User talk:Cor anglais 16#Precious

Welcome!

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, 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
• 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Phædriel 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've begun work on the composers' pages, good sir. -Noah

It's a template - you can edit it here: Template:Timeline Organ Composers. There is sort of a timeline coding language, so we will be able to make separate timelines for each of the sub-pages of organ repertoire that we will probably need to create eventually. --Sesquialtera II 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jonathan - I was wondering if you could take a look at portative organ and positive organ. They are a little bit cumbersome right now. Makemi was hoping we could clear it up a little. -Sesquialtera II 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining/starting an Organ project? I have found a Pipe organ/refactor project but it doesn't seem to do a lot. There seems to be lots of work that needs doing, not just to the instrument pages, but also to composers/works etc.

Best,

Mdcollins1984 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your message. I have formally proposed the WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Pipe Organ. Please add your name to the interested list and lets see if we can get this off the ground. Mdcollins1984 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan has now been created. Feel free to assist in the creation of the project page, and then we can get started!

Best,

MDCollins (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Would you mind taking a look at the Organ pipe and Organ stop articles?

Do you think that they add any information that isn't in the really good Pipe organ? I would assume that the point of more specific articles is to be more specific! These look really poor in comparison.

If I was to be brave, I would suggest merging the pair of them into Pipe organ. What do you think?

Best wishes,

Mdcollins1984 14:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - just thought I'd point out that when you added the "Classical organists" category to Arthur Poister, you removed the "Poister, Arthur" from the "American organists" category. This had the unfortunate effect of including him in that category under "A" rather than "P". I've discovered the benefits of using the {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Firstname}} instruction - it's a useful one to add at the top of a list of (short!) existing list of categories to save adding "|surname, firstname" to each category you add. Apologies if you know this already! Best wishes, Bencherlite 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you much... I am terribly bad at this technical side of Wikipedia, including organization of articles and things... about the only thing I have done successfully so far in that realm is merging. Thanks for letting me know about the {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Firstname}} instruction; I will make sure to use it next time! —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stop by and give you a friendly hello, from one musician to another! Kntrabssi 09:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you very much... hello back! —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you corrected all of the spellings for Dom Bedos de Celles in pipe organ, there were a lot of inconsistencies there! I'm not sure there is an acute on it however, looking at a quick google search anyway! Have you got it printed somewhere? How's your French: Fr:Dom Bedos de Celles...! We actually need an article to pass FA (as red links count against). Either that or we unlink it for the time. I might create a stub or something at some point.

–MDCollins (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I did correct those spellings… The accent aigu comes from the spelling given in the Cambridge Companion to the Organ (index and two essays). The Grove Dictionary gives an article heading of "Bédos [Bedos] de Celles, François". Before these sources, I'd never seen it spelled with the accent. I'm inclined to go with Grove, because they're more or less the last word on music. Are we allowed to wikilink his name to the French Wikipedia? In the future, an article on Dom Bédos in the English Wikipedia would certainly be helpful. —Cor anglais 16 23:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:Don't know about the French link, I'll look into it. I'd guess probably not, so maybe a short stub in English with the usual inter-language links would probably be better. The day after I posted that, I saw it myself with an accent in an "Organists Review" magazine, and if Grove and the Cam Com agree, who am I to argue??!!

:Good work on the article, I'm trying to catch up after my little break.

:–MDCollins (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the construction referencing. I've been looking into the various systems of referencing and at other FAs, and have simplified your references from the Cam Comp. I have moved the bulk of the citation to "References" (your Works Cited) - the place for the full citation, the footnote containing the author and page (and date if necessary). I'm not sure whether the weblinks can be simplified or moved, but think its ok at the moment.

The Bibliography section is now for further printed reading, obviously with the websites in External Links. In case I have got this wrong, I've asked User:Jayron32 who brought this up at peer review for his thoughts and assistance.

–MDCollins (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've just written this article on the sonata by Julius Reubke. I found you through the project: Pipe Organ. Do you have this piece of music in your repertoire? I wonder if you would consider making a recording that we could put on the page? It would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia and make the article complete. Thanks for considering. I have also contacted a few others who listed that they were a good organist, who were listed on the pipe organ project page, so if someone notifies me that they are able to do it, I will let you know. Thanks. Clavecin 12:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

Recently I've come to think that writing a course on organ playing would be an invaluable contribution to the resources available in the Wiki network. See: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Music

The Wikibooks project, at least for music, seems to be in a far earlier stage than Wikipedia, but I am envisioning great things for it, as far as we could contribute. Let's take a specific topic, for instance: the playing of a Baroque fugue subject. We could outline general principles, such as the articulation and the weights of each subdivision - for instance, the Boe system where beats are 1 3 2 4, in order of strongest to weakest. The best part would be augmenting the article with practical examples from brief recordings we could make, not only of the subject by itself but then in context with other voices. I also feel that this would be invaluable to us in developing a comprehensive teaching system for our (likely) future students.

I think we would then be able to make this significantly known to the Web. A prominent external link on Organ (music), Pipe organ, Organist, etc. would draw in the casual crowd, and boost search results; I also think we should submit an article to the AGO and the Diapason about the project once it's sufficiently advanced to release to our national colleagues for their evaluation. That would spread the word in the organ world; they should recognize that nothing replaces an actual student-teacher relationship, and that this would be a valuable free supplemental resource.

What do you think? I envision this almost as a version of Gleason with audio samples. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

: Also, I imagine that school will keep me busy enough to prevent me from really completing the project, so the bulk of the actual work seems likely to occur in the summer, unless I acquire more time than I anticipate having. This wouldn't be an immediate project. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

::Wow, this sounds really cool! I'm up for it. I will check out Wikibooks soon and see what it's all about. This is exciting! —Cor anglais 16 18:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

::I agree; this sounds like a great idea. I'll be glad to help out where I can.

-Random Pipings 10:34, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Wow! Thanks! Good jorb! Random Pipings (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Random Pipings

:You're very welcome, though most of the content is pulled directly from Organ stop. Had to do something, though, or they were going to delete it! —Cor anglais 16 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, In the discussion section of the Pedal keyboard, you indicated that you would rather not have so much discussion of jazz organ. One of the unusual aspects about Wikipedia articles is that they are much more interdisciplinary and wide-ranging than articles in standard print encylopedias. I would imagine that the article on Pedal Keyboard in the Grove's dictionary spends 99% of its time discussing the use of the pedal keyboard in art music, with perhaps a passing mention of their use in pop and jazz (if at all)...............................................This reflects the Grove's dictionary's decision to focus on art music. However, Wikipedia doesn't have any pre-set limitation like this. So the Pedal keyboard article includes a discussion of the use of the pedal keyboard in art music, jazz, and pop......................................................I have been in your position, though, too. In the article on the history of the preparations that the UK made to defend itself from a amphibious sea invasion during WWII, there is a "Counterfactual" section which speculates on whether the land defenses would have been able to resist a Nazi attack. I criticized the inclusion of this "counterfactual" section, on the grounds that professional historians rarely discuss "what might have happened if..." The article's main editors argued that Wikipedia includes a wider range of sources than just mainstream professional historians..........................................Now this all being said, I think that we could have 2 separate articles: Pedal keyboard (pipe organ), Pedal keyboard (jazz organ), if you think this would be useful.Nazamo (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me. I didn't know that the pedal keyboard really had a great deal of usage differently in jazz than it does in classical music... plays the bass line, etc. Technique, I suppose, is different. I kind of regarded it as those sections on the bottom of Toccata and Fugue in D minor and Organ (music), where people simply list random sightings of the T&F and the organ in popular culture, which is pretty much useless. Two articles doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, as long as there's enough information on both subjects. We should propose it on the WikiProject Pipe Organ pages. —Cor anglais 16 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, it would be interesting to see if other editors think that having two articles would be useful. I take a more intermediate view of the pop culture trivia sections. Let us consider the T&F. I agree with you that it is useless to have a list of every single animé cartoon, Disney cartoon, Seinfeld episode, etc, that contains one or 2 bars of the opening. However, I think that when an entire episode, movie, or short story is based on the work, it is useful to note. Let us say that there is a movie about a teen who strives to learn the T&F without a teacher, and so the T&F is interwoven throughout the movie. That would be useful to note. Or if there is a avant-garde album in which every song is based on excerpts from the T&F (retrograde inversions, etc), that would be interesting. What I do when I come to those lists is I pick out the four or so examples where the piece/song/etc is a core part of the pop culture item in question, and erase the rest...................On another side note, it is touching that 15 year olds reading Manga comics and watching Animé are aware of art music enough to note that the authors are making references to symphony X or Tone Poem Y! : ) Nazamo (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the explanation... agreed in all cases here!—Cor anglais 16 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola apps important blue.svg

Thanks for uploading :Image:Dieterich_Buxtehude.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{Tl|GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user=Cor_anglais_16}} this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look at it soon. Sorry I haven't been as active lately as I wanted to be. :-( You guys have been doing a great job, though! -W0lfie (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article Croatia national football team has recently been greatly increased in quality. There have been discussions to nominate it for a FA. However, some areas really need a quick copyedit. Nothing really major, there are just some minor grammar and wording mistakes that really could do with assistance. Would really appreciate it.

The lead section is currently good, as it has been already reviewed a few times. The main sections in need of copyediting are the '1990's' History section, 'Records' section and 'Stadium' section. Again, would really appreciate if you would assist in this. Hope to hear from you! Domiy (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Good work with the Pipe organ article. I'll try and help out at the FAC as much as I can. I've sent out a call for assistance to all of the participants of WP:PO in an attempt to try and get some people to help take the burden away from thee and me to address all of the concerns. It's a bit of a slog otherwise! This article will pass (even if it is eventually!).

–MDCollins (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

:Hi again,

:Reference 4 seems to be what has been left from a string of references to Cook. I seem to remember it was an organ history website. All of it's buddies have been removed (presumably by you to replace them with more reliable ones). However, this one remains, but the full reference has also disappeared, meaning that as a reference it is now pretty useless. Can you replace that one as well? I seem to be getting nowhere fast with these refs, due to not having much printed material to hand - the web is pretty useless for what we need isn't it.

Keep up the good work! –MDCollins (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi… I'm familiar with the Cook website. Good resource and lots of personal insight, but it's simply not a reliable source. I thought I got rid of all of them, but I'll look into that last one. Thanks for all your hard work! —Cor anglais 16 15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cor anglais 16, would you mind looking at this article, specifically the "Organs" section? I would like to bring this to FA. I'm sure that after you read it, it'll be apparent that this section was written by a non-musician. (That would be me.) I'd like to get an expert's opinion (which from your user page, that would be you) and bring the prose up to snuff. Or at least have it sound like the editors knew what the heck they were talking about. (Which I don't, not about organs, anyway.) Thanks in advance for your help. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

:Hi… glad to help. I'll look at it probably this weekend. —Cor anglais 16 12:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

::Cor, not to be pushy or anything, and I'm sure you're busy, but I wanted to remind you about this. There's no hurry; I just completed addressing a reviewer's comments. Up next is to submit it for a copyedit, but I wanted to make sure we got your expertise on this section. Thanks again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Oh goodness, and it's already been two weeks. Sorry about that! I'll take a look Tuesday evening. —Cor anglais 16 02:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

::::And you did it on Monday evening! ;) Thanks so much. I understand the section so much less now! But that's only because I'm stupid when it comes to organs. ;) Seriously, it now reads like it was written by someone who knows the subject. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::Glad to help; however, I'm disappointed that it's not understandable. The wikilinked articles should help any reader who would like a more comprehensive understanding of organ terminology, but I imagine FAC will want the vocabulary to be somewhat familiar to everyone. I'll make just a couple more quick revisions and links; the goal is for it to be understandable. —Cor anglais 16 16:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::No, I was kidding! I think you did a great job. Like you said, the links are there for folks to look at if they don't understand the terminology. I don't think that this article is a place to define the terms, especially since the topic is pretty technical. And that's okay; I just wanted the prose to be expert-driven. Thanks again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Pipe organ for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on [http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl this tool]), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I found you on the "Guild of Copy Editors" page. I am currently working on the Nobel Prize article and I am going to nominate it for a GA soon, hopefully before the end of this week. However, it could need some more grammar/prose checks to make it better. I was wondering if you could give me a hand? Especially the parts after "History" needs some looking into. I would be very grateful for any help :)

Cheers --Esuzu 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010/Newsletter 8-1}}

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2010/Newsletter 1}}

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2011/Newsletter 2-1}}

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 14:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/May 2011}} Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Cor anglais 16/Organ key actions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/June 2011/2}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/July 2011}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/September 2011}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/November 2011}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2012/Notice1}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cor anglais 16! I'm attempting to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan. As you are one of the founders of this project I hope you would like to participate in its revival if you have time. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2011 Annual Report/Notice}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Cor anglais 16. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Cor anglais 16. 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)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Cor anglais 16. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{user precious|header=pipe organ and organ pipe|thanks=for quality articles around pipe organ such as Heinrich Fleischer and Carl Schalk, based on professional knowledge, for improving related articles, such as {{diff|Aristide Cavaillé-Coll|42755119||adding Aristide Cavaillé-Coll's innovation}} and rescueing Bach's cantata for today from a "woeful state", -}} --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2075 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! As a major contributor to articles around pipe organ, you should be made aware that the main article pipe organ is currently subject to good article reassessment as there are several outstanding uncited statements and poor-quality sources that have crept in. If I had the resources I would make my own efforts to correct the issues but unfortunately I have no clue where to find such info such as the connection between organum and the portative organ. Reconrabbit 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)