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy and the point. But we're just trying to spell a relatively obscure person's name correctly. Is it necessary to invoke the term expert to refer to someone who knew the person? Kylegann 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's a web page http://www.mikkiwilliams.com/Articles_v.asp?arid=15 that mentions a Jerome Walman of a the Meditation and Mental Development Center of New York (he was a hypnotist), plus a Schillinger page that mentions Jerome Walman as a Schillinger-qualified teacher: http://today.answers.com/topic/certified-schillinger-teachers. Sufficient outside verification? Kylegann 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gann, you could always mention Jerome Walman in your blog and have another editor state that as a reference, thereby circumventing the rules. (By the way, I really admire your work, both music and words. I suppose this isn't the right place to say that though. Oh what the hell...) Chris 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining my proposed WikiProject, WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales? —Keenan Pepper 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Noncarrow was a Mexian. If you read the text you will see that he relinquished his US citizenship and became a Mexican national in 1955.

Yours, HOT L Baltimore 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really need to read the text: I knew Conlon and wrote a book about him, with his assistance. It's true that he took Mexican citizenship. But, culturally and by training, he was an American composer and played an important role in American music, having transmitted the ideas of Henry Cowell to a younger generation of American composers. His role in the history of Mexican music is virtually nil. Grove Dictionary lists him as an American composer, and most musicians speak of him as one. To simply call him Mexican is misleading.Kylegann 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How pleasant to see you here :) Bartleby 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! It looks fine to me; it's the sort of source any other editor would use also. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an exact year for the birth of this movement? (Lowdark Innuendo 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I definitely understand your point. Thanks for your continued patience in this process. The Wikipedia model is not ideal and this is why we have a problem with expert retention. (I'm lucky in that I work in a relatively quiet backwater of mathematics that newbies and cranks leave alone.) If you haven't read some of the resources Wikipedia has about expert retention, I would recommend them. They highlight many problems, but knowing to expect and anticipate some of those problems can help ameliorate their effects. Hang in there! VectorPosse 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - the Expert retention page is very reassuring. But when I see all the fine scholars who've given up on Wikipedia, and read their reasons for leaving, I must say I'm even more sorely tempted to join them. Kylegann 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reason you gave for departing and think you are wrong.

You state:

1) "I was doing Wikipedia favors."

2) "How many bad experiences should it have taken me to no longer want to do things for them"?

3) "why would I volunteer to continue fighting fights in which I have nothing whatever to gain?"

From this it is evident that you cleary do not have a clue about the project. Forgive me for saying so but I find your remarks self-centered.

Wikipedia is not about doing favours for anyone, it is not about personal gain, you don't "have" to do anything for anyone, you either see the bigger picture or you don't.

The often unfortuate drawback of aquiring expertise in a subject is the development of undue arrogance, perhaps you should reflect on this.

You should also try harder when it comes to citing authors writing in the field of your expertise; and spend less time arguing your own position.

If you know policy, and can cite accurately, you will not have to waste time bickering with the uninformed.

Try it, it works. 87.198.228.238 (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. So far no one has succeeded in making any part of my name public. Emoll 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gann: Apologies that it took me so long to get back to this. I re-added a reference to your work Custer and Sitting Bull to the Cultural depictions of George Armstrong Custer page. I would appreciate it if you would check my wording for accuracy in describing what you have created. I removed it initially because of the linkspam rules, thinking it more appropriately added by someone other than the composer. As a serious work, it has much better claim to a place on that page than do most of the pop culture allusions currently there. Sensei48 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Jim Fox (composer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Maria de Alvear - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Corey Dargel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, wherefrom is the hint to his interest in modern classical music, especially Bartok, I do not find it elsewhere. --Room 608 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roomsixhu (talk • contribs)

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

Hello, Kylegann. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:JohnEsposito.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]