User talk:Uvaphdman

Mozart[edit]

You are mistaken. Mozart is a composer of the Classical period in music, not the Romantic period. MarkBuckles 23:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am not the person who flamed you: I noticed that someone did and I disagree with what he said about you ruining the integrity of Wikipedia or whatever. I merely rv'd an edit that I disagreed with (ie: the designation of Mozart as a romantic composer. It is generally agreed that he is a classical composer, not a romantic, and that the romantic period began about 20 to 25 years after his death. --Ggbroad 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's my fault. I'm sorry. I thought you were purposely changing information to make the article inaccurate, since it's widely known that Mozart was a Classical music era (this being the specific, rather than general classification) composer, not a Romantic composer, he wasn't even borderline like Beethoven, but is rather seen as an exemplar of the entire era. I failed to assume good faith, particularly because you didn't use edit summaries or give a source, and I'm sorry for that. Don't change it again, though, because you are clearly mistaken. Mak (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so I think that Mak when way overboard with his initial response. I think that assuming good faith is usually a good idea in case such as that. It's not like it was vandalism - it was a minor difference of opinion. --Ggbroad 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The confusion is between European classical music, which encompasses many eras of Western art music, and the Classical music era, which was between the Baroque music and Romantic music periods. Classical is in fact specific in this case. You were mistaken, and I was a total dick, and I'm sorry. Mak (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the editor, depends on the time of day (most editing on Wikipedia happens during the evening on the east coast of the US) :) You'd be surprised at the people who want to insert incorrect information into WP for whatever reason, and I'm sorry that I made failed to assume good faith with your edits. In the future, if an editor reverts your edits, it's best to discuss it on the talk page, rather than re-inserting your edit, and useful edit summaries help other editors understand your purpose in an edit. I'll leave you the standard welcome template, feel free to ask editing questions (or "classical music" questions :) on my talk page. I'm sorry I started you off on perhaps the wrong foot in terms of wiki editing, and let me know if there's something I can do to make it up to you :P Mak (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Uvaphdman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I stuck my emoticon-tongue out at you. It was an attempt at levity, as well as a comment on the concept of "making things up" to people, I suppose. It was not meant disrespectfully. I realise that I was mistaken about the purpose of your edits. To me, calling Mozart a Romantic composer is sort of equivalent to calling Beethoven a minimalist composer, but of course anyone can make a mistake, especially outside their field, and I have been known to make many. Cheers, Mak (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation Hi Uvaphdman, I just wanted to let you know -- if you weren't watching the page -- that I responded to you over at my talk page. " (talk) JayFout 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Wikipedia definitely does allow you to cite other encyclopedias in support of your claims. In fact, there is a project underway at the moment that is including significant portions of an old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in Wikipedia articles. If you would prefer to add original references, and you know where they are, definitely do replace them. However, in the mean time it is better to leave the evidence that someone has given in support of their claim in the article concerned - unless you have reason to doubt its accuracy, of course.Anarchia 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]