User talk:Nihil~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

stub tag[edit]

Please can you remove the stub tag from your user page as it interferes with stub sorting, if you want you can write it like this {{stub}} - thanks. Bluemoose 14:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot[edit]

If you're still interested in a photo of Benoit Mandelbrot for that page, rather than an illustration of the famous M-brot set, you can go to his Yale University web site. Here: http://www.math.yale.edu/users/mandelbrot/photos.html --Christofurio 15:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Higgs boson consensus vote[edit]

There is currently a vote on the Higgs boson talk page over whether or not to merge the pop culture references article with the main article. I noticed you've previously contributed to the debate, so your vote would be helpful in establishing a consensus (or, perhaps, a vote of "no consensus", in which case the problem will be referred to AfD). Thanks! -DMurphy 21:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Vote on Ultraviolet map[edit]

Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Jesu[edit]

Regarding the Pie Jesu page, I apologize for the inaccuracies, but I did have what I thought was a decent source for it:

The page for Andrew Lloyd-Webber (and by the way, his surname is not "Webber", but Lloyd-Webber. While I realize that "Lloyd" can also be a given name, in this case the hyphen means it is part of the surname) had information at the time that I created the page that pretty much stated that he wrote it. I apologize if THAT page was incorrect, but that's no reason to delete ALL of the information I had on it.

For instance (this being my main concern), the statement that Charlotte Church, one of the world's most famous classical/gospel singers, had a performance of it on her best-selling debut album, Voice of an Angel. I have no idea why THAT was deleted, since it doesn't exactly make sense to delete it, as it's verifiable fact, and notable since she's very well-known for a classical artist, as is the album, which once again, was a best-seller. You stated that the entire article was "completely wrong" on the Talk page, yet that fact was NOT wrong, as it was indeed on her best-selling debut album. This is verifiable and verifiably easy to verify; just check out any online store that sells Voice of an Angel and has a track listing, and you'll see that it's on there.

Additionally, since it WAS part of Lloyd-Webber's Requiem Mass, why delete the basic information about when it was performed in that Requiem Mass? That doesn't make much sense, considering that you're therefore taking perfectly good, accurate information out of a stub, stubs being articles that above all else are the ones most in need of additional good, accurate information, especially when said information (e.g. that it was included in a Requiem Mass put together by Lloyd-Webber, who regardless of your or my opinion on him, is a very famous and popular composer with several best-selling songs and several extremely popular musicals) helps to establish notability.

In any case, I should note that one need not be a "classical composer" to compose a couple of classical pieces, and once again, that the Andrew Lloyd-Webber page stated at the time I created the Pie Jesu page that he composed that particular mass, which I assume was composed of classical/gospel music, yes? Hence my confusion, and my assumption that he composed Pie Jesu.

If he did not compose it, then I highly suggest you edit the Andrew Lloyd-Webber page so that it reflects that he a.) Merely combined older compositions with his own for the mass, or b.) did not compose any of the songs from the mass in question, whichever the case may be.

Thank you, however, for your interest in the page. Although you have removed some prefectly good information, you also have added/corrected some information (e.g. that Lloyd-Webber was not the one who composed the piece in question and that it was included in at least one other Requiem Mass) that I was originally not able to provide, for which I am glad.

I must confess, creating a page on a song I do not know much about (other than it was on Voice of an Angel) was difficult, and while I was kind of irked at a couple of the facets of your edit, I still am grateful that you've at least added some key information on it as well, information that will most likely prove invaluable in my quest to find more information on the piece and improve the page.

If you can track down how old the song is or who it was composed by, though, I will be a very happy camper! :) Regards, Runa27 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Replying here to your comment on my talk page.

"I'm sorry I was rude about the Pie Jesu article. :| The article was far from being "completely wrong" indeed, and I shouldn't have stated it like that." Apology most definitely accepted. :)

"I've searched throughout the net and I couldn't find the origin for the Pie Jesu. It seems not to be a part of the standard "Roman Mass", but still is referred much earlier by Fauré, and is related as one of the Requiem Mass parts in many websites." I had similar troubles trying to find it, although I did fin Fauré's, which dates to the late 19th century, so at least we know it's not any younger than 100+ years, at least in the form Fauré used it in.

"Of course, in Webber's Requiem, the song is his, but the words are not." We'll have to figure out how to include that, won't we? :) Have any idea where the words are from, or at least where they were used before Lloyd-Webber's version of the piece?

"About the delete request, I don't know who put that, indeed I'd be against deleting it one way or another." Apparently it failed to go through, since the AFD page was gone by the time I got there, and it had been more than five days without being deleted. I'm glad, because although info is hard to find on this thing, it's obviously a somewhat notable song and it certainly needs to go to a page that's actually about it, because before I created the page, searching for it on Wikipedia led to almost nothing other than a link to Andrew Lloyd-Webber's biographical page.

"The whole other information I took out was because I intended to edit, and then, internet got down... afterwards I've been into some trouble with time with work/college... In the end I forgot about the whole thing. Needless to say, Charlotte Church is noteworthy indeed and the article should mention her." Ah, I wondered how that managed to get taken out. Sometimes technology's annoying, eh? :P

"I'm still figuring out some rework, but I'll have to research more about the Pie Jesu. For example, I don't know if Church's version is a rendition of the Mass part or another song altogether, since it could really be the case. Still, it is, primarily "a part of the Requiem Mass". Perhaps it could even be merged to the Requiem article. But that's for another talk." Maybe what it needs to be is a disambig, since there's obviously multiple versions? At very least, by all means let's do a "See Also" directing the user to the Requiem article. :)

"Thanks for comprehending, and sorry again about it all. ;)" Quite all right! :) I'm glad we could reach and understanding, and I'm glad to have your very valuable input! Runa27 21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet[edit]

I don't really see the point of having a disambiguation entry for something we don't acutally have an article for. IPSOS (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Nihil. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Nihil~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed[edit]

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nihil~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]