User talk:Kan8eDie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kan8eDie is currently busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses.

Contents 1 Bespoke 2 Palestrina (opera) 3 Palestrina (opera) 4 Probability amplitude 5 Charvet notable clients 6 Harbec Plastics 7 Brainerd 8 Hello 9 Horizon Software 10 Waistcoat 11 Image in page Jacket lapel 12 Princess gown 13 Sportswear (fashion) 14 Dress Code 15 Black Tie 16 Collar

[edit] Bespoke

Thanks for your style edits on bespoke. I hope you will agree on the little clarifications I have added and explained on the article talk page. Racconish (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestrina (opera)

Hi! I put in the comment about the picture of Felix Senius. You were quite right to move it to a footnote, which is where it best belongs. There's no dispute about who gave the first performance of P, it was Erb. The only point of my addition of the Senius thing was because M. Scott (see reference) shows the picture, captioned as Pfitzner's Palestrina, and gives the life dates of Senius which make his attribution impossible unless it was some kind of pre-production visualization of the role. To find that out really would be original research, but I think the intended point is plain enough that the photo cannot represent an early performance of this opera as attributed, as FS died too soon. Although the point is not made by Michael Scott, the whole fact is apparent in his book - maybe, then, the OR tag could be lifted? Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I am a big fan of this opera, and have listened to the DG recording countless times. Thanks for the work on the article, which is greatly appreciated. I was just doing a bit of minor tidying up after reading it.—Kan8eDie (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I, also, am a devotee... I knew it first from an old spool recording off-air of Patzak, but now I have the DG vinyl. There's a wonderful couple of photos of Erb and Ivogun in the roles in M Muller-Gogler's book about Erb, but I'm worried about copyright for uploading them. Possibly I will filter them in as the 'Only Way' of showing them. Cheers! and best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was first performed in 1917 you say, so the earliest photos would just about fit into the 1923 cut-off point; there is stuff after this that you can use, but it takes a bit more investigation to use. Reprinting does not renew copyright, which is dated solely from the time of creation/death of author. Any pictures from the first performances will be safe to use. —Kan8eDie (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestrina (opera)

Hi. If you look at other opera articles you will see that the date of the first performance is normally given in the 'Performance history'. (That's the case with this opera.) After all that's what the section is for. Thanks. --Kleinzach 13:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but the date is very important to contextualise the opera. The first three articles I checked (Das Rheingold, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, and Saint François d'Assise) all also give the date in the lead section. I was not suggesting that the date was not there in the article, but just promoting it to an important spot; Pfitzner is basically unknown as a composer, but this places in squarely in the late Romantic genre for the reader. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. I know nothing about Sachs, and was hoping that the sentence plus two sources would enough to enable others to get started (that is the purpose behind making an article like that which is too short to be useful), but if you want, I could expand it a little bit.

[edit] Probability amplitude

(moved to article talk page)

[edit] Charvet notable clients

The result of the Afd was precisely not a consensus. I was actually trying to find a more consensual balance by moving the most important parts to the main article. I went as far as requesting a speedy deletion of the List, which was rejected. If you have a moment, please give a look to the banana section of Talk:Charvet Place Vendôme and let me know what you think. Thanks. Racconish (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Forget the no consensus. The fact that it remained, along with List of bow tie wearers, just means that there are enough 'inclusionists' or people more concerned about the presentation of the main article, to balance out the 'deletionists'. Merging the list back into the article is infeasible given the space, and losing all your work on the long list is a shame. Leave it all as it is, which is fine.
  I edited some of the refs to insert more whitespace in the wikitext because I currently find the jumble of nested refs and article text impossible to follow, and there are still several misplaced commas and things floating around the second half of the article as a testament to this. Regarding the cite book change, the language fix is currently waiting for an admin to apply (see Template_talk:Cite_book#Translator); the dratted new format for the template is to not use p. or pp. manually, but to use page= for one page, which places p., and pages= for more than one (e.g. 3, 5–10); finally, the quote= parameter places quotation marks around the text you give it; if this means that .". appears at the end sometimes, this is correct. —Kan8eDie (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  PS. A formatting feature you seem not to have noticed: you can write [[test]]ing instead of [[test|testing]], and capitals are ignored at the start of links.

Thanks. Racconish (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harbec Plastics

I am completely overwhelmed! Thank you for helping me work through this. I am confused about what I am still required to to in order to resolve the article issues and remove the tag for deletion. Thanks again! Kateetak (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brainerd

Thanks for your assistance and input on the entry for Brainerd. I have all the information entered as it should be. Can you please look it over before I post it to make sure I haven't forgotten anything? I would appreciate it.

Blackanguskhan (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi. I got your message on my talk page, and was a little bit embarrassed at my oversight (see my comment there). I also wanted to talk to you about the feedback page. Ever since I had asked for feedback on Woodland, CA, I watched the page, reading the comments you gave to everyone (as well as feedback that others would give). Recently I began to give some feedback (as I'm sure you've seen). I just wanted to let you know that if I'm ever wrong, missed something, or if you just want to give your own opinion on anything I've posted feel free to do so. My sole goal is to try and help, not get in the way. I guess what I'm trying to get at is I hope you don't feel like I'm encroaching on "your space" or anything. I'm still relatively new, coming to Wikipedia in the middle of the past summer, and I don't really have any "WikiFriends". Not that I am saying I need them, but at the same time I don't want to make "WikiEnimies". Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Funny you should mention it, but I had noticed your feedback, with amusement, because you have done exactly what I did: asked a question, had a good reply, then came back and started yourself answering. The only difference was that I came a couple of days earlier, and I think the first (or second maybe) response I ever made at WP:FEED was to your question! It is certainly not my space, and I think your help is extremely good and useful. I vaguely disapprove in principle of having "WikiFriends" or other online-only "friendships"(my friends are the people I meet, work with, sing with, drink tea with, and so on), so do not have any "WikiFriends" either, but you certainly have done nothing to antagonise me or even annoy in any way. I see your comments as always constructive and civil, so thanks. — Kan8eDie (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Horizon Software

Hello, Following your comment, I have added notes and references on the article so that the article can be notable. Could you have a quick look to my sandbox User:GregoryCouratier/Sandbox ? Thank you very much. GregoryCouratier (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have added two pages from main news providers. One from 'Les Echos', french national newspaper, and one from 'Yahoo! Taiwan'. Do you think it is enough ? Thank you for your help.

GregoryCouratier (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Waistcoat

Thanks for your changes-- but I still would prefer "They can be single-or double-breasted" I dunno why you have to go round the houses saying "they come in single and double breasted varieties". I've not changed it yet but it seems a long walk to a short sentence.

Thanks for clearing up a couple of typos. It's looking like quite a nice article now! BTW I have about 30 waistcoats I love wearing em. Must be old fashioned eh!

S.

Oh dear I think I may have made more of an edit than I meant to, computer had stuff in it's buffer. Sorry about that, I will check it. Was only meaning to change one word but I think I may have kinda reverted it to before your changes, really sorry.

SimonTrew (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image in page Jacket lapel

• Please discuss this in Talk:Jacket lapel#Boilersuit image rather than in revert-war edit comments. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Princess gown

No offence, Kan8eDie, but what can I do to convince you that princess gowns exist? And how do I use the sandbox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.137.211 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sportswear (fashion)

Please could you read the sportswear (fashion) page and you will see that this common term in the American fashion industry means something completely different from sportswear? Thank you. Mabalu (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I had not properly read the link. I am still dubious that it is relevant in those particular articles, but I should have been more diligent in checking first.— Kan8eDie (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's more a technical term for insiders than a generally known phrase, but yes, fair enough. Mabalu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dress Code

Love your work on Dress Code (Western). You seem to have expanded all my assumptions (except possibly the assumption that men (rather than women) will be wearing business attire). -- TimNelson (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Black Tie

Dear Jacob,

I generally follow a one-revert rule, but I still disagree over the description of the U shape as more traditional. This is a very minor detail, but the underlying principle is really whether the Black Tie Guide is reliable. It is a tertiary source, and in fact cites Wikipedia (besides which, the waistcoats page does not actually seem to mention the matter anyway). If you agree with this, it is up to you to change your sentence.

Kan8eDie (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I've always found the Black Tie Guide to be pretty reliable, but I recognise that it's not the optimum point of reference. I've changed it back. Thanks, JacobJHWard (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collar

No offence in reverting your edit. You may well be correct, but I can't find a single reference on the internet to a collar like you describe, which makes me suspicious. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you also clarify the difference between a Gladstone collar and a regular wing collar? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do these look to you? Are we better of looking for images, or are these clearer? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Those all roughly illustrate the modern styles of collar. The high types are rarely worn now, mostly manufactured by Luke Eyres (their "Grafton" collar is pretty much the only source of good evening collars these days, and is stocked in many shops, including my local Ede and Ravenscroft). The other types under discussion (Ascot, Gladstone, Imperial, etc) are historical and not worn any more. As fashions changed, the cut and angle of the tabs did too. Imperial has no tabs, Gladstone obliquely turned down ones, and Ascot open wings. None are relevant any more.— Kan8eDie (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be worth dividing the list in the article into "contemporary" and "historical" ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)