Lambtron

Hi. I saw your addition at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Proposal, and was wondering what examples your thoughts were based on, and wondering if you had seen the list of example words that is 4 comments above your post? (including articles such as Jew (word), Meh, Negro, Thou, Orange (word), Yankee, Macedonia (terminology), etc). These are the types of articles that are under discussion, and that some editors believe should be deleted. If you had different examples in mind, that might help further the discussion. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will be as brief and concise as possible. My understanding of categories on Wikipedia is that they are there to group together articles with 'similar' subject matter. Sometimes the link can be very loose, but in the case of the RAD being in the dance technique category, it is not loose at all. I will certainly consider moving it to the ballet technique category, but I think you need to consider that on Wikipedia, not everyone will necessarily look at the term dance technique and apply the same definition that you do.

Moving it to ballet technique makes sense, and that is more consistent with the categories guidelines.

For example, Acro dance is an article in the dance technique category that we have both contributed to. Using an alternative perspective of the term dance technique, acro dance should not belong in that category either, because it is a category, discipline, style or genre of dance rather than a technique. It USES dance techniques, but the dance form is not in its self a technique. For example, jazz dance is a form of dance, not a dance technique, but if you look at how we create dance that fits into the category of jazz dance, Matt Mattox method, or Cunningham method, could both be considered as 'techniques' of jazz dance.

Perhaps you missed my treatise on this subject on the dance technique category talk page. I think readers would be best served if the category lists articles that are specifically about dance technique. In cases where there is no article about a specific dance technique, the category could list the article that contains the most comprehensive discussion of that technique (e.g., Acro dance); this would serve readers equally well.

Basically, when you've got an organisation like the RAD that has the research and development of dance technique and its own method of dance technique as the core element of its mandate, it's a bit odd to say it doesn't belong in the dance technique category, when the term dance technique is so broad and can encompass so many different aspects of dance.

What's odd is listing an organisation on the dance technique category page when it contains no discussion of dance technique.

In short, if you are going to go through Wikipedia articles deleting categories, first consider how other people will interpret the category title and why it was placed in that category in the first place. In this case, the reason for placing the RAD article in the dance technique category is clear, it's because it is notable for developing a notable method of ballet technique and one which is used by dance teachers all over the world. I would also apply the same thinking to other notable methods of ballet technique such as Vaganova or Checchetti or Balanchine.

I can tell you about my personal experience with this, and based on that experience I can speculate how others will interpret the category title. I visited the category to broaden my knowledge of different dance techniques. Except for RAD, all links led me to articles that discussed technique. The RAD link led me to an article that has virtually no mention of technique. It failed to broaden my knowledge of dance technique, and I was left wondering why it appeared in the dance technique category.

I hope my rambling makes sense. Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that you have intimate knowledge of the RAD dance technique but, unfortunately, none of that knowledge is divulged in the article. I have no doubt that you are correct when you say that there is a notable and distinct RAD dance technique, and I believe that technique deserves prominent discussion in Wikipedia. That hasn't happened, though, and until it does happen there is little justification for including RAD, the organisation, in a list of articles that discuss dance technique. When it does happen, I would hope to see RAD (dance technique) in the ballet technique category. Lambtron (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing the nonsense about only beginners using elastic. Though I've never worked as a dancer I've taken class for many years. Almost every New York City Ballet dancer I've ever seen in class has elastic on her shoes, and a small number of professionals wear shoes with only elastics. Thank you again. — Robert Greer (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! My daughter has danced for many years too, and although she has studied acro, jazz, tap, and many other genres over the years, her true love is ballet. She has focused on ballet from the beginning and has been to intensives at SAB, SFB and elsewhere (including RAD, btw). I may not be an expert but I know a thing or two about ballet, and I know nonsense when I see it. BTW, your observation that some professionals wear shoes with only elastics might make an interesting addition to the article. Best Regards, Lambtron 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

If your daughter's been to RAD, SFB and SAB intensives you certainly qualify as an expert! The wearing or not wearing of elastics is a small point but is the sort of thing that deserves mention in passing on Wikipedia. It is, alas, just the sort of thing that some ignoramus will challenge on the wrong-minded grounds that it's original research. In other words, if you can't find it with a Google search it must be original research. I don't know which is worse, the boys who vandalize pages or the adults who think they know more than they do. In some ways the former are the lesser of two evils; you just undo their edits and that's that. The latter will engage you in long discussions about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Keep up the good work! — Robert Greer 09:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lambtron,

I hope all is well with you today. I am writing to you today because I understand that you unlinked my link to the phrase "tab curtains" from the above article. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the link directs users to a "commercial extlink--fails to contribute new facts to article". The hyperlink takes users to a blog entry with a video that gives much visual and contextual information that is not present anywhere in the main body of the above article. Additionally the link does not take you to a commercial page but instead to a blog. I would invite you to read the "Reason for Being" entry on the blog (http://blog.rosebrand.com/post/2010/01/29/Rose-Brand-Blog-First-Post.aspx) to gain a better understanding of the purpose of the blog.

I see that you are very active in the editing of the above Darpes and Curtains article. I am also assuming that you are active in many of the same subject matter that I will be contributing to. I would like to get a better awarness of what is appropriate material. I understand that all of this may be spelled out in the Wikipedia "terms & conditions" but as we are not lawyers and community edits seem to be subjective. I am much more interested in working with you then us working against each other. I look forward to your response. Thanks! (BraxtonWinston (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC))Reply

I appreciate your comment about lawyers, and I, too, am interested in working in harmony with other editors. Here are a few excerpts of WP guidelines that apply to this situation:

• WP:ELNO - Avoid links to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Avoid links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject.
• WP:ELNEVER - Material that violates copyrights should not be linked. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.
• WP:ELPOINTS - External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.

The applicable section of the linked page has only one sentence about tabs, which adds nothing to what is said in the article. That sentence, however, is dwarfed by other text such as "[w]e receive a lot of phone calls from people who are curious about Tab curtains", and "[f]or more information on different types of curtains please see the Custom Sewing section of our Web site." Furthermore, the section about tabs is but one small section on a large page about many varied topics, and that page, in turn, is liberally sprinkled with links to Rosebrand's "non blog" commercial web. Per your suggestion, I read the "Reason for Being", which begins this way: "Welcome! For those who don't know us, we're probably the largest provider of fabrics, custom sewn creations and production supplies ...". Clearly, Rosebrand's "blog" is intended to be a marketing vehicle for Rosebrand, first and foremost.

This link would be acceptable if the target page (1) focused on tabs, and (2) provided significant relevant information beyond that of the WP article, and (3) toned down the marketing plugs for Rosebrand. As for the video—which is marked with a youtube logo—why not just link to it directly? It should be noted, though, that this is not feasible if the video infringes any copyrights. Lambtron (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, ELNO#11: blogs. Blogs are very rarely suitable as external links, or references. See WP:SPS for details. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, man.....I don't "own" anything on Wikipedia......funny that you would post this.....I'd read an article here a few days ago about not getting one's hackles in a twist when someone edits your "pet" article. Polite of you to put something on my talk page, though. Although I don't totally concur with everything you did, I think your edits brought some needed clarity to the article. I've often found the term "listcruft" to be kinda funny, since this is a wiki....and it certainly has the space to handle a bit of crufty-ness.....and the list of IBM Rings had been called crufty by someone recently. I think a stand-alone article listing IBM Rings has merit.....but it's been deleted and merged into the Rings disamb. page. ....I don't really have the interest in waging a war about that right now. Anyway, please consider looking into Project Magic here.......it all needs a little tweaking in places. Best regards......I'll see you out there somewhere.Bddmagic (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As suggested at WP:USURPTITLE, I hope you are going to pitch in and help fix the 1,500 or so articles that contain links to "Dancer", since you changed that title to redirect to the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Russ. You seem to be confusing WP:USURPTITLE with changing the target of a redirect; no page move has occurred here. Technicalities aside, there are sound reasons for changing the redirect, as discussed in talk:Dancer. I do realize that there are many affected links that need to be fixed, but I would be remiss if I allowed the magnitude of that task to dissuade me from doing the right thing. Rest assured that I will help fix the affected links, and I hope other editors will pitch in and help too. My only uncertainty is this: since "dancer" (a person who dances) is best suited to dictionary definition (which is why Dancer is a redirect, right?), would it be best to change links to [[dance]]r or to wiktionary:dancer? I'm leaning toward the latter, but I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Lambtron (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I never said there was anything wrong with changing the target of Dancer; but, since you've done it, the links do need to be fixed, technicalities or not. As to your question, I would lean towards [[dance]]r myself, but maybe that's due to the fact that I personally don't like Wiktionary links in most situations, especially for fairly common words like this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that once again, you are going around making widespread changes to articles about dance technique and methodology. I just wanted to point out that when teaching ballet for example, methodology and technique are very closely related, and are certainly not as easy to clarify as you seem to think. Yes, the Vaganova, Bournonville and RAD are different methods, but that are also different techniques as well. In ballet, it is not sufficient to say simply that a pirouette is just a pirouette. The pirouette is not the technique, it is HOW the the pirouette is performed that is the technique, and that technique stems from the method that they have been trained in. So, dancer trained in Vaganova method will employ a different technique for pirouettes than another trained in Cecchetti. The differences may be subtle, but they matter. If you only discuss methodology, that suggests that all ballet dancers are performing steps exactly the same way, but employing different methods to learn them, which is simply not correct. A dancer experiences in pedagogy will spot the differences between dancers who have been trained in the different techniques/methods. Crazy-dancing (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Instead of elaborating on these concepts here, would you please discuss them here so that everyone can benefit from your thoughts? Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi just noticing that you are right in your discussion about sound designers with dubious credentials. Looking over some of the ones on the list, the following ones seem somewhat light -- few or no quality references, articles way too long, much unsourced stuff -- Roy Harter, Walter Murch. And the Charlie Richmond article may have a possible conflict of interest since a chief contributor had the name User:Charlierichmond.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's a problem common not just in lists of people, but in other types of lists as well. Sometimes it's hard for me to judge the value of a list entry, or I'm reluctant to remove it because, although it seems frivolous, it might actually be of value to a reader. To compound this problem, some list entries are obvious COI violations by authors who will sometimes aggressively defend against their removal. I've found that a satisfactory way to "fix" articles containing such lists is to to separate the lists from the articles. Article readers are well-served by this approach because the irrelevant list entries have been removed. Authors of COI entries seem to be content because their entries are preserved in a list. And, if someone is actually seeking a legitimate, non-COI entry, they can easily find it because the list still exists (though it still might be necessary to sift through a bunch of COI entries). Lambtron (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your de-coupling strategy of lists from articles seems sensible and smart, also as a way to avoid wiki-battling. I've pointed out problems with those specific sound designer articles on noticeboards but so far haven't got any response.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you also have some look on the article G.hn. As far as I can see it, the paragraph about Tangotec does not meet our rules. Thank's --Kgfleischmann (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I submitted the Irish Stepdance article for a Peer Review here. Could you please take a look and comment? Thanks! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 20:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your user page makes me smile all over, so I thought I would share that smile with you! You are incredible! Love the little films of you dancing!!!

Please do not continue to delete references to theatrehistory.com. First, it is not an external link governed by WP:EL, but is being used as a reference. Second, the brief conversation between two editors on WP:ELN is not sufficient to establish a consensus to mass delete. Third, the discussion should be held on WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard, as the only question pertinent to theatrehistory.com is whether it should be considered reliable or not. Please do not delete any more until you have a legitimate consensus discussion that establishes that a mass deletion is necessary. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ken. My edit summaries clearly state the reason as WP:ELNEVER, and the underlying contributory copyright infringement problem does apply to web citations. A cursory look at this website reveals other issues as well (e.g., unsourced content, inline and pop-up advertisements). Please don't revert any more related edits until you have taken the time to visit and evaluate the website; you might be surprised at what you find there. After you've done that, I welcome your thoughtful defense of the site as a suitable reference if you still feel it qualifies. Per your suggestion, I've started a thread about this at WP:RSN; I look forward to reading your comments there. Lambtron (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I do not see any copyvios. All of the substantial quoted material appears to be from public domain works. Also, the site contains and extensive and useful set of full-text plays and other theatre materials, as well as a large number of what appear to be useful short articles about theatre, people in theatre and theatre works. Please do not remove these links unless you replace them with equivalent links to WP:Reliable sources. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ssilvers. Hopefully by now you've taken the time to evaluate my edits. If so, you've probably discovered that many of the citations were replaced with equivalents. Unfortunately, all of the edits were reverted without explanation. Perhaps now that my intent is clear, other editors will offer support (in lieu of unexplained reversions) as we work toward this common goal. You probably also know by now that theatrehistory has several serious RS problems (aside from potential copyvio), and those problems aren't solved or mitigated in any way by the number of articles found there. If you'd like to discuss this further, please join the conversation here. Lambtron (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article Training system has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to have a single well-defined usage other than the dictionary value of the two words. Not an encyclopedic topic, even if it is a section heading in one or more books.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 19:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

rfd was deleted; see the article's talk page for details. Lambtron (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lambtron, would you be available to help assess the relative historical importance/significance of several dancers? None of the present VA/E project participants have any particular experience in dance or expertise in dance topics, and I thought it would be a smart move to reach out to someone who did. Please let me know if you would be interested in helping; the time commitment would not be very great, but would involve you reading 20 or so dancer biographies, and giving us your opinion regarding the relative significance of each subject (see here.) Are you willing to help? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lambtron. I don't think our paths have crossed before but I'm glad to see you have participated in the development of Women in ballet. I was however rather surprised to see you removed category "ballet" as not only does the article address ballet as the major area of women's contribution to dance but it has certainly been an area in which women have excelled. If "hotcat" indicated you should delete the category, then I think there must be something wrong with the bot. I would like to invite you to reconsider your decision. It would be a pity if this article was no longer accessible to those interested in accessing English Wikipedia's coverage of ballet.--Ipigott (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ipigott. I think you mean women in dance, right? I removed category "ballet" from the article while diffusing Category:Ballet because (1) the article covers dance in general (not ballet specifically), and (2) history of ballet substantially parallels the ballet-centric parts of women in dance. That said, I do realize that women in dance has lots of ballet-related content, and I certainly wouldn't object if you put it into a relevant subcategory of ballet. I would ask, though, that it not be placed directly into the ballet category because it is a very general category and consequently should only contain subcategories, with very few exceptions. Lambtron (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your explanations. Unfortunately there are no subcategories that fit. The only solution would seem to be to create Category:History of ballet specifically for this article.--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good solution! Lambtron (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just came here to tell you that your 3O post has been declined due to there being no thorough talk page discussion, more information about this can be seen on the 3O main page.

However, I also did notice that the user (whether intentionally disruptive or not) has repeatedly added an obviously irrelevant image without any explanation--not much of a normal content dispute. I was inclined to revert it myself but someone beat me to it. Fortunately, such a highly visible page obviously must be having a lot of watchers. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lambtron, I am quite a beginner on Wikipedia and helped creating the Wilfride Piollet article. I saw you removed the Ballet / Dance technique / Choreography categories I initially put. As I am working on Jean Guizerix’ page (her husband, also principal at the Paris Opera Ballet) I wanted to understand how pages are labelled under specific categories to avoid making the same mistakes again. Thank you very much, Camille. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDesmarest (talk • contribs) 10:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Camille, I replied on your talk page. Lambtron (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:CompetitiveDanceGroup.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Another one of your uploads, File:CompetitiveDanceAwards.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I’m contacting you because you are a participant in WikiProject Dance. Myself and another editor, User:Mwacha are interested in developing some notability guidelines on WikiProject Dance for dancers, dance critics, performers, and other genre articles as there is no such thing at the moment comparable to what I have heard other editors use for Visual Arts, IE “if they are collected in a major museum, then they are considered notable.” There are of course exceptions to this standard but it is nice to have a rule of thumb to help with AfD, and other moderated discussions. We hope to start this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance#Notability Guidelines.OR drohowa (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lambtron,

I am marketing director of the company who's images you've flagged today under "caster" and allow them to be used.

Caster Concepts allows these images to be used on Wikipedia.

Please let me know if you need any further information.

Best regards,

David Parham dparham@casterconcepts.com www.CasterConcepts.com 517-680-7938 — Preceding unsigned comment added by David G. Parham (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi David. I'm not familiar with the requirements or process but you can probably find out by joining the conversation here. BTW, marketing and promotion of companies is not allowed at Wikipedia. I don't want to discourage you because you clearly have valuable knowledge about casters, but the caster article must be written in a non-promotional way -- just the facts. If your company, Caster Concepts, is notable then perhaps you might consider writing an article about it? That would be acceptable, whereas inserting refs and mentions of it in the caster article is not. Lambtron (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Heya Lambtron. I'm going to make a go at trying to improve collaboration at WP:WikiProject Dance, and thought I might do a quick census of that (very small) handful of dependable editors who have been active there (to the degree its sparse participation allows) in recent times. You're at the top of that list, so I'm here first. Drop me a line if you're active and interested, will you? I'm planning on requesting mass-mailer privileges for this and other purposes on other WikiProjects, and hope to further recruit through our dance articles; I really want to create a sort of resource exchange between the few editors we have in this massively underdeveloped topic area so that we can improve mediocre articles on important topics without running afoul of sourcing issues. Anyway, take care in the interim! Snow talk 03:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Snow. I'm not sure how helpful I would be as my knowledge and interests are confined to a fairly narrow region of the dance spectrum. However, it seems like a worthwhile endeavor and I am willing to help out if I can, so feel free to add me to the list. Lambtron (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Lambtron. Am I correct in assuming from your media contributions that the area you feel best-versed in is western classical styles? As it happens, I think that's the place we need to start. Articles on that topic are in many cases woefullly underdeveloped. Of course most articles on particular genres are at present, but unlike, say club dancing, we should be able to find some resources with regard to classical/concert dance (while it will be much more difficult for contemporary street genres and such). I'm planning on reworking that whole area, creating a central page for classical dance that tries to make sense out of the mish-mash of terminology used at different times, in different nations and cultures, and by different dance figures and teachers. We need to find a more elegant way of demonstrating to the reader how ballet, modern, contemporary, lyrical, musical theater/broadway, and jazz are all related and how they've diverged (while also noting that nomenclature varies from place to place; for example, what is called "contemporary" in the U.S. is sometimes called "modern" in Europe, where the conceptual distinction between modern and contemporary isn't always as drastic, or where there are simply different linguistic considerations). And the biggest problem there, is that we have to source all of this, and sources don't always note these difference in nomenclature; they just use what is familiar to them and their context. Anywhoo...I'll keep you posted. ;) Snow talk 21:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Op, nevermind the question; just saw you answered it incidentally in the dance theater thread. Snow talk 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

A few of your recent edits have replaced parentheses and other punctuation characters with # signs, presumably not on purpose:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2N2222&diff=prev&oldid=674927733
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All-pass_filter&diff=prev&oldid=674927798
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amplification_factor&diff=prev&oldid=674927838

I restored All-pass filter. Could you restore the other two? 2001:14BB:150:F79:F5C6:3413:DCF4:1BE5 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. Sorry about that -- I wasn't aware at the time about dab_solver's XSS problem. Lambtron (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lambtron. Thank you for replying about the concern I linked to at WT:DANCE. Obviously I don't want to waste people's time. And I'm now rather shocked to see I seem perhaps to have been one of the more active posters on the project talk page ....... Erm, ouch! 81.157.0.217 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem! My only concern is whether it's something that perhaps should be mentioned in dance. Lambtron (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is it worth it to try and attempt a rewrite so that it becomes factually accurate for both UK and US readers? Or are the Brits just going to dismiss it as Americans "ruining" "their" language, as they usually do? ::sigh:: — tooki (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tooki. It is worth it; I had actually started a rewrite but abandoned it when it became clear that nationalism is trumping logic. What really surprised (and discouraged) me was that not a single UK editor would engage in objective dialog — a necessary step for reaching consensus. Lambtron (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lambtron. ::sigh:: It's such a common problem with the British; when it comes to language, their famous understatement goes out the window and Americans become fair game for verbal abuse (not just online, they do it in person, too). If you decide to resume the rewrite, don't hesitate to contact me for feedback, proofreading, etc. Hopefully a really sensible, well-written draft would stand up to critique. Cheers, tooki (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lambtron - If I may, I'd like to mention one of my own current concerns. It's about the history of dance, the meaning of "pantomime". This, you probably known, was a dance-drama of ancient Greece and Rome that gets a lot of coverage in dance history books. I've found, though, that this meaning is disputed at Pantomime. Could you, if you feel competent and interested, take a look at the talk page there and help decide how to include the dance-oriented ancient pantomime? Thanks. Your photos are fantastic, btw, I had no idea you did that. Are there more looking for homes? Redheylin (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bddmagic, thanks for the buzz! It led me to discover that my SoundCloud link was obsolete -- now it's current. Lambtron (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! We are students writing an article on Tiler Peck as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have interest in these kinds of topics, we would like you to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time. --Fernanda Nova Rodarte (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lambtron,

This is krdittmer17. I am editing the "Ballet" article. I am a student editor, and we had to pick a topic we have background knowledge on (I danced for 15 Years!). I saw you were active on the page years ago, and I was hoping that you could take a look at my edits when I complete them and give me some feedback! I have checked out some great books from the library that will have a trove of good information to improve the article! 

Let me know if you are interested!

Krdittmer17

Lambtron, you may be interested in commenting on a proposed merger of Hop bar into Digging bar at Merge discussion Ex nihil ^(talk)

Hi there, I sent you a Wikipedia email as well — I work in publishing and we'd like to use a photo of yours in a children's book about ballet. Please advise. MW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwarten (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mwarten: It's permissible to use any of my images in commercial publications and I have no objections to such use. Although the licensing terms are somewhat more demanding, I would be satisfied if you simply credit my images to "Jim Lamberson". Thanks for the interest, and good luck with your book! Lambtron (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please stop changing the link to the ICWM standard. Caster Concepts is distributing the Institute of Casters & Wheels Manufacturers (ICWM) copyrighted content without ICWM's permission, thus my revised link brings you directly to the ICWM website, the owner of the copyrighted material. This is now a legal matter between ICWM and Caster Concepts.Darcor-rsimmons (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please provide evidence that a legal action is in progress. As things stand now, it seems that you're insisting on banning a viable source based purely on WP:OR. It's been explained to you at Talk:Caster#ICWM performance standards why this is unreasonable and unwarranted, but so far you haven't responded there. I'm trying not to WP:BITE here, but it's important for you to understand that your actions have been problematic in several ways. Most importantly, the mere allegation of infringement by a third-party (such as yourself) is not a valid reason for excluding a source. Also, the alternative source you are trying to insert is inferior because it can only be accessed through a paywall. Finally, instead of discussing this, you have opted to engage in an edit war to achieve your goal. Accordingly, I've restored the original reference and respectfully ask you discuss this (preferably at Talk:Caster#ICWM performance standards) and seek consensus before changing it again. Lambtron (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note: this thread has been moved to Talk:Caster#ICWM performance standards. Lambtron (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lambtron. I reversed your edit of the Coursework article, as Schoolwork is a redirect to the page. Cheers, Daylen (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please don't use the clarify span tag and then just leave it unresolved for years, it drastically impacts the visual formatting of the page. This article is in mainspace, its not a draft or personal sandbox.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Seraphim System: If I knew how to rewrite the problematic spans then I would have done that years ago (instead of tagging them). The fact that they're still tagged means that since they were first tagged, no one else has been able to understand the content well enough to rewrite it. I'd guess that you don't know what the phrases mean either, or else you would have fixed them. If you do know what is meant and can rewrite it in an intelligible way, please do so. If not, please don't just delete the requests for clarification, which are still needed. Lambtron (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do know what they mean and only one of them appears to need minor tweaking. The second only needs a link to the main turn out article. The spiral movement refers to the way that turn out is held by dancers, and I can add a brief clarification to explain the role of turn out more.

If you feel something needs clarification, and it is likely that the tags will be in place for years, please just use the regular clarify instead of clarify span. This has a reason= field that can be used to explain what needs clarification and is better suited for placement of long-term tags in mainspace. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Seraphim System: I'm glad you know what these phrases mean and I hope your efforts to translate them into comprehensible language are successful. Frankly, I just could not imagine what was meant by "the leg comes from the hip", "absolute rotation through [a leg]", and "spiral rotation through the legs". Lambtron (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree that clarify span causes text to stand out visually -- which is precisely why I used it here: to draw attention to these terribly-written phrases in a way that would, hopefully, expedite their repair. I never considered how long the tags would be in place, in large part because I'm not skilled at predicting the life expectancy of clarification requests. BTW, I see nothing in the template documentation that discourages the use of clarify span in mainspace; can you direct me to the relevant guideline? Lambtron (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Monsieur: Je viens de corriger une erreur sérieuse que vous avez commise sur la page Arabesque (ballet position) où vous avez évidemment considéré la forme «arabesque penchée» comme une faute d’orthographe. Vous avez tort. Le nom «arabesque» est féminin en français, ce qui veut dire qu’il faut mettre tout adjectif qui l’accompagne au féminin aussi. Donc, la forme «arabesque penchée» est tout à fait correcte. S’il vous plaît, ne «corrigez» pas cette «faute». D’ailleurs, le lien que vous avez utilisé pour appuyer cette orthographe est mort. Kelisi (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kelisi: I don't object to using French language spelling in the article, but you seem to be unaware that penché — as incorrect as it may be in French — is commonly used in English-language ballet terminology. BTW, the link is not dead; it can be found here. Lambtron (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then you would surely have to say "a penché arabesque", because putting the adjective after the noun is certainly wrong in English, as correct as it may be in French. Either way, "arabesque penchée" is not a misspelling. That at least was an inaccurate thing to say. Kelisi (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concerns but I have no control over how it's commonly said or spelled, and I cannot attest to the accuracy of ABT's statement about misspelling. If you feel compelled to assign blame for these issues then I humbly accept it. Lambtron (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your change ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graphing_calculator&diff=920454031&oldid=920423328 ) was wrong to remove Cemetech from the See Also section because Cemetech is not a Graphing calculator and was thus removed from the category (by me). Could you please reinstate it there, as I would be violating 3RR by doing that. Notrium (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, would you mind comparing the current state of Graphing calculator with Programmable calculator, especially the List of programmable calculators section. Those two pages are very similar so they should probably be in sync in this regard. Notrium (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's been linked into the prose (vs. under See_also) to make its relevance obvious. Lambtron talk 17:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

No need to add "(disambiguation)". That's just for when the basename is taken by a primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip; it just seemed like the logical thing to do. Lambtron talk 16:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've made some WP:NPOV changes in Interrupt and linked the {{about}} to Interrupt request (PC architecture). Please look at that and at Talk:Interrupt, then update the talk page if you still have objections, or remove the {{Dubious}} if you don't. Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done Thanks! Lambtron talk 02:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite understand the message you left me lambtron.is it something about the picture I sent,is it not valuable? Also how do I add the sign that represents the language I speak, I tried but I can't get it done. I'm en-N. Thank you and sorry for not quite understanding .ddemod Ddemod (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ddemod. You received a notification because I "pinged" you when I answered your question at Talk:Handstand -- you can see my answer there. Lambtron talk 12:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Triple threat (entertainer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 17#Triple threat (entertainer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ––FormalDude talk 14:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply