Hello, Taraint! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being " adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Kleinzach 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
[reply] |
Getting Started
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
Policies and Guidelines
|
|
|
The Community
|
|
|
Things to do
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
Hello. Thank you for your edits to Thomas Tallis. Union University? I wonder if you were given any training before editing today? Did anyone explain about inline citations for example? If not I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry-I don't mean to ignore all of the revisions you're making to the stuff I'm adding, and it is not my intention to bully my way through anything. I'm just editing it for a class requirement, and you're welcome to change whatever you feel is necessary. I've finished messing with it, and my professor said that he can just look at past revisions to tell what I've done. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble.
- --Taraint (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Taraint[reply]
- Thanks for your reply. Can you possibly clean up when you have finished? Some of the stuff that needs doing you can see on the screen, extra lines, type out of position etc. If you don't know how to do please ask you teacher to do it for you. Good luck in the future. Are you going to study music? --Kleinzach 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I didn't realize I was replying to anything at the time. I changed the citations to inline (I think.), but that was pretty much it. I was planning on looking at it more in depth after I got back from rehearsal tonight, but you had already done a lot more work on it. It looks very good and the order is much less confusing. Thank you for your earlier guidance, sir!--Tare (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. I went ahead with the cleanup myself because I thought the Union University project had finished (as of 3 December). Perhaps next time it would be better if the project were done on user pages? MaddieRhea did this, see here. --Kleinzach 04:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes sir, our editing did finished on the third. But you had mentioned the inline citations, and when I realized that it was standard for Wikipedia, I though it prudent to change them-I did not use them originally because it wasn't in keeping with the previous style. Then I was reading through the article and realized how a lot of the information ran together awkwardly and would get confusing, so I was planning on a basic reorganizing. It is not my habit to leave such a mess, whether my project was complete or not. By the way, I just realized earlier-why did you remove the Cohn-Sherbok ref.? Was it because it was pretty much unnecessary, or because of a fault with the book?--Tare (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the books cited in the article look dubious. Re Cohn-Sherbok: it was an odd ref. Did you see my edit summary: "Rmv unnecessary reference of dubious relevance"? It's not normal to reference a specialized article with non-specialized books, or to put it another way, to verify Wikipedia using less reliable sources. --Kleinzach 07:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If any of them were dubious, I kind of figured Walker's would be since it's from 1952. I understand what you are saying, though. It is interesting to me that a month ago I would not have believed any kind of book to be less reliable than Wikipedia. There is much more to Wikipedia-a community, almost-that I never knew existed. Although it seems to have thoroughly offended the Classical editors, I'm grateful for the opportunity. Thank you for at least your kindness and willingness to explain, as well as the editing of my poor grammar and superfluous additions. By the way-you haven't seen any edits past the Classical era because the Wiki project is in the first semester of Music History, which only covers up to Romantic. May you have luck in all you endeavor to do.--Tare (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
