User talk:Sluzzelin/Archive 2

Thanks for the links. futurebird 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not at all. I'm not an expert by any means, but I will be watching this project, mainly from a musical point of view. On that note, I think the link to the African American portal belongs on the banjo page, and why are there none on articles such as

WP:AFRO on pages such as son montuno, French hip hop, Landó, ... (the list could fill a couple of archives)? I'll be taking a break for the next couple of weeks, but I'm interested in the project(s). ---Sluzzelin 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL :-)

Is there a barnstar for the best edit summary? I can't find one, but you certainly deserve it :-) Duja► 13:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol indeed. thanks, I'm happy to amuse! It really drives me nuts when the edit conflict kicks me out. That's what I get for not caring about my computer. :-) ---Sluzzelin 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get the summary, but here's half a barnstar from me for Sluzzelin's humor in

]

Huch! This is great and quite a bit pointier than a whole one! Actually, if I squint my eyes it looks like two spatially superimposed slices of burnt toast, perhaps smeared with Nutella, no it's not the right shade, Malzaufstrich! and with identical little circular bites missing in each.... ok I have no idea what I'm talking about either, thank you, Sebastian :-) --Sluzzelin 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meine Güte, du klingst ja sehr hungrig! Since you are moving in a new home, I'd like to give you some bread and salt to honor the international tradition.[1][2][3]

Thank you, that's so splendid of you, Sebastian. I'm very thirsty now ... ---Sluzzelin 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, I had no idea that we even had a collaboration :) --froth^T 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, thank you for the inspiring question. Yes,

WP:RDAC hasn't reached every crook and nanny yet, but give it a few months and we will be ready to fork off our own wiki :P ---Sluzzelin 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you!!

Thank you so much for your help with that IfD, It's nice to see things going the right way... for once. You know, it's string to feel like there is a real community here, and I'm string to think that the wikipedia can be the kind of place that with some work, people will be able to trust for real information... even on controversial topics. So, thank you. And if you ever need any help, just let me know. futurebird 20:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any time. You and a couple of other cool-headed editors are handling it very well. The mediation is on my watchlist as well. I guess I'm too much of a hedonist and I like to spend my time at Wikipedia in a carefree way. I don't react very well to things like R&I, yet I can't help following them. All the more reason to admire what you have been doing, and I'll try to give my support when I feel it may actually help. ---Sluzzelin 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the notice. And sorry for rollingback your edit, it was the only way to 'undo' the prior one (i.e. lazyness on my part). Regards, El_C 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs at all, I'm glad you reacted and thanks again. I wasn't sure Loomis wanted other people to remove things from his talk page, but I'm sure there's a policy that says you did what was necessary. At any rate, I agree with the reversion. ---Sluzzelin 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. :) Yes, it's called

WP:NOT. Regards, El_C 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Semi-Protection

I think you understand my position on gagging racists. In the war against bigotry, I wear my scars with pride. If it were me I would have left the remark. But then again, I recognize that over the past while I haven't been excercizing the best of judgment, so I guess I'll just follow your judgment on this one. In any case, I appreciate your cool-headeness over the past while. Thanks for being around as a voice of reason to guide me, I truly appreciate it. Loomis 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll be your guruuuu, alright! Seriously though, the thing is, I'm not sure this one actually believes in his posts. I think they might just be designed to be inflammatory, nothing else. A sad little troll, in other words. I really think the reference desk handled his questions with the necessary coolness, but the quantity was getting out of hand. In the end, it's just a colossal waste of time. Yeah, I'm for free speech in society, and I do think racists and other bigots should be allowed to make fools out of themselves in public. But does an encyclopedia need this nonsense? In my opinion, no. ---Sluzzelin 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sluzzelin,

As I hope you've noticed, for the last while, as difficult as it's been, I've (almost) completely restrained myself with regards to Clio. Of course it hasn't been easy! Sometimes I wonder, who's baiting who now?

Take these two comments by our good friend shown here [4]:

"I hope you will understand that on matters such as this it is crucial to be absolutely precise". "Absolutely precise???!!!" What do you think I've been bitching about for the past couple of months but Clio's lack of "Absolute precision", (to put it mildly)!

"But Irish politics, as I feel sure you understand, have always been on a hair trigger: facts here are like bullets, more than any other country in the world". More than in the Israeli/Arab conflict???!!!"

Maybe it's just me, but these two comments seemed to be screaming out for Loomis to once again make himself out to be an obsessive bullying stalker pursuing some insane vendetta against Clio. I'm almost literally biting my tongue here!

Oh well, at least this time I didn't vent my frustration in public; instead I chose you as an audience for my venting. I really hope you don't mind. Just tell me and I'll find another way.

On another topic, thanks for whatever part you played in getting Barringa's hateful comments back on my user page. There's just one part I don't understand. Who began the reversion by writing: "Failing to recognize the significance on February 17 you wrote:"? What does this mean? Who failed to understand the significance of what? Once again I'm confused. Nevermind. I checked the history and figured it all out.

In any case, thanks again for your continuing patience with me and all my ridiculous antics.

Lewis Loomis 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, my wikifun is currently intermittent. How can I comment on your emotionally charged charges? I still maintain that I don't see this editor's contributions as problematic, nor do I see any obvious baiting. As you pointed out here, many of us are guilty of prioritizing political conflicts according to our personal ancestry, history, and awareness. A bit of hyperbole can be a useful rhetorical device and wont do any harm, in my opinion. Come on, Loomis, both you and this user enjoy editing the Humanities Desk - why don't you try to put some emphasis back in the enjoying part. We shouldn't be taking ourselves that seriously at the desks, and the very moment contributing here loses its fun, is when it's time to do something else for a while. Sorry, that's all I have to offer for now. (Well, I'm also very tired). Take care. ---Sluzzelin 12:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, well taken. (Though I'm still concerned about how some seem to be completely immune from the

WP:NPA policy on the RefDesk talk page). Take care. Your proud Wanker, Lewis. Loomis 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, you'll have to ask someone else about that. I'm not a policy-wonk (or wonker for that matter). You wont see me posting warnings, and I generally don't remove stuff, nor do I generally care that much. All I tried to give was some advice, from my (perhaps misguided) point of view. I'm asking you to listen and make up your own mind, and I feel that you have done just that. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that piece of research, Sluzzelin. Some of it is in the English Wikipedia article already, but feel free to add any others bits of information yourself. Credit where it's due.  :) JackofOz 04:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thumbs up, Jack. I decided to be bolder than ever, and added it now, thus breaking several of my own rules (not to edit content on a topic I'm unfamiliar with, not to add translated information from other wikipedias, unless it's sourced there and non-wiki-links can be referenced here). Also, there's something unpleasant about writing about his championing music for youths, when you can safely assume whose "youths" he was teaching back in Graz. I feel a bit queasy now, but it'll pass. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Same problem with writing about Hitler, Ceaucescu, Stalin etc - but I guess someone has to chronicle their wickednesses to help ensure they're not repeated. Why not us? JackofOz 12:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree. In this case though, I'm also worried about the fact that the text mentions nothing about the Third Reich, let alone its influence on Marx's work (something that was certainly relevant to composers such as Strauss or educators such as Furtwängler). I'm actually having second thoughts about what I added, but I guess if it bothers me that much, I should stop whining and look for sources. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from deleting questions regarding jews you may not want others to see or answer... the wikipedia is not jewish. 71.100.166.228 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Please refrain from being a dick and asking inflammatory variations of the same old trolling theme over and over again... the wikipedia is not your playpen. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to

Jews and Judaism, with specious-to-scurrilous wording. Be assured that these will receive appropriate attention and treatment. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

yep

Best disco song ever, in my opinion.--Urthogie 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your leave, I'd be pleased to oblige by restoring that

]

Game indeed. I thank you for your wise words and patience. I'm obviously not wearing my cool costume when dealing with this editor's posts, and clearly lost it in this little skirmish. I wont respond or react to his/her posts anymore, and will leave it up to calm editors such as yourself. Thanks again, I always find your posts at the reference desk and its talk page to be relevant and helpful. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And I greatly appreciate your kind words; it's good to know I'm read with understanding (especially as this stuff takes more of a toll on me than I generally let on, even while I'm aware it "comes with the territory"...) -- Deborahjay 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Un chien andalou.Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 02:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me! ---Sluzzelin talk 15:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your note on Airline Routes. My answer can be found here. --User:Krator (t c)

Thanks for the warning, but I'm too stupid to be able to see it! Where? --Dweller 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link, the stupidity was all mine. I'm not very good at this, but this needs attention. I've had it. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see genuine posts by me at his talk page. I've had a bad morning and perhaps have my stupid head on. Can you show me a diff? Btw if you think he's Barringa, you should report it ASAP to WP:ANI and request admin intervention, as Barringa is a blocked user. --Dweller 10:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is by Jfarber, who's been complaining about me instead of Diligent/Leasing agent. It's terribly casual to make serious allegations about another user and get their name wrong. If you are convinced Barringa is back, you really should go to ANI, not just EL C's talk page. It'll need a check user, unless El C thinks an indef block for his existing posts is appropriate, in which case a checkuser will be an irrelevance. Frankly, I'm not sure, so if I were you, I'd head to ANI anyway (the elegant thing to do would be to say you've dropped El C a note, as he blocked Barringa) --Dweller 11:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, thank you for the advice. I need all the help I can get. It's currently very difficult for me to work out all the diffs. I wont be able to post anything useful to AN/I before this evening (UTC). Also this is making me very angry, the deeper I plunge, and I should stay away. What do you suggest I do? Can it wait, inspite of my post on El_C's page? (I really appreciate your advice greatly.) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. If you don't mind, I'll say it's you that suspects it. I don't think diffs are necessary; he has a short edit history and pretty much most of them are suspect. --Dweller 11:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I'd appreciate that and thank you in advance. And if the suspicions prove inconclusive or wrong, I'll take full blame. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. He's been disruptive whether or not he's a sock. I've reported it at

WP:ANI with your suspicions and my own gloss. If you disagree or wish to add anything, please do. --Dweller 11:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks again, Dweller, for posting the notice at AN/I. I added links showing contributions of two of his (suspected) dynamic IP addresses. If necessary, I'll try to dig up some more evidence, but, for now, I'll wait and see how it evolves. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Pepper Adams Tina Brooks Blue Mitchell Down Beat Statocyst Cootie Williams Minton's Playhouse Art Farmer Pete Sims Drumhead Red Norvo George Coleman WCWM Fred Hersch Eddie Davis (saxophonist) Roy Eldridge Gary Bartz Lou Donaldson Al Cohn

Cleanup Dinah Washington Hammond organ Contemporary philosophy Merge Philosophy of law Unification Movement The Multiverse Add Sources Harry Carney Wardell Gray Eddie Vinson Wikify Cocktail drum Anthony Braxton Lorenzo Lotto Expand Postmodern art Kenny G A1 (band)

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. -- SuggestBot 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to this category. I have a suggestion: If you add [[Category:Women in jazz]] to Toshiko Akiyoshi's page, then her article will be listed alphabetically under T on the category's page. However, if you type [[Category:Women in jazz|Akiyoshi, Toshiko]], then the category will place her correctly under A. Thanks! Cribcage 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aïïeee and apologies for the bother. You followed my bread crumbs and cleaned up my mess. Thank you for the help and advice, it won't happen again. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you added category sort keys to several articles. Please note that you do not need to do that if the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template is set in the article, see Help:Categories#Default_sort_key and/or Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting. In many articles, it would be better to set DEFAULTSORT properly. Best regards, BNutzer 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, BNutzer. Gee, I'm sorry, first time around I neglected to add the sort key and the user who had to clean up my mess suggested that I add them in the future (see thread above). Now, I see that I generated some gruntwork for you to deal with as well, and that there's a simpler trick. Question: if DEFAULTSORT hasn't been added yet, is it better to add it, or to keep the individual sort keys per category? Thank you again, for your advice, much appreciated. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to add it and remove the individual sort keys, although that is more work sometimes. It will save future editors from adding individual sort keys (plus it should save some database space on the servers). Cheers, BNutzer 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I tried to follow your advice in the newly created articulette on Amina Claudine Myers. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Primavera! How lovely; it fills me with hope, thoughts of rebirth and renewal (though it's freezing here today!) My very best wishes to you Sluzzelin, in whom I detect a kindred spirit and fellow-traveller. Clio the Muse 10:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, and right back atcha! :-)

A little Madness in the Spring

Is wholesome even for the King,

But God be with the Clown —

Who ponders this tremendous scene —

This whole Experiment of Green —

As if it were his own!

Yep, I can put my field guide to nature back on the bookshelf now — la primavera is covered in snow here! Take care and generous shots of grog to keep you warm. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sluzzelin. I'm not at all offended by your montage, It was a witty way to make a a very valid point. Thanks also for your comments. You are correct, of course, that in "taking the bait" one is simply contributing to exactly what the un-named proponents of RD debate want: a discussion forum.

My concern though, is that while really stupid comments and theories are harmless. What is harmful, and totally against the purpose of the RD, is those with limited knowledge and a bizarre desire to share that with everyone, and on every conceivable subject. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because plausible sounding theories, even if totally wrong, are difficult to distinguish from the reality. This leads to misinformation for our readers. It appears that those that support theorising actually believe "the speculation of an "expert" over the speculation of everyone else is just an argument from authority". I read that to mean that my analysis of any issue is as deserving a space on the RD as that of an academic expert (i.e. that found in reliable sources). That is simply not an RD that I want to be a part of, because its not an information source, its an opinion forum. And one where he who shouts the loudest and longest gets his point across. Unless we start enforcing some core policies (such as

), the desk is just going to continue to creep down in informational quality as those who do have expertise drift away and leave it to those who simply like to hear the sound of their own voice.

If there genuinely is some movement towards enforcing policy, or some culture change, then please do let me know and I will get involved again. But until then, I think there is more pressing encyclopaedic areas of the project that I can contribute to. Good luck. Rockpocket 18:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct, of course, in that in leaving in such circumstances one simply emboldens those that support a Ref Desk → to Discussion Forum transition. However, intellectual discussion is not one of Wikipedia's, nor for that matter the entire internet's, strengths. If I wish to to debate a subject, I'll do so with my friends and colleagues whose opinion I value, not some random punter on the web with a Google fetish and an ego to boost. I'm amused at the current efforts to push the "learn through debate" angle; that presupposes that those who are debating are saying something worth learning!

Anyway, I appreciate you kind comments and I assure you, you are certainly among the valued cadre of contributors in my opinion. I'm sure I will be back after a period, but I think its best if I take a RD break for a while.

As a complete aside, do you have any interest of becoming an administrator here? I have been reviewing your contributions and they are altogether impressive. I think its probably still a little early in your wiki-career to consider a successful nomination tomorrow, but if it was something you would be interested in, I'd be honoured to nominate you in the near future. Have a think about it. Of course, if you are not interested, or you would prefer to be nominated by someone else then that is totally fine also. Rockpocket 02:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Casino Royale (2006 film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the awesome note; I couldn't stop screaming!! With joy, that is. Anchoress 05:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Despite the inflation of inflatable copies, that scream hasn't lost its power and your post made my blood frieze. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the barnstar! I replied on my talkpage. I'm surprised actually that no-one's deleted it, lol. For the record, I wouldn't revert it. ROTFL. Anchoress

Thanks Haziq191 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, erm, you're quite welcome, I guess, but what for? ---Sluzzelin talk 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to rewrite Atheism, since most of the article was pretty bad, and I'm using the German Wikipedia's Excellent article as a basis. Can you translate this? Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-05 22:37Z

"Postulatorischer Atheismus: Dieser meist von Wissenschaftlern selbst vertetene Atheismus geht davon aus, zunächst einmal Götter aus dem System der Erkenntnisse (ergo Wissenschaft) herauszulassen, also keine Götter zu postulieren im Gegensatz zur Theologie. Theistische Annahmen können jedoch später an Grenzbereichen der Wissenschaft oder in unerforschten oder als unerforschbar angesehenen Teilen wieder zugelassen werden (Beispiel: Stephen Hawking Pre-Big-Bang God). Diese Spielart des Atheismus wird oft in Verbindung mit der oben als Pragmatischer Atheismus bzw. Nominalistischer Atheismus bezeichneten Auffassung vertreten."

"Postulatory atheism. This view of atheism, usually taken by scientists themselves, is based on keeping gods outside of the epistemological system (that is science) in a first instance, thus not postulating any gods, unlike theology. Theistic assumptions, however, can later be re-admitted in areas at the scientific fringe, or in areas that are unexplored or considered inexplorable. (example: Stephen Hawking's pre-Big Bang God). This form of atheism is often represented in connection with the pragmatic or nominalistic atheism described above."

Took some liberties and casual license, hope it helped anyway. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I was just waiting a day or so to give Froth a chance to make up his mind about archiving his RD color project. All seems sync'd for now and we can always bring it back if he objects. ~ hydnjo talk  01:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe amazing how many keystrokes need to be sent to archive heaven from that very chatty place! ~ hydnjo talk  01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference desk latest talk = rd;lt / backwards =

tl;dr. Coinkidink? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(CTU) 7002 lirpA 9 ,32:30  klat ojndyh !os kniht t'nod I ,mmmH ?ecnedicnioC:::

lol

Hi Sluzzelin. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy

]

Radio Yerevan

Greetings Sluzzelin. Thanks for reminding me of this. I had a lot of enjoyment with RY jokes some years ago when I had a strong connection with the Russian community here. For better or worse, that's no longer the case, but life goes on. Cheers. JackofOz 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)r[reply]

The books were so popular here during the Cold War that, as a kid, I suspected it was an invention of Western propaganda! I learned differently one December 17 years ago, spending long nights near Primorskaya with zakuskis and lots of laughter. Question: Might it not be fun to have a Radio Yerevan revival? В принципе да, but then we already have our own

Radio RD. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikithanks

Vielen Dank für das Tänzelnde Pony! Ich habe nie vorgehabt zum "Exopedian" zu werden, aber wenn mir die Ideologen zu viel werden, schalte ich zwischenzeitlich auf andere Kanäle.

]

Scheint die vernünftigste Lösung zu sein. Meinerseits lasse ich mich zunehmend an den Vandalen aus, wenn das Drama den Geist gar zu sehr ermattet. Heb Sorg. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, we appreciate your prompt response! Only one thing's unclear: what's the sound of the [dj] consonant cluster that appears twice in the name "Djordjë"? I'm not up on my IPA, so am just trying to approximate: is it like "dzh"? If so, the Hebrew might do with "'דז" and the English with "dj" as you wrote. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 07:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sound of dj is that of j in jay, as in Deborahjay. And the 'ë' was supposed to signify a monophtong at the end, like 'é' in French, and unlike the anglotypical diphtong ay in Deborahjay. Keep up the good fight. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, so I'd gotten it quite wrong — glad I asked (and you answered)!! It certainly helps that you've reduced it to terms I can understand ;-) -- Thanks again, Deborahjay 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was clarified eventually. I really need to either learn IPA or some other standardized phonetics or stop attempting to answer questions on pronounciation or both or all three. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments in response:

• I certainly benefited by your answer to my
  Language Ref Desk query, which you fielded with a reasonable and effective description of the phonemes involved without either of us resorting to proper IPA
  transcription. I'm sure many other querents are as "non-purist" as I, so please don't refrain from offering help on these grounds!
• The best use I ever made of IPA was to transcribe the correct pronunciations of lyrics in foreign languages when I was singing in a chamber choir with a rather eclectic repertoire. (The most challenging was Czech, though at the time I couldn't properly pronounce German either). Stopped participating, promptly forgot the code.

I've occasionally considered how IPA might help me with the demands of my polyglot workplace. However, I've concluded that I'd be much better served in the long run were I to actually master the pronunciation and orthography of the various languages we use. This is ambitious but worthwhile. (e.g. I'm slow but pretty sure with Polish by now, but Dutch persists in eluding me...!) I support you in your efforts, as I find you a kindred spirit in the process of continual aspiring for knowledge and the sharing of it, that is Wikipedia. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments. Indeed, IPA would be a struggle for this by-ear-learner - posting recorded samples would probably be the right RD format for me. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sluzzelin! Thanks for your input on this RefDesk discussion topic. As usual, your contribution was direct and insightful. I especially appreciate the distinct sense of humor, irony and paradox that accompany your consistently informative posts on the Reference Desk. Highest regards. dr.ef.tymac 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those very kind and encouraging words, dr.ef.tymac. I easily get lost between this remarkable labyrinth's walls. Best of all wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed, Sluzzzzzzzzelin.

But - and I really hate to raise this - just what is the randomly received award you're passing on to me? JackofOz 10:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of pinning you directly (and sneakily, that's me). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. Thanks again. I'm glad you told me, otherwise I'd never have seen it. I hardly ever get that far down on my user page these days. I really must make it shorter - if I can't ever get to the bottom, I can hardly expect others to, can I? Maybe that's the point - stopping others getting to the bottom of me and finding out what the real JackofOzzzzz is like. Enough!! I'm off and away.  :) JackofOz 10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one way to get to what is buried deep down would be a RFA...never mind :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, you naughty boy! JackofOz 13:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my rationale for the deletions you reverted. Would appreciate careful feedback. Thank you.

Deleted text and explanation for deletion:

There is debate over whether the term should be used to apply to music in any style, or only to composers writing avant-garde music, or only to "modernist" music.

Perhaps there is debate about this regarding the term "contemporary music," but this article is specifically about contemporary classical music.

There is some use of "Contemporary" as a synonym for "Modern", particularly in academic settings.

Academics prefer not to use the word modern to mean "present-day" because the word evokes "modernism," which is a specific 20th century musical school.

A more restrictive use applies the term only to living composers and their works (perhaps only their recent works).

No doubt we will eventually have to draw a line in the sand at some point and claim that a new period has started. For the moment, the post-1975 slice of time seems convenient enough. There appears to be no advantage in using a narrower definition, which starts more recently.

Since "contemporary" is a word that describes a time frame, rather than a style or a unifying idea, there are no universally agreed criteria for making these distinctions.

That is why the article goes on to describe the different approaches of the composers active in the chosen time-frame. "Contemporary" refers only to the time frame, and not anything else. In the future, historians will find a term (e.g. "Totalist", "Ecclectic") to designate the current period. For the moment, we can only refer to it as the present period, the contemporary period. The word "modern" is now firmly anchored to music of the 1950s and 60s (Babbitt, Boulez, etc.), which is why we need to use "contemporary" to mean "present day." It would be regrettable to also lose the term "contemporary" by binding it specifically to the 1975-2010 period! Incidentally, the Grove Dictionary does not have an entry for "contemporary," which indicates that, thankfully, the term has, as of yet, not been co-opted.

I apologize for having presumptously reverted what I saw as an oversimplification. Thank you for the reasonable explanation. I reverted my revert back to your version and hope more resourced editors than myself will pitch in. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

]

Your ESP is freaky, Jack. As it happens, I had just noticed

this user adding links to two watched articles that hardly ever get edited too. Perhaps I should notify NightFalcon90909. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I got my eye on him. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 15:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, enjoy your break. :) JackofOz 11:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jack, it's been pretty pleasant thus far. See you soon! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]