Hi Perigill, a bit late perhaps, but how's: the basic chord undelying the melody? cheers,Martinuddin (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the tip, I'll look into it. Prodego ^talk 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phone number from the page history, thanks again for the tip!

Welcome!

Hello, Peirigill, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Prodego ^talk 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your first article, I found it very interesting. Keep it up :) JRA WestyQld2 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peirigill, I fixed the problem. WP does treat "Gallican Chant" and "Gallican chant" as different articles, so you need to create a redirect to make them link together. I moved the "Gallican Chant" page to "Gallican chant," so that it matched how you spelled it in the first paragraph and the other chant articles. I then made all the redirects to the chant articles you wrote (i.e., Hispanic Chant, Hispanic chant, etc.) so they should all be easily found. Nice work on the pages so far. Rigadoun 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message; I'm quite impressed with your work so far!Please stick around for a while.I'm pleased not only that there is someone else interested in early music, but that someone knows the chant repertory; I wasn't sure if I would ever have gotten around to writing more, and your Ambrosian chant article is excellent.Cheers and happy editing!Antandrus (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on this are covered in two parts, 1, Wikipedia:External links, and 2, Wikipedia:Spam. These links are borderline, and since they were only added on two pages, I am inclined to let them stay. If someone thinks they are not appropriate, they will remove them, and no harm done. If you don't think the links are relevant, just remove them, I don't think you should bother to contact RachelMcKendree, since it was only two pages. Prodego ^talk 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! If you need anything, don't hesitate to ask. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should submit it to WP:PR and/or WP:FAC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 22:01

Damn, beaten by Brian!-----^

I saw you tried to nominate Gregorian chant for the did you know section of the main page, it barely missed the criteria, IMO. But it could earn its 15 minutes (24 hours, to be more accurate) of fame in other ways, like for example becoming a featured article. Before nominating it for featured article status, however, I'd suggest putting it up for peer review, so that it can get the last finishing touches (maybe add some images?).

Good luck! -Obli (Talk)^? 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On June 14, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beneventan chant, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peirigill, thanks for the note. At a glance your articles look great - thanks for the contributions! I'll take a closer look when I get a chance and let you know if I have any suggestions. Best wishes -- MarkBuckles 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be a good candidate for expanding Reciting tone a bit if you get the chance. -- MarkBuckles 10:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just went over Gregorian chant, your additions are really good, and the article is looking better and better. There's sort of a possible problem with a division between a history of chant and info about chant in general, and Gregorian chant specifically. I'm not sure how this can be easily fixed, as in fact the two are closely intertwined. Lastly, I was taught in my somewhat lame music history class that the spread of Gregorian chant was much more forceful than it's shown in the article. Charlemagne supposedly sent out tons of emissaries in order to teach cantors the "correct" chants, which was a way to bring unity by way of uniformity to the church, and that more specific types of notation were developed to ensure that the music was passed down uniformly. This might have been a somewhat convenient fiction-ish for my teacher, however. I'll have to find some sources (hopefully not by him :), but if it was as strongly enforced as he made it seem, that's pretty important in terms of the history of western music.

It's always easier to criticise than to say specific positive things, but really, good job. Mak (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work on reciting tone. I'm not entirely convinced on psalm tones being within the recitation tone article - I wonder whether it should at least have its own section. It may get a little confusing since psalm tones include recitation tones. Thus, psalm tone is actually a broader topic included in a specific one. Or am I looking at it the wrong way? Oh, I also don't think the article specifically mentions which note of each mode is used as the recitation tone. Definitely a good candidate for DYK I think. Again, nice work. -- MarkBuckles 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions (as best as I am able) -- you can make the psalm tone example in Finale; that's how I do it.I save out from Finale as PDF, and then open the PDF in an image-editing program (I've used Photoshop on a PC, and Preview on my Mac), saving as a .png file, which is the preferred format for music examples.The fauxbourdon page has an example I made this way (Image:Avemarisstella.png).Regarding your other question:what I'd probably do is use the content but reformat it, renotating as necessary -- doesn't Hoppin invent his own notation, i.e. the accent marks and parens?You could probably do those some other way.Then indicate where you got it from.(I'm no expert on copyright but I think you're safe doing it this way.)Hope that helps!Antandrus (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Antandrus already answered the question on having a musical example. You can also make them in Sibelius (or any notation program, I imagine). My stub on Piano Concerto for the Left Hand (Ravel) contains a nice example (Image:Ravel lef-hand piano concerto example.jpg). Re: the "reciting tones" ambiguity, sorry about that - I actually didn't realize the name also applied to the entire melodic formula so I was confused. My ignorance. You even explained that in the lead. I thought the wording of the message you left on my talk page said it a bit clearer, so I altered the article lead slightly based on that. Also, I'm happy to help with any music example creation you need if you're not fluent with notation programs. Best wishes -- MarkBuckles 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job on that article!It reads well and is accurate and focused.Looking forward to seeing more of your work.Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit it, I was making shit up. Granted, I think it's true, but feel free to remove it until I find some good sources (my source was really my old voice teacher, who's prominent in early music singing circles, but not a good enough source for that comment, prob'ly). One thought I had on that article was that it might be nice for a more general audience to have a section on the legend of Gregory's writing it? I think the article has had a more thorough going over than most articles which are peer reviewed get, but I think the FA regulars like to see that it's been through a peer review before they see it. I think the article is very well on its way to FA, however, so good on ya. Mak (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding that section in the Music of Italy article. It looks great. Jeffmatt 06:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the material you added to the timeline is fine.When we first started building up the article a few months ago, there were three or four of us--(you may get a kick out of reading the very first discussion entry, an anonymous Aussie who thought it was all a waste of time--I hope he's happier, now!)-- I had some concern that it was getting too long, but I'm a newcomer and I'm not sure about such things. It seems to me that the article is now at least very long, I added as much as I could that would conform to one editor's excellent suggestions on venues, education, media, etc. etc. He (user name Tuf-Kat) has taken an interest in World Music articles. The subject is vast, as you know. I rewrote the lead to make it more of a stand-alone item. I was aware of the lack of information of early music but wasn't qualified to fix it, so I added a few links. Thanks for all that work. Jeffmatt 06:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine, although I have a feeling that other editors who have taken an interest in this article might feel that it (1) makes the entire article too long, or (2) reproduces information available through links. Who knows. Not I. I think it looks great. I say let it be for a few days and see what happens. I notice that there is a red-link on "madrigals". There is a madrigal link earlier on in the article that works, but your shows as Madrigal (Trecento)--as I recall. There must be a way to link that properly. I have been having some problems in the timeline with linking past the disambiguation page on names such as MacBeth, Norma, etc. etc. I keep getting weird code that displays on the page. Me, I'm still wondering how you put in new references with that fancy cite tempate! I see that one of your references clicks down to Hiley, but that source is not in the alphabetical list of references. I wish he (a very skilled editor) had just left it the way it was instead of inserting the cite template, but what do I know?Jeffmatt 09:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! They are lovely, as well as great examples. Mak (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did you see the image I uploaded (Image:Ad te levavi.jpg)? I have a bunch from that same manuscript (Gradual with a bunch of kyries), but the owner of the manuscript only wants there to be one image from it on Wikipedia. Let me know what you think. Mak (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the revert on my userpage. If you're happy with the images you have now for Gregorian chant, that's great. If you think a different image from that manuscript would be more useful, let me know. Oh, and I think it's a pretty bad example for "square notation" since it's not in square notation, but rather "Prague notation" (who knew they had their own notation? according to Grove they did though). PR seems to be going well. Cheers, Mak (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me, Jeffmatt, again. Have you got a suitable image or two to load near the top of the Music of Italy article to go with the material you added? Jeffmatt 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I loaded a few into Music of Italy. Looks ok at least for now. Thank you. Jeffmatt 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I like you are too critical. It's the only way to get better. I'll go through tha article, trying to implement your suggestions. When I'm ready, I'll comment on the implementation of your suggestions in the Peer review page of Demosthenes.

It's very important that a native speaker of english went through the article. Since I am not a native english speaker (although I study english for many years), writing a good english prose is a tough task for me. Additionally, I'm influenced by the Greek encyclopaedic tradition, which is quite different from the english one. Thanks for the time you devoted for the article.--Yannismarou 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Davodd 05:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestions on improving this article. I have incorporated all of them except that I can't give any more information on the clergy making peace between Llywelyn and Gwenwynwyn. This is one of those rather cryptic lines you often get in Medieval annals: you feel that there was an interesting story behind it but the annalist didn't give details and now no-one will ever know. Rhion 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, because when I click on the peer review link, I don't get the headingthe comment. (in fact, according to the peer review, I never got anything wrong with any of the headings in the first place). I haven't the faintest idea of why that comment might appear. Andy _t 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I get is the infobox and footspace comments (outside of the default ones) - maybe you need to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache? Andy _t 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea hexa=six. Wow. Have to remember some of that next time I need to be condescending. Please note that if I'm confused (and I used to sing the stuff), the reader with zero or very limited music theory is going to be twice as confused - 'no such thing as keys'; but as soon as you mention Bflat that's what people will think - you can't have the first half of the sentence in medieval music theory and the second half modern - that's mixing metaphors. Trying to help make this thing achieve FA, you're treating me like I'm an idiot who's trying to slam "your" article.Bridesmill 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Accepted. Given the circumstances, easy to get ornery (which is why I jumped in on some of the minor issues). Is anybody up to those standards? Wouldn't be too sure; the only thing it needs is to be careful not to be too technical; I'm quite willing to help, will try not to step on your musical toes. Bridesmill 03:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If and when you have time, please take a look at the changes I've made in Demosthenes (summarized in peer review project page). Thanks!--Yannismarou 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you create a new track with a new instrument, different instruments begin with different levels of effects and reverb (for example, the "real" instrument "male rock vocals" has lots of reverb). To add reverb to a current track, try this (taken from Garageband's help info):

1. Select the track, then click the Track Info button, or double-click the track's header, to open the Track Info window.
2. Click the Details triangle to show the track's effects settings.
3. Click the checkbox next to an effect to turn the effect on or off.
4. Adjust the compression, echo, and reverb effects by dragging the effect's slider until you get the sound you want. Adjust the equalizer effect by choosing a preset from the Equalizer pop-up menu. If your song is playing, you hear the changes as you make them.
5. Add an effect by choosing the effect from one of the two Effects pop-up menus, then choosing an effect preset from the adjacent Preset pop-up menu.

-- MarkBuckles 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peirigill, thanks for the congrats. :-)I don't know about the star. Maybe the person who looks after those things hasn't gotten round to it yet, as it's so new. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davodd 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have rewritten the "Children" section as you suggested and added another view in the "Assessment" section. I hope there aren't any typos in the new bits, as I have forgotten where I put my spectacles at the moment.Rhion 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with this - your suggestions improved the article considerably. Rhion 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peirigill

I noticed your comments on the FAC page (the phaser on "kill" is just fine—I've never bothered with "stun"). I wondered whether you'd be interested in dropping into WP:FAR occasionally (or often) to encourage, prod, critique, and—when the crunch comes—to declare "Keep" or "Remove".

The new FAR process is now being swamped with nominations (currently 23 in FAR and 13 in FARC), and the four or five regulars are finding it difficult to service the needs of such a large process. The ideal is to encourage the guardians of the many substandard FAs to fix them; sometimes this happens, but all too often, a nomination is met with disinterest by those you'd have thought would be keen.

The contribution of more good reviewers there, particularly those who are focused on good writing, would have a powerful impact on the FA culture in WP.

Tony 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at the top. Then I turned to the talk page and discovered that ... yes, Noetica is back. Oh dear.

I've relocated the special uses to the bottom; better, I thought, to deal with the emergence of the issue at the start. Tony 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peirigill, I have outlined a proposal at Talk:Consecutive_fifths. Tony has commented on it. Are you interested in working together on this? I would appreciate your comments. Regards, Noetica 01:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peirigill:[1].Excellent!Well-deserved.Antandrus (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for all your excellent work on this article! MarkBuckles 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		Scandicus subbipunctus of valor
		I hereby award Peirigill these neumes for sharing his voluminous knowledge of chant and early music with the world through his many excellent contributions to Wikipedia! -- MarkBuckles 01:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to congratulate you on this fine article. I have not seen a better article on Wiki, and only a handful of similar calibre. Well done! Gimmetrow 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you responded to my comments near the end of the FAC. Let me just say again, this really is an amazing article. If there were such a thing as super-duper-featured status, this would be a front-runner. It's so good, that the only things I could mention were two places that gave me a slight double-take over the technical words. Seriously, high compliments! Gimmetrow 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at the discussion behind the Music of Italy article--the article you contributed to some weeks ago. There is a difference of opinion brewing. Jeffmatt 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peirigill. I wanted to thank you for your huge help in improving the Cyrus the Great article. Not only for the amazing copyedit, but also for writing out all those other points that needed fixing. I have made enormous changes to the article, so it's probably worse off than before. However, it does have more information, so I hope that it's more clear now. Would you please care to take another look? ♠ SG →Talk 08:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peirigill, thanks for putting in so much effort in improving the article. I really appreciate that you took the time to write out all those points in the peer review. I've responded on the PR page, so if I could bother you to take another look, that would be great. ♠ SG →Talk 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you'd lend your prodigious copyediting and musical skills to a peer review of Concerto delle donne? The PR page is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Concerto delle donne/archive1. Thanks a lot, and of course, huge kudos for Gregorian chant. Mak (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! We're copyediting Concerto delle donne at the same time! MarkBuckles 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Yeah, I just stopped too when i saw what was going on. - Didn't quite understand though - did you want me to revert it?

MarkBuckles 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peirigill

Congrats on the promotion of GC. I'm afraid that I used the opening sentence from an early draft of that article in an exercise on how to split up sentences. <blush> Someone has raised an issue with this phrase:

"Gregorian chant developed mainly in western and central Europe during the ninth and tenth centuries".

Where else is Christendom but in western and central Europe? was the question. I responded that I think it means "not in Italy", and thus the reference is not redundant. Is that correct? Tony 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your response. Maybe this is a dumb question, but why not say "the French and German regions", so that it's clear. Ireland could be seen as part of Western Europe. The uniitiated might think that Spain is western; it is, compared with Italy. It's a fairly important defining point, right at the start of the article. Tony 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankish is nice, and it's linkable (I'd just let it redirect as is). I'll go ahead and change it in my sentence-splitting example.

BTW, am I on the right track with the exercises in sentence splitting, and on integrating ideas into sentences (No. 3)? I've already made changes pursuant to Spangineer's suggestions on the talk page. Tony 07:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Gregorian chant query: I have never noticedthis before, and I thought you might want to add Gregorian chant, seeing as it's now a featured article! Thanks again for your comments at Concerto delle donne's Peer review. If I seem frustrated at times, remember that it's only because I struggle with my writing, and I'm trying to make the article the best it can be :) I really do appreciate your comments, and I'm very impressed by them. I'm still working through the latest batch. Moo :) Mak (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa; I was thinking of British English and hadn't realised that American English is different.--Brownlee 13:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong
• etc.

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

• Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPPlaces
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medieval Scotland articles by quality
• Wikipedia:WikiProject
• Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for your wonderfully detailed contribution to Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland. Sorry to say that you WP:MOS header ammendments were just reverted - whoops - but I will see if the reverter may reconsider. Such is life I am afraid! Thanks again. --Mais oui! 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. If you want to re-revert my change, please feel free, I really honestly don't care... I just saw an edit I didn't think worked stylistically on the watchlist and changed it back. I've never looked at the peer review in question!

(I'm a bit bemused, though, that now two people have seperately come to tell me that I really ought to rethink my stance on this, quoting chapter and verse and so forth, and no-one has edited it back...) Shimgray | talk | 18:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peirigill, I don't know how you watch articles, but I've responded to a couple more things at Concerto delle donne's PR, and started a better stylistic explanation. Another thing, someone has changed something in Gregorian chant which I would have expected you to change back... is it on your watch list? I'm going to go change it back now, since I think I now have the wiki-energy to put up with any complaints which might result. Cheers, and continued thankfulness for your intelligent comments, Mak (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peirigill, that could be good. Do you happen to know if any are from his Madrigali per cantare e sonare: a uno, doi, e tre sopranii (Rome, 1601)? That supposedly has the best example of his style for the previous two decades, and it's the one I'll hopefully get to look at in facsimile, and hopefully be allowed to copy a couple pages out of, so if you let me know which songs are on the recording that would be great. Mak (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peiri

Most FAs do have an image at the top, so it's in keeping with the WP editing experience. But maybe you're right; it's distracting, is it? Tony 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx; I'll ask a few others whether it might go. On another note, heck, I find so many little glitches when I go back to these exercises (and the redundancy ones). Tony 04:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With anybody on WP, but especially new users, I think you just have to make sure the tone of your advice is very kind and encouraging since text and computers can be so dehumanizing. I like to explain policies a bit in my own words, rather than just linking to WP:NPOV or something. I think that if someone asks for assistance, they would be excited to get it. . . just be even nicer then normal, that's all. I haven't had a chance to look at the article myself, but I'm sure your editorial opinion would be a big help. I've been really impressed with a lot of the editing and reviewing I've noticed you doing lately. Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I have responded to your comment on my talk page on the article's talk page. SCCC 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the help vandalism of the Gregorian chant page.I just saw that it was vandalized at the right time (it was like 2 in the morning... as it is now), so I just reverted it.I'm not really diligent in anti-vandalism or anything, I just did what I hope other Wikipedians should do. :) BirdValiant 07:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I echo BirdValiant's comments above.Thanks for your thanks :)Actually I hardly ever look at the main page, I too just happened to be there at the right time.--Richardrj 07:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also chiming in to say thanks for thanking me. I try to revert a lot of vandalism, and it was just the one I saw at the time. Glad to be of help, and excellent work on the article! Soosed 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for thanking me. I was quite surprised by the level of continuous vandalism the article received. Atilim Gunes Baydin 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Glad to help, but be aware, if you intend to compose more featured articles, that they will be vandalized all to hell for 24 hours, no exceptions. --CharlotteWebb 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the exhaustive new talk page. (I've been on unannounced Wikibreak). Doesn't look like there's much left to say at this point, but I thought I'd drop you a line just to let you know I read your responses and I'm pretty much in agreement. Thanks for taking the time and effort to deal with all those issues. MarkBuckles (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it mine was a fairly minor contribution (& I am just an ordinary joe bloggs here).I do from time to time look for vandalism but more particularly spam - neither are what I believe wiki is about.I even try and find time to work on articles! Your thanks are appreciated. --Nigel^(Talk) 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, oops, sorry. As someone who has a problem with visualising everything a person says to me, I sincerely apologize. I'm trying not to bite SCCC, and I do think it's a good idea, in theory, to make FA lede accessible. I'm just not sure it's working yet. I just realised that I was so shocked that Concerto delle donne got FA that I haven't sincerely thanked you yet. Your comments are really insightful and helpful, and even when you mentioned nitpicky stuff, it's completely reasonable, if that makes sense. I don't think it could have made it without your difficult questions and excellent copyediting. So, thanks, Mak (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a consensus at the WP:FAR review of this page that it's good and can be closed. I just noticed two fact requests in the lead. Are you able to take care of those? I saw you working on it in the history. Cheers, Marskell 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article on HIV is currently on FAC review. One of the issues that has arisen is the need for a copyedit. User:Tony1 suggested that you might be willing to have look over it as it does need a pair of fresh eyes. It's a really important article that we want to ride on WP's reach into the developed and developing worlds, and a linguistic edit is required, so don't be put off by the medical content. Your fresh eyes would be of great value at this mature stage of the FAC process.Thanks.--Bob 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I remember you had reviewed Demosthenes. Your help was valuable. I have asked for a new peer-review, before nominating for FA. In case you have any further suggestions or ideas! Cheers!--Yannismarou 15:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank so much for all your help on the Church Music Association of America page. It forced me into the archives more than I ever imagined I would be. I would love for you to take a look at some of what I found. The entry is improving daily. Thanks again! Cmaa 13:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're coming back some time, right? — CharlotteWebb 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]