User talk:Incarnatus

Welcome!

Hello, Incarnatus, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! And thanks for bringing the Crucifixus book to my attention. James470 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's value to tagbombing and other kinds of vandalism

I'm glad to see you didn't completely revert the tagbombing. Too often edits get completely reverted without anyone asking if there was some value to the edit. After I took out the primarysources tag, I realized that there is one statement in the article that could arguably be seen as being taken from a primary rather than third-party source. I'm not sure if that's what Peter was getting at, but I intend to correct it pretty soon. Vandals are saying something of value. It just takes a little patience to figure out what it is. James470 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Incarnatus (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Incarnatus. You have new messages at LouriePieterse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You accused my last week of tag bombing on my talkpage. I would appreciate it if you could do me the favour of replying on my message. Kind regards, Lourie Pieterse 08:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry about that, I was busy with the holiday. Incarnatus (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A major timpani

Apologies for the confusion on the A major article. I hadn't doubted that the E was a fifth above the A, but double-checking the other keys, I checked Haydn's 94th in G and noticed the same thing and figured it wasn't that rare. But more rigorous checking is showing me that the "dominant drum" is usually a fourth below instead of a fifth above for most of the common keys (C,D,E♭,B♭) though a fifth above is common for F (Beethoven 6 & 8) and G (Haydn 94 & 100)... though before Haydn & Beethoven F, G & A were normally keys that used timpani. So I'm OK with the article as it stands, I just thought I'd explain why I was confused. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable. Few people can tell inversions in the bass. Which is probably why composers back then didn't bother to ask for bigger drums. Incarnatus (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible tagging fix

Hey, thanks for repairing that. I appreciate it. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Incarnatus (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Il finto astrologo

Guess I lose points then. In general, I am against removing red links within articles unless it is evident that the subject is clearly not notable. Red links encourage article creation and are therefore useful. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again we disagree. I have seen numerous stubs that I have created turn into well crafted articles later by other editors. Stubs also generate growth. On a side note, I don't appreciate your condescending and sarcastic tone. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. You're free to disagree with me, but your attitude is counterproductive to the collaborative philosophy of wikipedia. You're more likely to persuade people to your point of view by treating them with respect.4meter4 (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, WP:CIVIL. I forgot that it applies to me but not to established editors. Incarnatus (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New, better encrypted citations

You had promised new, better encrypted citations for Gregor Werner for yesterday. What happened? Are you alright? Or just busier in real life? James470 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both actually. Besides, tracking down the one dissertation in English was turning out to be way too much work to do for free. Incarnatus (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it, thanks. Now, can you give a little hint? James470 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will. Incarnatus (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Well, there's a section dealing with copyright violations (real or even suspected) at Wikipedia:Copyright violations for starters- if you know or can contact the copyright holder, they can very directly put in a request for its removal, also, I believe (DMA considerations). Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was away on vacation for a bit and have been absent enough from Wikipedia that changes to the site have been confusing me. Hrm. I think that the relevant policies for images are at Wikipedia:Non-free content and so I will put up a notice at his discussion page, and if there is no acceptable response in a given period, will delete any remaining image or images. (The one you linked me to has been deleted now- I gather you have already dealt with this; I apologize for my tardiness, again.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Club of Detroit is not notable?

If anything, it seems to me like the Hot Club of Detroit is much more notable than the Detroit Party Marching Band. For one thing, they're good enough to play at Orchestra Hall, Detroit. I'm starting to wonder if you have something against Detroit. James470 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, just vain people, wherever they happen to hail from. Incarnatus (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]