User talk:Calum

W. H. Grattan Flood

Can you please explain which precepts of WP:NPOV that you feel W. H. Grattan Flood violates? Where are there conflicting opinions that require their POV that you feel are not properly represented? -- Avi 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Grattan Flood or his career, but the one book of his I am familiar with (The Story of the Bagpipe) is a pile of unremitting nonsense from start to finish, which to me makes the tone of this article highly suspect. Just going through the article we find phrases like: "renowned musicologist and historian", "key and enduring works", "scholarly works were seminal", "impeccably researched monographs", and so on. And, more seriously, I've just noticed that the majority of the text is copied from http://www.waterfordcountylibrary.ie/library/web/Display/article/96/

Hope this helps, anyway -- Calum 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Using platitudionous phraseology is not a violation of WP:NPOV per se. Wikipedia:The perfect article does recommend “is engaging; uses varied sentence lengths and patterns; language is descriptive and colorful while still maintaining encyclopedic tone.” So it may not be perfect, but I do not believe it is a WP:NPOV violation, and I plan on removing the tag. However, I will look into the copyvio issue, and see if it is an issue, whether it can be fixed, or if more drastic measures need to be taken. Thank you! -- Avi 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pastoral Pipes

The pastoral pipe chanter is massively different from any other kind of chanter that was played in Britain around the time of its invention [...] In my opinion, the Pastoral pipe was invented outright, not derived from another kind of bagpipe. However, some original research is needed here, which isn't Wikipedia's job. Calum 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean; the pastoral pipe chanter is different to any other pipe played in Britain at that time. Although it used a Scottish fingering style I’m surprised the highland pipers didn’t keep it going as it had a second octave? Although not being a highland pipe player myself, I couldn’t comment on the bag pressure needed to reach it.

I found out some information though, (McCandless 2005), states the first pictorial reference to a pastoral pipe occurs in London at a play called “The Beggers Opera” in 1727. This opera was popular in its time due to the influx of Italian music and was called a pastoral play due to its theme of Shepard’s.

It featuring an en masse dance led by a bagpipe. At the time William Hogarth (1697-1764) was a fan, and one of his engravings features a bellow blown bagpipe from the opera that closely resembles the pastoral pipe in Geoghegan’s tune book. The Beggars Opera, mirrored musical trends at the time and (Bates 1967) cited in (McCandless 2005), says “rancorous oboes” manufactured in London were also called pastoral. This may indicate why the bagpipes called the Pastoral pipes, also the operas was set in the colourful backwater of “Newgate prison” and the term “new pipes” could derive from this.

I posted the same reply on the pastoral pipes page. I also included a link to the (McCandless 2005) essay on the pastoral pipe link, if you want to look at it.Celtic Harper 01:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the fingering system the pastoral pipes used has nothing more to do with Scottish GHB fingering than does any other nine note bagpipe. It certainly would not be a comfortable conversion for most pipers. My personal opinion is that the pastoral bagpipe was the invention of an expert instrument maker who was out to fleece the Romantics. Certainly most of the early evidence points to pastoral and Uilleann bagpipes being owned for the most part by people who could afford to pay for an expensive and difficult to manufacture instrument. Calum 06:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bagpipe world cup article

I see your point as well ... perhaps this is a candidate for an AFD? I was just trying to cleanup some orphaned articles. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

sheet music on Wikisource

Hi, you are mentioned on s:Help:Sheet music, a page I have only now found after having been around the traps a while. Anyway, Wikisource is going to be spending the next week focusing on sheet music. At this stage, the intention is to ignore technical limitations, and focus on creating some valuable sheet music (as PDFs or images). Please take a look at s:Wikisource:Sheet music, suggest ideas and spread the word. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of pipe makers

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of pipe makers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The majority of this article's content appears to violate WP:NOTLINK and WP:LINKSPAM; updates appear to be in order to promote external businesses only.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Quaeler (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of pipe makers

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of pipe makers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pipe makers. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what references you used to determine which people should be listed. Please join the discussion. The article can easily be saved. Dream Focus 11:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Border country listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Border country. Since you had some involvement with the Border country redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Para you modded in Great Highland Bagpipe

Greetings, while I share your concerns about Braveheart/Sir Walter Scott - derived pseudo-history of the pipes, please re-read the paragraph you modded: It no longer flows or makes sense, and one sentence is a fragment. It may definitely be that your deletions were correct and the info was wrong, but the chop disordered the whole paragraph. Please either re-insert correct data, or else chop out the rest of the paragraph. The paragraph was about banning pipes, and with mention of said bans removed the mentions of the various assimilations and legal acts make no sense. Please re-read and note what needs to be updated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, quite right. I'm not one for knocking Scott though - he knew a damn sight more than most, and he certainly didn't think they had been banned (the whole thing springs from some rubbish written in the preface to an early piobaireachd collection by persons unknown). Calum (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

As an outsider of the project in the past am trying to resurrect WikiProject Pipe Bands viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pipe_Bands - any thoughts suggestions or otherwise would be appreciated - cheers SatuSuro 00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Calum. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Calum. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Calum. 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)

Stephen Bernard

Dear Calum,

I hope you are well.

I have written something on the talk page of an article you kindly noted. I have asked for the page you commented on to be taken down, but it seems v difficult. Perhaps you could do it, please? I do not know at all how Wikipaedia works.

Stephen

2A02:C7D:A37D:1A00:7D87:541E:A196:DA56 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Calum. 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)

Proposed deletion of List of nontraditional bagpipe usage

The article List of nontraditional bagpipe usage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced list of trivia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of nontraditional bagpipe usage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of nontraditional bagpipe usage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontraditional bagpipe usage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Why? I Ask (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)