Hello Toccata quarta. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in the article about Beethoven's 30th Piano Sonata. Please accept my apologies for reverting your edit to this article, because straight rather than curly quotation marks are preferred on Wikipedia. (For the gory details, you can see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks, under the heading "Quotation characters".) Best regards. --Stfg (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Composer timelines
Good to see your edits here! I think the Romantic timelines in particular could do with some attention — and probably the 20th century one too. (I've done some work on the earlier ones). (RT) (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! –BMRR (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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". 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 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. Tanzeel Ahad (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you have done appears to be small tweaks, but I really am straining to find them.
It is much quicker and more convenient for you to leave an edit summary, as requested for all edits, than for someone who watches the article to have to search everything you do to make sure its not vandalism. PLEEEASE leave edits summaries! This article gets half a million hits a month, so we try to fix anything that goes wrong, immediately.Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
Congrats on the impressive work you just added to the list of composers.Spray787 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there's nothing to admire; the massive addition was the result of a bug, which I have now fixed. --Toccata quarta (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabji
Hi, Toccata quarta. My apologies for not responding sooner to your query. I actually thought I had, but I have my fingers in a lot of pies around here (too many, probably) and things do slip through occasionally.
Yes, the title and page number(s) etc are the ideal things to have in a reference. In the case of online citations, this is achieved by enclosing the URL in single square brackets and writing in the appropriate reference, thus:
[www.whatever Smith, The Adventures of Kaikhosru Sorabji, 2007, pp. 343-345].
Some people prefer to do it this way:
[Smith, The Adventures of Kaikhosru Sorabji, 2007, pp. 343-345 www.whatever].
What I did was the start of the process, the square brackets. Without them, we just had a pile of bare URLs showing up, which is most unsightly. Sometimes URLs reveal what they relate to, but generally they don't. Now we need to finish the process by inserting the references;
If in future I appear to be ignoring you, please be assured it will not be deliberate or malicious. A gentle reminder would be in order. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I have to confess I became frustrated when I saw that you had replied to edits done after mine. --Toccata quarta (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, but when one is advancing on many fronts simultaneously, one's progress is not always linear and sequential. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The article is pretty good; certainly better than anything I have so far mustered up. --Toccata quarta (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heads-up
With reference to this edit I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the existence of {{
Thanks for drawing my attention to it.—Toccata quarta (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repoulis
Thanks for opening the sockpuppet case on Michael Repoulis. I was contemplating doing this when I found you'd already done it! --Deskford (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment at VPR
Could you please redact the ad hominem portion of this comment? Accusing someone you disagree with of lying and intellectual dishonesty doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion (and would likely derail it), whether the claims have merit or not. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What else is the person doing? He clearly contradicted a Wikipedia definition. Pretending to be knowledgeable while not being such or lying is far worse—infinitely worse, if I may say so—than pointing out that either of those two things has taken place. Do you think straw man fallacies have a place in Wikipedia? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. I disagree that iridescent was deliberately being dishonest or casting a strawman argument,1 but even if they were, ad hominem comments aren't required to refute an argument. Anyway, thanks for the redaction.
1 I think their main point--as they elaborated in the rest of the comment--was that FAs aren't necessarily "the best articles" (relative to articles that aren't FAs), but rather those that meet certain requirements. Basically, they placed more emphasis on the concrete criteria set out in
WP:WIAFA than the broad description at the top. wctaiwan (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
Hi Toccata, I noticed the reverts @ Garry Kasparov & would like to understand them better, your edit summary simply refers to MO:BIO. (I'd like to confirm what specific part you're applying. Is it: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."?) I'm not challenging your reverts, in fact I agree w/ them. I want to be sure I understand the MOS guideline employed. Thank u! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the part I was referring to. There are some cases when ethnicity is emphasised in the lead, such as Charles-Valentin Alkan and Felix Mendelssohn, as it is relevant to the subjects' notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toccata, I took a look at those articles, I understand the prominence of ethnicity in the Mendelssohn article (many mentions & references), but just from a straight reading, the Alkan article doesn't seem to present at all why ethnicity has bearing on notability, so I'm puzzled. (I don't know the subject, perhaps you do well. How does ethnicity feature in Alkan's life, and, why isn't there text in the article to convey same? Is it perhaps omission in the article, or am I missing it?) I think you understand this better than I do, so thx for any help. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is omission on part of the article. This page (which is the work of a prominent editor of the Alkan article) has some information on the topic. All best, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good answer. I need to read & review (again) the article you identified, to gain solid understanding how "relevant to the subject's notability" is fairly & conscientiously applied. Meanwhile I notice, at least the following articles have "Jewish" in their immediate leads, and I'd like to determine whether (or not) "relevant to the subject's notability" applies:
I have just gone through those articles and cleaned them. I spared the one on Khalifman, as it has only a lead. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing all that work! I've restrutured the Khalifman article, including creation of a lead (and moved the ethnic info to body). Thanks again for your kind help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a direct quote, now with an added reference to support it. "Wonders" were how this "All-Electric House" was perceived at the time, how it was described, and this is important to understanding its cultural context. This is not added peacock phrasing, per
If that's the case, then it needs to be attributed. For instance, one could write, "The All-Electric House that she invented was described by Times magazine as a 'wonder'." Such words, when not attributed to anybody, are problematic per
You had asked about listing articles by size and assessment. I wrote a tool for you at [1] that should do it. Please let me know what you think. — Carl (
20th century, this list has no room for works. Isn't it better to list recent works in 20th century then, for a better profile of a composer, rather than showing only the less mature works? (example Rhapsodie Macabre) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Jerome Kohl came up with the idea of removing non-20th-century works from the 20th-century article ([2]). I think the other article merits a "Notable works" table column as much as the first. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Jerome removed works before the 20th century, that's different (for me) than after, especially as long as we don't have room in 21st. Or should I be bold and install it there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Started to change, got to D, need a break ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reached Z, now the works could be populated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precious
music and chess
Thank you for your tireless work on the maintenance of composers' and chess lists and articles, and facts about composers known and less known, such as Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! - Gerda Arendt
Thank you very much for the compliment, although I don't feel I quite deserve it. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago, you were the 283rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize. I miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wagner
Hi, thanks for your edits on Wagner, and for sorting out my errors - I think I am about at the end of any changes now, do you feel there are still things to be dealt with? Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. There are several things that are of concern to me:
(Disclaimer: English is not my first language, so that may influence my areas of focus.)
"described as marking the start of modern music"
Wouldn't "described as the start of modern music" be better?
At times there is "Ring cycle", but at others there is "Ring Cycle". I think the first form is better (as the second is not related to the work's full title in German).
"However, Wagner continued his correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with (and support from) her husband Otto."
What is the "(and support from)" part supposed to convey?
"Richard Wagner's Visit to Rossini (Paris 1860): and an Evening at Rossini's in Beau-Sejour (Passy) 1858"
This is missing an ISBN number. I found two at http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/10782590?versionId=46412229. Sources also differ on the use of a colon in the title; some use a semicolon, others a comma and some nothing instead of it. Some of them also capitalise the word "an".
"Italienische Tondichter, von Palestrina bis auf die Gegenwart"
A Google search shows various approaches to capitalising the title of this work. Google Books also adds ": Eine reihe von vortragen" at the end of the title. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Toccata
Are u OK after the rebuke at Bobby? (I understand your angle but as you know agree w/ the current status.) Together (life interventons not withstanding) we'll all build a great encyclopedia!? (The concept is wonderful but currently poisoned by Admin maverickiness. [I do truly hope you haven't or won't experienced what I mean.]) Anyway I love chess and classical music (many many years violin student and life-long love of classical), so you know what I mean! (Do u play?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that bothered by it, but frankly, "GM" is a FIDE title, so I'm staying behind my position. (I've also come to the conclusion that some of Wikipedia's policies in this area should be changed.) But I would certainly like the Fischer article to become a GA/FA, and will try in the future to do some work on it. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he is of such or such ethnicity is not a reason why he's famous, even if it is a widely known fact. (For an example of ethnicity being relevant to a summary, see the article Barack Obama.) However, the influence of Algerian music on his work is definitely important, so a "His music is influenced by [insert influences]" sentence is a good idea. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. So would that sentence go into the summary paragraph somewhere? I suppose he is one of very few classical composers with an Arab background working in the US or UK, does that make his ethnicity notable do you think? For example I notice the ethnicity of Mohammed Fairouz is mentioned in the first sentence. Grovereaper (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the two articles as best as I could. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war?
You have twice reverted the information I added to the List of medieval composers. You have not tried to contact me and find an agreement but simply, as a start, as a first move, summarily deleted my contribution. I will again insert that information. I invite you to read what the definition of an edit war is and the consequences of one herebefore you delete my contribution a third time. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 21:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basemetal, that's very interesting. (That you *believe* in WP policies and guidelines. Because from what I can see, no one follows them.) For example, I think I can find in WP documentation somewhere (it would be easy), that you, as editor, should "not re-revert, even if you think you are right". Question for you: Isn't that exactly what you are doing, or alerting your intention to do? (So then, you yourself are not following prescribed WP protocol, by "re-reverting even when you think you are right". So you, by definition, are equally guilty of not following WP policy and guideline, and, how does that give you any kind of position-basis to accuse or suggest that another editor is not?)
I'm not saying you are wrong. I just think the WP policies/guidelines seem to be a sham in general, chaos rules, and the only order brought to bear, ever, is an Admin who takes a personal subjective liking or disliking to something that has crossed his or her radar, for whatever reason. (And then he or she uses whatever policy or guideline quotations he or she cherry-picks, to justify what sanction he or she wants to bring, on whomever he or she wants to bring it. For example, right at this very moment, writing these words that I'm writing to you, in introspective dialogue about WP operation, could be justification of block of me by an Admin, for "tendentious editing", "battleground mentality", "disruption", "rant", "wall of text", "demonstration of inability to work in collaborative environment", whatever other BS the abusive Admin's little heart wishes it to be, to carry out his or her agenda of the moment.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't believe in WP policies and guidelines religiously as it were. They're not gospel. But they're something that has got to exist no matter how flawed its application. But I also believe it is better to reach consensus if not agreement thru personal interaction before one appeals to policy and regulations. I personally never just summarily revert people's contributions before first contacting them and trying to sort out what their purpose was, what they would think of a revert, etc. I don't think it is very pleasant to have someone revert just like that a contribution you have just made. It is almost an insult, almost a "Shut up, you moron!". Now if I have been guilty myself of going against policy, it was out of ignorance. I'll look for what you are saying, even though your directions are a little bit vague :-) But the bright line rule of 3 reverts clearly distinguishes between they who start the series of reverts and they who just react to it, since the first ones would reach the number 3 first. In any case I found a way (I'm assuming you have followed the substance of the matter, that is the actual reverts in List of medieval composers) to take out what Toccata quarta objected to and at the same time provide the same information and more. No only will readers be conveniently provided with the information that those two hymnographers were actually female but in addition they will learn something about ancient Armenian naming customs. The whole reason I inserted that information in List of medieval composers was that I had myself wondered while reading the article, had to go to their personal articles to find out (think what if they did not have personal articles to turn to, and the List of medieval composers were the only place readers could find out) and thought it was more convenient for readers if that information was already present in the List of medieval composers article. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policies on edit warring, so I don't need to have them pointed out to me. I'm sure you are aware that
List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
But the issue here was not to systematically distinguish composers by gender, but rather to give information about names of a kind that'd be unfamiliar to any reader except those aware of Armenian naming customs. You can see further down the list there are other composers, male and female. There's no mention of their gender. But their name is immediately identifiable as female or male. So, from the point of view of the information provided these two Armenian composers formed an exception. They were the only two composers whose gender could not be easily identified. On statistical grounds they would be likely to be mistaken as male by most readers. It made sense to provide that information in this case. In any case by directly giving the translation of the Armenian names the purpose was also achieved. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 14:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with Armenian naming customs, and I'm sure the same is true for many other visitors of en.wikipedia.org. The inclusion of that information—which is already contained in the relevant articles in any case—will make many readers think that the female composers not identified as such in the list are male. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hand-coding
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled
Tocatta quarta:
You have deleted many modifications I did with the comment SPAM. If you are not agree with the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, please delete your account. There are guidelines to talk with the autors prior to delete their articles. I have undo all your undos. Next time please contact with me before. Thanks.Wkmsclg (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is the most astounding distortion of Wikipedia policies I have seen in ages. Your edits constitute
banned
.
I also strongly suggest that you have a very careful look at
You are deleting every post I am doing. This is not the way Wikipedia works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTAF is not mandatory. You must readit as This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I have reported every undo as vandalism. It is my last warning to you in order to send this vandalism to [email protected]. Wkmsclg (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) before seeing this I addressed the topic on your talk, - treat other editors as you want to be treated, please (spell names correctly, for example, remain fair and factual). Being new is your only excuse, - but for a new editor you know quite well how to revert and read edit summaries, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, and be careful, unless you want to get into trouble with administrators.
Let's look at this step by step:
You added the name of a composer and some of his compositions to various lists of compositions, among other articles.
If the composer is
spamming
.
Considering that the composer link you added to various articles was a redlink like this one, you were promoting a non-notable composer. Therefore, my reversions were OK.
However, I notice that the redlink has now become a bluelink, which means I'm not going to remove that name anymore from the relevant articles.
I have looked at the article and have some doubts about its subject's notability, but that is another issue.
That being said, as you are not a particularly prolific (and consequently experienced) editor, I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and read carefully what you see. Your statement regarding
My apologies for this issue. Now in my humble opinion you must think about an editor who start to write articles and once he saved them receives a deleted content marked as SPAM with the "...Your edits constitute spam as you have repeatedly added a redlink like this one into multiple articles...". Perhaps it is my way of work the cause of this issue. Here are my steps:
I create the article about a composer.
I start to update any othe article with the content which references the article created.
I start with another composer.
If I wait until the article turn into bluelink I can not continue with the second stage, delaying whatever other contribution I wish to do. Now I understand your way of work but it was the word SPAM in the edit summary field what I can not understand doing the things with good faith. If you are agree I can deleted every "vandalism" I have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkmsclg (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you understand the point I was trying to get across. Your apologies are accepted. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of Jew
Hi Toccata, don't know but think that User:All Hallow's Wraith point at Johannes Zukertort, is that a person is not under contemporary definition considered a Jew without a Jewish mother. From what I can see this is consistent w/ contemporary definition given in article Who is a Jew?. The definition can otherwise be complex and varied. What is the criteria we are using for WP articles? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...the policy that says that WP:Project Music has the jurisdiction to prevent an infobox from being added to a composer's article. I submit, rather, that your project's objections to infoboxes is contrary to general Wikipedia practices. If you delete the infobox I have added to Harry Partch, I will bring you to the attention of the adminstrator's noticeboards for disruptive editing. The Music Project, does not, and cannot own the articles it claims to be within its purview, and it has no standing to prevent those articles from adhering to normal Wikipedia practices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are about as likely to be reported for having violated
Additional comment: I notice that you are a preeminent example of a civil editor (per [9]): "You are totally out of your league in this instance, so I suggest you deal with subjects about which you know something, and keep your nose out of things about which you clearly know nothing. In other words: please fuck off." Nice. And let's not forget this gem of an edit summary: "this piece of bullshit" ([10]). Now I know that I should not expect you to partake in a discussion seeking to achieve
Hi TQ! Can I suggest that you are careful with using
WP:PEA category. WP:PEA relates to words that are exaggerated or indefinite, contentious, unsupported puff, etc. - but expressions such as (for example) 'deepening of his powers', especially where they are followed by a justifying source, do not fall under this criterion. There is a thin line of course between using infrequent adjectives and 'peacock' - but any language which one can find in encylopaedic sources should be acceptable (look for example in any detailed article in Grove). There is no need to reduce an ordinary English WP article to the standards of Basic English. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My English is not that bad; it certainly enables me to understand the guideline in question. My point is that an unsourced statement such as "Wagner was awesome" is to be removed, but one like "many commentators consider Tristan und Isolde Wagner's greatest opera<ref>Citation</ref>" is fine. "Wagner was awesome<ref>Citation</ref>" would need attribution, though. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with the example you cite. But I cannot concur that the words deleted by you as WP:PEA, viz., 'Wagner's middle stage output begins to show the deepening of his powers as a dramatist and composer', are in the same peacock category as 'Wagner is awesome', and I believe most contributors would agree with me. The latter statement is an 'encylopaedic' expression conveying worthwhile (and indeed important) information about the changes in Wagner's style, which information is backed up by numerous reliable commentators; whilst the former statement has no informative content whatsoever. Shall we take this issue to the article talk page? Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I'd say the "deepening of his powers" passage is unnecessary, because it was in any case a duplicate of what the end of the same paragraph said (and still does). Toccata quarta (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, because I reworded the final sentence a day or two ago following a previous citation by you of
WP:PEA (which I also felt was not quite justified, although I did think the sentence needed clarification). So let's in the circumstances leave things as they are. But as the article is often a source of controversy, we should try to be as accurate as possible in citing reasons for edits. With thanks,--Smerus (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
"Personal history"
I'm not going to bother to change this again, but it's funny how your edit summary states: "Rm heading restored without a convincing edit summary, not supported by Category:FA-Class Composers articles, as well as thousands of other biographical articles on en.wikipedia.org"...while several of the articles at Category:FA-Class Composers articles do not use "Biography", opting for "Life" (e.g. Georges Bizet, Frederick Delius, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Peter Warlock), "Life and career" in the case of Olivier Messiaen, or, in the case of Rebecca Clarke (composer) and Frank Zappa, nothing at all. I'm left at a loss as to what the objection is supposed to be. There is certainly no standard I have breached, and no consistency even within the Composers project. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Life" is indeed used; "Personal life", on the other hand, is something I have never seen in this encyclopedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...I'm pretty sure you meant "Personal history", because "Personal life" is far from uncommon in bios on Wikipedia. Given that, "I've never seen it" certainly has to be the weakest argument I've ever seen. I'm sure you can do better than that—this level of "argument" is a bit embarrassing to witness. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 08:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant "Personal history". Unless there is a guideline listing all permissible section titles of this sort—or one listing all forbidden ones—the present argument is the most valid inferential one I can present. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which means you don't actually have an argument. It also leaves way up in the air your motivation for so persistently changing it. I'm as much in the dark now as before. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning, you refuse to make even the pretense of a cogent argument, so you'll just whip out the "I'm rubber—you're glue", as if it applies in the context. You have no apparent qualms about deceptively pointing in your edit summaries to an "authority" that in no way backs you up, presumably assuming nobody will call you on it. We could just agree to disagree, but you won't even show me enough respect to give me an argument to disagree with. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of argument do you want to see? I can think of only three:
a WP guideline,
one extrapolated from a dictionary and/or a book on English grammar, or
one reflective of the common practice of English-language encyclopedias other than WP.
The closest I can get to a guideline is
WP:BIOG
, for instance. There may be a policy of which I'm unaware, of course.
I have never seen "Turkeys taste like lemon" used as a synonym for "Biography", so I see no reason to assume that it's a synonym, even without consulting a dictionary.
I come from a country where English is not an official language, so I can't help you there, as I spend far more working with material in a different language.
Please don't forget to use expressions such as "cogent argument" and "deceptively pointing ... to" in your upcoming reply; they make me yawn even more than Partch's music. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct; I should have been more careful. I accidentally selected the rollback option and immediately reverted upon realizing my error. Ankh.Morpork 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your elaboration on what happened; your apologies are accepted. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year
Happy New Year!
Wow! Looks like they had fun at that New Year's party! (Mine was pale by comparison ... maybe next time.) I think you do valuable editing work for chess-related articles. Please keep it up. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hope you enjoy the upcoming year! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask your thoughts ... Seems depressing to me, time is needed for mundane task of removing vandalism (e.g. "Fischer preferred Oreo cookies over chess" etc.). Seems imperative the Wiki must semi-protect these articles, otherwise quality editors are relegated to jantorial services, and that is tiresome and uninteresting. I'm sure this is discussed somewhere, but I'm not sure who's in charge of policy change such as that. I think it's ill-considered to continue going with the way it is. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's always
WP:RFP. However, I suspect it would be rejected on the grounds of "insufficient disruptive editing". Toccata quarta (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah (which means, they value their editors as little more than janitors [not to denegrate janitors]). Bots will eventually take care of this, but that kind of AI technology will take 25 years to get here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"American-born"! (That's gotta be the most creative way I've seen to-date, for disassociating USA from "The kid from Brooklyn". It's tiring to even see it. And Oh, I just finished editing Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938, and my gosh, it says there that Botvinnik's corker is "famous". Shame shame on us!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; this site has too much peacock about "fame" (a subjective phenomenon) and propaganda about Fischer (hardly one of the 30 greatest chess players of all time). Toccata quarta (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Lookee here: Edward Lasker#Notable games -- the bad word "famous" is actually used TWICE in ONE sentence!! (Is there a 9-1-1 number we can call about this, or something!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shit! - This article even has a *section* name having the bad word "famous". And the first sentence in the section even repeats the word, as if to rub it in. (What'r we gonna do about these transvestites travesties!??!??!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! <joke>Can't you keep your naked racism at bay defaming the people and nation of India?? Or at least can't you stop slandering and vandalizing the chess article?? (Clearly those can't be *accusations*, don't you know [those sentences end in question marks, can't you see that?!], so they cannot be accusations when they are in fact *questions* -- don't you understand written English??) </joke>
(Too funny! Makes for fun reading. We all need a break for humor now & again.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely as funny as "ChessBase.com is not a reliable source." Toccata quarta (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. (But you forgot the qualifier—it's funnier w/ the qualifier: ChessBase is not a reliable source, generally.) (!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quarta, thanks for your sharp eye. (In articles, and other places.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Implement influence network infrastructure." (Wow. That sounds like some really "high-tech shit!" [—George Carlin]. Like this lead for article
You do good work. (Even a little edit like this.) My ambition to do anything re pure chess articles is directly related, me thinks, to fact you & Quale are on this site. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember our being told we were both *racists*. Now today I was informed that I'm from Ohio! (I figure it's not an insult however; I think for that to be the case, I'd have been told I was from *New Jersey*.) Hehe Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the Halloween Gambit expert? Thankfully he has received a temporary block for his disruptive behaviour. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, him. I don't like to see blocks though; was trying to be patient so he'd have time to "get" WP, I think there was a sign of that beginning (e.g. him differentiating the POV in his initial copyedit, from that of his database source - a distinction almost sounding "wikilawyer-like" [!] but nevertheless an improvement indicating beginning of adjustment/objectification of his thinking re relationship to WP content guideline). Perhaps he had/still has miscomprehension re WP and secondary sources; it is easy mistake to make: good OR = "knowledge", and an encyclopedia is nothing more than a collection of the best knowledge we have on any topic. ("Right?!") Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks for your recent comments at the ANI. "Fuck off is almost a colloquialism" (or whatever was posted there)—that was a good one. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen you edit in over a month. (You OK? If anything I can do, just let know.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take a break from editing for a "while". I'm not sure whether I'll return to regular editing now, as I'm still feeling disillusioned by Wikipedia (getting harassed by a nationalist [see the bottom of this talk page] didn't help). Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toccata, just checking w/ you, how are you? ("Disillusionment"--don't get me started!) ;) Copyediting alongside your editing is still one of most positive experiences for me on WP (your attend to detail, command of the lang--still blows me away Eng wasn't your mother tongue!). Noticed the last Magnus match [article] dup'd the prev year format (that was nice!). But I've finished playing only half the games themselves--too boring! (What'd you think?) Anyway re WP, IMO is in some kinda prehistoric phase it needs to evolve from. (And that takes time.) Best to you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your nice message. I still don't know if I'll ever get back to editing this encyclopedia regularly; I just don't have much free time these days. I agree that the last World Championship was quite dull, but I'm sure that a Carlsen–Caruana match (if Caruana ever makes it there) would be great. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITN nomination
It's very real. I chose not to react after it was posted, but for the record, I'm disappointed that it's been posted. doktorbwordsdeeds 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not of an important enough event; chess is not a sport; the person involved is not notable enough; there's not been anything like enough world-wide media coverage of the alleged ""achievement"". Need I go on? doktorbwordsdeeds 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're just going to have to disagree, but I will congratulate this small and obscure hobby popular in Norwegian language press on getting to the front page of a website people have actually heard of. doktorbwordsdeeds 21:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sites I linked to is in Norwegian. As for obscurity—chess is so obscure that anybody whom you'll meet on the street has heard of it—including you. "Hobby"? Are you trying to say there's no money in there? Can you tell me what factory Carlsen works in? He appears to be too busy getting interviewed by people in the financial world (see [28] and [29]), as well as being "buddies" with George Soros and Kenneth Rogoff (see [30]). Oh, and I almost forgot to write "getting photographed with Liv Tyler" (see [31]). Toccata quarta (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing other editors' comments on talk pages
This is absolutely inappropriate. Please do not do it again. You should know better than that.—Chowbok☠ 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if an editor is promoting shameless lies and using "subtle" insults? Toccata quarta (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If he's lying or insulting, then say so. You don't get to delete his comments for that.—Chowbok☠ 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Number one" vs. "No. 1"
There are 7 "number one"s used in the Magnus Carlsen article, and 8 "No. 1"s. (Although both are consistent w/ MOS, isn't it a little sloppy, do you think, to have usage cut right down the middle? Seems one should be chosen for consistency.) What do you think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What statement? The book is one of the most famous and popular chess books of all time. Which part of that claim are you disputing? Toccata quarta (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is sourced and coming from your own mouth. That's not how wikipedia works. Does our article actually say "Bob Dylan is a famous musician"? Anyone is famous by having an article on wikipedia, so 1), it is a useless qualifier, and 2) different people will consider different things more or less famous, so this is another reason it is a useless qualifier. Same with controversy, this is subjective unless it is sourced.Curb Chain (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that "None of this is sourced and coming from your own mouth." refers to my comment from 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC), I have already given you a link to an article with numerous sources. Your claim that "different people will consider different things more or less famous" endorses
original research. Regarding "controversy"—how do you feel about the article Controversy? Toccata quarta (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
No, you can not use extrapolation (your own word) to create content like you did per
WP:BURDEN; using "controversy" or other related words must be sourced.Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
First of all, English is not my first language. I apologise if I misused the verb "extrapolate"; I simply meant to say "find a source". What irked me about your actions is that you chose to blank multiple portions of a high-quality article, without even attempting to remedy it. Instead of proposing a solution or pointing out a problem, you just engaged in deletionism. This site has a Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006, so it seems like not everybody has a zealous approach to editing. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is with the article and through deletion I am improving the article. Please read the policies if you have conflicts with articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabji copy edit
Hi Toccata quarta. I'm taking on the copy edit you requested for the Sorabji article, and in such an exercise I always check a few phrases for close paraphrasing. Unfortuantely, I do not have access to the Abrahams reference, but I'd like to check how close pp. 144-145 are to the wording "He manifested in it great interest in interacting with the world of musicians". Could you check that out for me please? Best --Stfg (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for deciding to work on the article. I have consulted the relevant passage in the Abrahams dissertation, and I see nothing in the part of the article referencing it that strikes me as close paraphrasing or an outright copyright violation. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for checking that. Please understand that I shall be working rather slowly on this, as I'm doing some things in real life as well. But it's the most interesting (to me) subject I've seen requested in my 18 months at GOCE, so I couldn't resist. At least you get bumped up the queue :)) --Stfg (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All that is understood and well. I have played a bit with the second sentence in the lead's last paragraph, and currently it reads "Many of his works contain strongly contrasting approaches to musical form, ranging from baroque to athematic ones." I'm not very happy with this sentence, since "ranging" is repeated in the next sentence, and I also think "which range" (notwithstanding the issue of repetition) might be better. If you have any idea on how to improve the flow of this sentence, that would be most welcome. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wondering about that sentence too. I had completely overlooked the repetition of "ranging" (d'oh!) but that will be easy to fix. More at the core of it are: athematic writing isn't really a form; from baroque to athematic isn't exactly a range. I was planning to let it alone for a day or two and work on, hoping that perhaps the body would show what is being summarised here, and then discuss it with you. My suspicion is that it's more a matter of compositional technique than of form, but ... What do you think of that? --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that athematism is not a form, which is why I went for "approaches". There must a be way to make it clear it to readers that baroque and athematic "forms" are in stark contrast to one another; perhaps "musical form, such as baroque and athematic ones"? Regarding technique and form, I feel that the former has more to do with creation than a final product. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like "approaches". Maybe something like "His works often incorporate such contrasting approaches as athematic writing and passages in the baroque style."? --Stfg (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May be even "... motivic passages in the baroque style", if the sources support it? --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone for yet another solution. I think it is OK now, but feel free to change it if you think of an improvement. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better. I'm uncomfortable about "contain" -- do works contain the approaches they use? How about something like apply, exploit, ...? --Stfg (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musical works are regularly said to "contain a fugue", etc. For what it's worth, Google returns 5,440 results for the string "contain approaches". Perhaps a third party might provide a comment? Toccata quarta (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the phrase "contain approaches" when the relationship is genuinely one of containment. The Google test, always suspect anyway, doesn't address that. Fugues are entities with identifiable beginnings and ends, and are certainly often contained in larger works. Approaches are more abstract. It's fine for you to obtain other views, of course, but I think that, if we're already so tied up over one word in an article that contains over 5000, then I'm going to find it difficult to progress a copy edit, and it might be wiser if I return your request to the pool and bow out, with regret (because I was very interested in this one). Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you do that? You did outstanding work on the first parts of this article. I'm not arguing with you, but simply providing a reply. If you think I'm wrong, then just ignore what I have to say; after all, I was the one who requested help with the article, and I may be unqualified to discuss these matters. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I'm sorry. Wikipedia has given me a horrid time in the last week or so, and I'm on a short fuse. But I did offer other suggestions, and indicated with a question mark and a "something like" that I wasn't insisting on any one choice. It felt as if you were defending "contains" as the only option, and that calling in third opinions had a flavour of seeking dispute resolution. You're as well qualified as I am to discuss these matters, and I don't have it in me to just ignore what good editors have to say: I'd think myself very arrogant if I did that, especially while you're trying to shepherd the article towards GA. I'll sleep on this and decide tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to place you under needless pressure; feel free to take your time.
On the topic of the "architecture" sentence, I have gone for the following solution: "Many of his works contain sections employing strongly contrasting approaches to
athematic." What do you think of it? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I like it. "other" needed pluralizing, and semicolon is more accurate than dash here, but the wording is perfect. I'm sincerely sorry about this afternoon's outburst. You weren't the cause of my wiki-woes, and I shouldn't have taken them out on you. Please don't let it inhibit you from starting other discussions like that during the copy edit; it was going very well till I blipped. Next time I'll go for a walk before replying. I've reclaimed the GOCE request and will resume work tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this reply. I have done some inconsiderate things on Wikipedia myself, and I think it's usually no big deal; after all, we are all human and such slips are bound to happen in the midst of thousands of edits. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gary vs. Garry on BCO refs
Tocatta, when I've used:
as a ref, I use "Gary", because that is how the name is printed on the book cover, the book title page, etc. (I don't think this should be changed when citing the book, that it should be represented as teh book representes it. Kasparov is listed as the first of two co-authors. I don't know the history behind use of "Gary" versus "Garry", but clearly the publishers had their reason at that time [i.e., it's no typo]). What do you think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. I had made mistake earlier of presuming "Gary" was how Kasparov's name was spelt, based on the BCO book I own, and made some edits on that basis. So I understand those should be reverted. But I think the case of using the BCO book as a ref, is perhaps a different animal.[reply
MOS:QUOTE, which offers multiple solutions. However, if "Gary" is restored, then the redirect should be avoided with [[Garry Kasparov|Gary Kasparov]]. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
When planning an edit on an article, it's always a good idea to check the previous edits. Your corrections to this article, in line with MOS, ignored the vandalism that had immediately preceded your edits. The result was that the vandalism was buried under half-a-dozen later edits. When something like this is finally noticed, then the correcting editor may or may not be able to trace the original text and may just delete a valuable sentence because it has been vandalised. If you are editing an article that's not on your "watch list", could you make a practice of checking the history first? (Some idiot deleted 1/4 of the article on Fra Angelico and it went unnoticed for three months, for a similar reason. )
Amandajm (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad idea, but if my edits and the reversion of something else lead to an edit conflict, then feel free to revert what I did; getting WP rid of garbage is far more important than conforming to stylistic guidelines that most of our readers do not care about. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of vandalism, I don't understand why WP policies for the implementation of semi-protection are so strict. In my opinion the percentage of vandalism, rather than its frequency, should be used to decide. Some articles attract a lot of vandalism but very few devoted editors (example). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabji (2)
Hi. Just to warn you that tomorrow I plan to return to my real-life project and semi-wikibreak. I'll keep the article on my watchlist until the GAN is complete (unless I convert to a full wikibreak), but today is the last day I'll be able to give it significant attention. Do you have many more issues you'd like to raise on its talk page? --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issues are numerous (around 30 bullets). Obviously I can tackle them with a dictionary, but it may be best to place another request at the GOCE. Will the folks there mind if I make a highly specialised request just a few days after having made a general one for the same page? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They won't mind, but you're likely to end up with a 2-month wait. How soon could you get those bullets on to the talk page? --Stfg (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to make an estimate, but I don't think it would take me more than 2 hours to create the list. Just let me know if you are OK with doing any further work there, and I will post material there in groups of 10 or so bullets. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. I'm keen to complete the job if I can. If you do each group as a new subsection, with section editing, and don't worry to correct typos and formatting that done't affect the question, then we won't edit conflict and maybe we can get it done. --Stfg (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Looks as if we may be done now. Is that right? --Stfg (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I will implement many of the remarks made recently on the talk page into the article, and I will keep working on the article in the near future, but otherwise, the copy editing is done. Thank you again for your invaluable work on the article. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Good luck with the GAN (I'll notice when reviewing starts). --Stfg (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting Sorabji to GA. Just one thing for future reference: on the GA review page you commented that I proofread the article. In fact I copy edited it, which is very different indeed from mere proof-reading. When you make a request to GOCE, it will always be understood as a request for copy editing, and there is an expectation that the copy editor's choices will be respected where they are not clearly erroneous.
I'm taking the article off my watch list now the aim has been achieved. Congratulations again. --Stfg (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the congratulation, as well as the final copy editing of the article. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but why is the fact that John Milton was the father of the poet John Milton not trivia, while the fact that John Danyel was the brother of Samuel Daniel trivia?
Please restore the sentence you removed. (And carefully because I have added some other contributions since then). It is all the more useful that the two brothers seem to have their last name usually spelled differently, at least in the literature. Maybe you should slow down and think a bit before you jump to remove stuff as "trivia" just like that. The best contribution is adding yourself material to an article, not removing other people's contributions for no good reason, such as in this case. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed this is not the first time you're pulling such a stunt (see on this page #Edit war?). Is this an obsession, or what? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Milton: they have the same name, so it provides disambiguation. Danyel: it's not relevant to the list. Why not mention what his hair colour was or how many languages he spoke? It's not relevant to his name nor his lifespan.
Thank you for your lecture on what constitutes contributing to WP; I'm sure Huggle and Twinkle users would agree with you. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. How about:
John Cornysh (late 15th century – early 16th century) Probably a relative of William Cornysh
John Mundy (c. 1555–1630) Son of William Mundy;
Edward Gibbons (1568 – c. 1650) Brother of Orlando Gibbons;
Ellis Gibbons (1573–1603) Brother of Orlando Gibbons;
Michael East (c. 1580–1648) Probably the son of Thomas East;
John Tomkins (1589–1638) Half brother of Thomas Tomkins;
Robert Dowland (1591–1641) Son of John Dowland;
Antoine de Févin (c. 1470–1511/12) Brother of Robert de Févin;
Robert de Févin (fl. late 15th century – early 16th century) Brother of Antoine de Févin;
Domenico Ferrabosco (1513–1574) Madrigalist, highly regarded by Alfred Einstein (!); father of Alfonso Ferrabosco
Piero Mazzuoli (Son of Giovanni Mazzuoli, whose compositions are all found in the San Lorenzo palimpsest)
Agostino Agostini (died 1569) Father of Lodovico Agostini
Vincenzo Galilei (c. 1520–1591) Father of composer Michelagnolo Galilei and astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei
Giovanni Maria Nanino (1543/1544–1607) Also spelt Nanini. Brother of Giovanni Bernardino Nanino
Francesco Guami (c. 1544–1602) Brother of Gioseffo Guami; active in Germany and Italy
Lodovico Agostini (1534–1590) Illegitimate son of Agostino Agostini
Felice Anerio (c. 1560–1614) Brother of Giovanni Francesco Anerio
Giovanni Francesco Anerio (c. 1567 – buried 1630) Brother of Felice Anerio
Giovanni Bernardino Nanino (1560–1623) Brother of Giovanni Maria Nanino
Michelagnolo Galilei (1575–1631) Active in Bavaria and Poland. Son of composer Vincenzo Galilei, brother of astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei
Gregorio Allegri (1582–1652), brother of Domenico Allegri
Domenico Allegri (1586-1629), brother of Gregorio Allegri
For that matter how about
David Sacerdote (1550–1625) Earliest known Jewish composer of polyphonic music, active at Mantua
Why is religion now relevant here according to your twisted ideas of "relevance" and "trivia"? Why is it not like "his hair colour etc." Of course I would consider this information about his religion relevant but then I consider information about family relationship between musicians, poets, or even scientists, etc. also relevant because they give context and help in their navigation the user of such a file (which is after all a barebone list, the first roadmap into a period of musical history) that readers would access in order to move around and explore and then go on to seek further information according to their preferences and interests.
Ok. That's enough. I've wasted enough time with you. You've got peculiar ideas as to what is relevant or not. I'm gonna revert your deletion of my information. If you want to play this game, fine. Btw, there are several errors in that file which I will point to you later (that's shows how useful your really are as a maintainer of these files). Anyway, if you once more touch a contribution of mine on such futile and idiosyncratic grounds I'll just simply revert your edit. If you continue this game will then I will follow until one of us reaches 3 reverts or we will have to resolve this problem (and hopefully the problem of your appointing yourself judge of what is relevant or not) through medation. My patience with you has just about reached its limit. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know why you are so angry and allow yourself to become irritated so easily; this is only the second instance of our interaction on any talk page (as far as I remember), yet it might appear to a third party that I have been "harassing" you for years.
Regarding the rest of what you wrote:
You have no right to tell editors that they are useless just because they focus on different types of edits; as said at
WP:NOE
, "Of course, we would like as many people as possible to get involved, including those whose only edit may be to fix a simple typo. Everyone's contributions are equally welcome."
I have not looked at the list in much detail; I'm sorry if I do not have your brainpower, but I have hundreds of articles on my watchlist and I can't review each of them in 2 minutes and make sure it's stylistically a topically consistent from top to bottom.
You have not replied to my point about bloodlines not being relevant to a composer's name or lifespan.
As for your "game" comment, your false dichotomy is amusing; why do you assume this discussion is not a path for finding a solution? I'm willing to talk to you. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for appearing angry and for saying you were useless. Of course that's not true. I do tend to write a bit too fast, plus I had already another problem a few days ago with a file I created (Henry Greenway) that I had to waste 30 minutes afterwards to convince the patroller who put it up for speedy deletion that he was wrong. Life is short, and if I spend time on Wikipedia I'd rather contribute than having to get into these kinds of arguments. Of course discussion is the real way. I'll respond in more detail later. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer first your question: "You have not replied to my point about bloodlines not being relevant to a composer's name or lifespan." Of course it's not. But you seem to be implying that the only things that are allowed and need to go into these list files is name and lifespan. Are you really saying that?
I'd also like to ask you some questions back in order to better understand how you operate in your editing activity especially when it comes to those maintenance tasks on a file such as the one of quickly removing something you consider to be trivia (as in this case).
How many pages (from the article namespace) do you have in your watchlist? (You said "hundreds" but that can be "200" or "1900") I personally never have more than about 20, maximum 30 pages. (You said something about "brainpower" but it's clear in view of this that I am not the one with the most impressive brainpower).
Another thing I'd like to know to understand how you operate: Do you base your actions on a Wikipedia document (
WP:That
; this last one actually exists: amazing!) or do you base them on your own judgement and common sense? What is your motivation? To make an article conform to a Wikipedia document or to make it be a better article?
Finally regarding these list files (particularly the "List of composers..." by period list files) we've already had two unfortunate interactions about, what is their readership in your opinion? How are they used? Should Wikipedia editors ask themselves such questions when editing those files or not?
Cheers
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey Toccata quarta - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wagner, edit summary "Consistency". What should be made consistent? Its titles vs. translations. Here we have titles in English, for example The Flying Dutchman, there we have just an attempt of a translation that is not used (as far as I know) as a title. I tried to make that difference (!) visible. Please treat the translations of the early works' titles only as titles if you have a reliable source doing so, - I didn't find one but didn't have time to really look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I followed the model used by Smerus in the passage "Die Hochzeit (The Wedding)"; the translated title is placed in italics and English rules for using capitals are followed. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could obviously not explain what I mean, The Wedding IS a title. "The lover's caprice" or however that is rendered IS NOT a title, only the translation (!) of a title. It should therefore not be italic and not capitalised, if you ask me, unless there's a good source doing so, - but I won't revert it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Black (or White) is capitalised in the format where I did so-this has always been the case in my forty years following, playing and writing about the game. The MOS here has nothing to do with it. Hushpuckena (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your contributions to bring Magnus Carlsen up to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
Oops, I edited too hastily; thanks for fixing. Opus33 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem! Inside a quoted statement, any word I personally add for clarity HAS to be inside a square bracket, not parentheses. So changing that to (squire) is, for a scholarly presentation, very misleading: it looks as if Lully added that word in parentheses! He didn't. So the parentheses are unacceptable. That is why I put the following: [ spacesquire space]... which gives something very close to the result I want: [ squire ]. Most people won't notice that there is a space around "squire"? Or perhaps there some other way for Wiki's coding to permit something that looks like this: escuyer [squire] ... but with the blue link to the Wiki page. Until there is a solution, I will remove the blue underlining. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Ranumspa[reply]
I'm sorry, I did not notice that it was part of a quote. I will fix the text. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It is a problem, isn't it. I'll look and see what you did to fix it :-)
Thanks Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Ranumspa[reply]
Edward Elgar
Hi, re your revert: I take it that you don't have that book. The page in question is not page 99, but page P99 - it's numbered as such at upper right: the letter is part of the page identifier. Similarly the three refs immediately following, where the page numbers are:
le Fleming 1954, pp. G26, G27
le Fleming 1953, p. H18
Sterndale et al. 1974, pp. M94, M101
These are from the same fourteen-part set as Davies 1993; this set is sometimes found bound into larger (and thus fewer) volumes. Retaining the letter prefix uniquely identifies the page in such bindings, as advised inside the front cover for parts 1-12, and in the Foreword. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information, of which I was unaware. I will revert my edit. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased to see this exchange. I keep an eye on the Elgar article, and I was sorry to see a dispute there. So glad it's been resolved in such a civilised manner. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wagner
To clarify, as you seem to be operating under the assumption that I dislike Wagner, I don't dislike him in the least and I never mentioned removing him from the VA list to anyone nor do I agree with his removal. We are in more agreement about Wagner then you realise, that's why I put so much effort into my FAC review, something I would never do for a subject in which I was not quite interested. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks
I keep on forgetting to thank you for your tireless correction of my typing and punctuation in Wagner, etc. Just to say that I am really very grateful!!--Smerus (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User Mmlov and edits to the Frank Zappa talk page
Hey. I've opened a sockpuppetry case over Mmlov (who I believe has been vandalizing Talk:Frank Zappa through different IP addresses here. If you have any input to give, it would certainly be appreciated. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French Defense
Does this sentence seem good to you (it doesn't to me):
White usually tries to exploit his extra space on the kingside, where they will often play for a mating attack.
In the end, not really, so I reverted myself. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "they"? Is it just White? Is it both players? (The problem with the singular they...how do you know if it is singular or plural?) Change it to "he". (You've already used "his" earlier in the sentence anyway, so be consistent.) Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toccata, going thru Magnus, can't help but see there's lots of non-serial comma, and lots of serial comma. Not supposed to mix of course. (I'd vote serial, what say you?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a particularly strong feeling about that. I prefer not to use serial commas if given the choice, though. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a long, complex article, with lots of info/data. (IMO, no serial comma just adds burden on reader, who must mentally separate, to make sense of text.) It's a big choice for the article, perhaps there are hundreds of cases in it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right; but could be lack of response too. (Wanted to chk w/ you however, since you are dedicated editor this article.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of compositions
Thanks for fixing my "See" at Max Reger. If there's one thing that I really wish for with Wikipedia, it would be the use of a standardized format for finding lists of compositions under different composers. I'm not a musician - I'm trying to catalog a very large collection of classical recordings, so I always need to find correct listings for any number of different composers. Sometimes they're a real mess, such as the way I had initially found Reger's article organized. But even so, if you look around you'll find several different formats used, and in different sections of an article, not always obvious. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Toccata quarta ! I'd like to know why you favour the form "Buonaparte" over "Bonaparte" for the page on Beethoven's Eroica symphony, since the very Wiki article on Napoleon brings the latter spelling. Perhaps I'm missing something here. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did that because "Buonaparte" is used in the original text. Per
MOS:QUOTE, "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." The rest of the guideline contains more information on this matter. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
So, I was missing something... Thanks for the explanation ! MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goldberg Variations
Do you care to expand on your "pointless clutter" comment and removal of the
Infobox Bach composition template and Italic title template? Did you base your revert on some MOS guidance or policy? Bede735 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
List of most viewed YouTube videos
I reverted the footnote again because after I posted an explanation on the talk page, I waited, noticed you had not responded but that you have made edits elsewhere, so I assumed taht you decided not to respond. Are you going to respond? Trinitresque (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Ciesinski
Your edit changes the character of the, now five year old, text to a large enough degree that makes your edit unwarranted. As Ms. Ciesinski's official biographer, I've taken the liberty of restoring the original text of the article, as per her mentions in the Baker's, Oxford, and the www.nmwa.org guide to Women in American Music. Thanks for your time. OUPNYC (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Five year old" means nothing; if something is wrong, it's wrong. The bit of text that I changed was contrary to the Wikipedia guideline
WP:OWN. (Please consult that one too.) And as for the other encyclopedias, they're just that. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Policy?
I find it interesting after your argument you failed to back your point up here. Perhaps you missed it? OGBranniff (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No; I just felt that others had already presented sufficiently strong arguments. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time in which I was asking you to support your argument, you were the only person that had commented on the discussion. Therefore, your statement here that "others had already presented . . . " is mere disingenuousness, to be charitable. OGBranniff (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments were eventually presented, so I no longer felt the need to reply. I'm not capable of replying to comments in a nanosecond, and I do have many interests within Wikipedia and beyond it. Sorry. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no problem. Thank you for your reply. Have a good evening and I hope all is well. OGBranniff (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a bit more on the background. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TO TOCCATA QUARTA
Hello! My defence I explained everything but you didn't want to understand. Your resistance was pointless and annoying. Why you put the numbers now? I guess you understand that those numbers are necessary. Don't put some annoying things on my talk. Again, I am glad that you understand those numbers are imortant even if you changed the name (Key??). –Tsasaa12 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the worth of your edits. I was talking about the Wikipedia POLICY
If you move/rename a chess article, you need to make that change in
index of chess articles too. The reason is that if you don't, "related changes" in that article shows changes to the redirect page instead of the article. Thank you. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for that information; I have accordingly changed the index page. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLANKING the IP in question is allowed to blank their talk page, even if it removes warnings. Since the warnings are permanently visible in the page history, and diffs are acceptable evidence in cases that involve Wikipedia admins, it doesn't matter in the long run if the IP blanks their talk page. Regards, RA0808talkcontribs 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I know that, but in my experience blanking does affect ClueBot's actions. Is that not the case? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having not much experience with Cluebot I can't be sure. In my experience with Huggle the warn level stays even if the user blanks their talk page. RA0808talkcontribs 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the warning templates for vandals, you will that they contain the string "<!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 -->" (example). I haven't been able to find the diffs, but I do recall seeing ClueBot post a level 1 warning twice due to page blanking. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alkan
He did call these pieces 'Symphonie pour le piano seul' and 'Concerto pour le piano seul' so I believe capitalisation is appropriate. Probably italicization as well, which I will see to. Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the French titles should indeed be italicised (as is the case with Stockhausen's Klavierstücke), but I believe that in English these titles are generic, just like "Choral Symphony No. 1". Regarding capitals, in this case, the text does not use a title, but merely a reference to the works' genres; it is comparable to the phrase "yesterday I finished writing a symphony", rather than "yesterday I finished writing my Symphony No. 2". Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Riccardo Muti article and info boxes
You might want to take a look at User talk:Erru il 1988's talk page where I've posted a note to him re: info boxes and his reverts of my removal of the box - which he added in spite of your note. I'm not a member of your Project (though I am on the Opera one), and therefore have similar feelings about them as your Project does. Good luck. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Puccini references
Hi Toccata quarta, I've found a better reference for the diabetes and added it. If you're wondering why I've replaced the Kendell references, see this discussion. The IP has an ongoing campaign to get his book into Wikipedia, happens every couple of months. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff
I've refiled this case against Mendoza2909, feel free to leave your observations if you have time. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks
Hi Toccata quarta, thanks for improving Missa Gaudeamus page! Actually it is the first article I tried to create, hoping to improve further.. une musque de Biscaye (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be Toccata quarta as in a work for piano completed in 1969 by a composer who died in 1988 (KSS)... ? I'd made a sequence of the first movement and bits of others (sounds quite good, anyway, allowing for the approximations- not surprisingly) and hoped to try to typeset it at one point but I think it's probably beyond my abilities. Anyhow. Happy editing and cheers! Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my username is a reference to that piece, although there are a few other composers who also wrote a "Toccata quarta". Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Have you heard the "recording" that's been uploaded (by the fellow who typeset the work) of the Jāmī Symphony, over at sorabji-files, by the way? (Yes, the uploaded synthesized version sounds maybe something like at best an organ, percussion, vocalise, etc. and reducing an orchestral work of five hours-odd to that limited palette is wearying, but- I never expected to hear it in any form at all, and I find it fascinating- at least- personally...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (to be more accurate and not to understate, I've listened to it several times and like and am glad to have it, but I'm fairly used to MIDI sounds etc.)[reply]
I have. However, you shouldn't be getting me started on anything Sorabji, since then this might develop into a conversation violating
WP:NOTFORUM in every manner imaginable. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Noted, noted. I haven't been here regularly for some time and keep forgetting things. Cheers Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overture of "The Flying Dutchman" as played at sight by a bad spa orchestra at the well at 7 in the morning made me look at the German again. Do you have a source for your version? A better translation would be Overture of the "Flying Dutchman" as played at sight by a bad spa orchestra at the well at 7 in the morning, because the original has a sloppy zum "Fliegenden Holläner", not giving the precise opera title, - that should show somehow, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
My move only changed the quotation marks in the page's name. The WP article is called
The Flying Dutchman (opera), but Wikipedia is obviously based on sources, even if those use incorrect grammar. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You probably misunderstood me. The German article is "Der Fliegende Holländer", however: Hindemith did NOT quote it precisely, but (intentionally, I would assume) in a sloppy way. The present English title is overly correct, which is not a good translation. If this English title is sourced, fine. Sourced is more important than true. But if not, I would move it to the better translation mentioned above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternity
FYI, I added the info about him being the elder brother of Robert Fuchs after noticing that analogous information had been provided elsewhere on the page for members of the Strauss family etc. 86.161.252.183 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That falls into the realm of
WP:OSE. I have always been of the opinion that such lists should be limited to lifespans and descriptions of composers' oeuvres, and that bloodlines should be mentioned only when there is need for disambiguation. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Fine. I made the addition just for editorial consistency. Cheers, 86.161.252.183 (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take part in a new discussion
Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:
"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ([34]).
Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May 2013 Minor Edit of Harmony by RiskNerd
Thank you for reviewing my contributions and for clarifying the definition of Help:Minor edit. You wrote: "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content." Do you know if there is a way to revise my edit to remove the minor edit flag? Will I be notified automatically if another user later makes any changes to my edits or additions?
I understand now that when adding factual information and cross-referencing with other Wikipedia articles that help to complete the encyclopedic presentation of a subject, such as adding information about Unison to Harmony as I did in this case, such additions are not considered minor because other users may disagree with the idea that the article was incomplete without the additions. It is clear that Wikipedia is a living document, an ongoing discussion amongst everyone who might read or edit any of its articles. Your prompt message on my talk page and your invitation to discuss was appreciated. Did you find any fault with my contributions? RiskNerd (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late reply; sometimes I get exceedingly distracted by the business of "ordinary" life and working on Wikipedia, and as a result forget to reply to questions such as the ones you've asked.
It can't be changed.
If somebody reverts one of your edits, you will receive a notification next to your username at the top of this page. Otherwise, the only way to know what's happened to your edits is to use the
WP:WATCHLIST
.
Judging by the edits I have seen from you, I should point out that one of Wikipedia's most important principles is the referencing of
Apologies, this was a clumsy edit by me. I did mean to remove the material, not because I am 'opposed' to it as such but because it is essentially
WP:UNDUE basically repeating in a slightly different form/context the matter in the previous sentence; the reference added is unnecessary as the information is covered by the reference to the previous sentence. I guess this was inserted by the IP editor just to try to justify adding a certain book to the references - as he has tried to do before. We might therefore hazard a good guess at the IP's identity.--Smerus (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem, slips happen from time to time. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chessgames.com
I guess this is what I was thinking of (when earlier supposing all games might not be avail w/o paid membership). (The games aren't blocked, but it is harder to get to them w/o the links!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music of Iran
Hello Toccata,
Please review my posts and you can see that I am not exaggerating at all. This is not at all a bias opinion, I am a very fair person, and I just wanted to add the name of some Famous Iranian Singers and the person who brought Jazz music to Iran and played in front of the Shah. I am kindly asking you to please reconsider my edits and allow me to post my family's legacy here on Wikipedia. I will hold my account fully responsible for any misleading information you may find, I can back it up with newpaper articles. Photos, what you wish... Please I ask you kindly, to redo my edits to this page, it would mean a lot to my family as well as Vigen's family which is Nikole's first cousin.
I'm not the one who decides about this matter; it is judged by Wikipedia policies. If your family members are notable enough for Wikipedia, then feel free to create articles about them, establishing notability by referencing reliable sources (otherwise the articles will probably be deleted). For more information on relevant Wikipedia policies, see
Then I will create pages, will it be ok then? It's funny how you have Vigen taking credit for my Grandfather as Sultan of Jazz, vigen was a pop singer (May God rest his soul) I loved Vigen as much as my grandfather, he was my mother's first cousin, and you have him listed there as king of Jazz, he did not play jazz music, he was a singer with a beautiful voice. That is what I am trying to tell you... Incorrect information listed here... You can ask anyone and you will see that I am not making this up.
I will create an article and then we can see, if you will approve it, right now you are just going on policy which is incorrect... but it's ok I will get my family's name there if I have to dispute this item, which I have already contacted WIKI about... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.211.249 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Toccata, this is reference to your post on my talk page about my edit on String Quartet No. 16 (Beethoven). I understand that much of the content was not conforming to encyclopaedic neutrality, but since I quoted almost all of it directly out of other articles and linked to the sources, I thought this should be acceptable? Or does that apply to explicit quotes only? (Also, what is a better method of continuing a conversation - replying on each other's talk pages or continuing in a single thread on any one of them? Need a tip, thanks.) Bubka42 (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive quoting sometimes falls into the realm of
WP:COPYVIO
. However, it is common for Wikipedia articles to contain passages such "Musicologist Nomen Nescio describes the Piano Concerto No. 2 by [composer] as 'a harmonically rich work, [etc.]'".
As for talk pages, some people like fragmented conversations, while others (myself included) prefer to retain each conversation on one place. The first group of editors frequently relies on Template:Talkback. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you reverted back my 'minor edit'. Sorry for not providing any description. No, the edit was not a mistake. The list element I removed was a duplicate (same as the 6th element in the list). Jeet (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declared really is puffery as models.com has arbitrary criterion of: 1)least 8+ years at blue chip level under their belts 2) still currently working, for whom qualifies an "Industry Icon".
According to Merriam Webster declare means:
1) Say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
2) Formally announce the beginning of (a state or condition): "Spain declared war on Britain in 1796".
I'm taking the language down a peg. I think put on the list or listed will be sufficient. --Wlmg (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I understand that. But I would say that the important guideline is
Ok. On a personal note it seems peculiar that models.com would make such a list. After all when a model retires they get kicked off the icon list. Then what? A list of fashion icons of the past? --Wlmg (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Popular music operates on a similar basis; the "top 40" list changes more frequently than such rankings of the canon of classical music. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sicilian Defence
Hi Toccata. I'm not following your meaning in this case.
At grandmaster level, 1...e5 scores slightly better, mainly because of the difficulty in breaking down defences such as the Berlin Defence.
(What is not specific about this sentence? It seems complete and specific to me. Let me know in more detail what your objection is.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Such as" is uninformative. In what respect are those other, unspecified defences comparable to the Berlin Defence? Do they have similar pawn structures, similar king safety, or something else? Neither similarities nor opening names are mentioned there. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand you better now. (Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alkan
Hi there! Just to thank you for your continuing support and comments in developing the Alkan article. GA today, FA I hope in a month or so! Best,--Smerus (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I feel my work on the article has been negligible so far, and I haven't yet gotten around doing the bulk of work that I wished to do on it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vivaldi
Hi, I don't mean to cross swords with you at the Bach article. Let's talk about this audio file. First problem I have is that it's by Vivaldi (99.5%), not Bach, and you and I could have done just as well as Bach in copying the notes of those chords onto a keyboard score (unlike the outer movements, which took a whole lot more skill by the great man). Tony(talk) 11:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
chess endgame
Are you going to report the false positive by Cluebot on chess endgame? I don't know either of these quotes, but they seem genuine to me. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 04:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about can understand but about the ease. Tables should be useful, should provide info easily, at a glance, without damaging readers' eyesight, without wasting their time Wlod (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may even be justifiable: although on the surface the whole passage seems to be if anything OVER-referenced, and the "If..Then statement" the merest common sense. All good articles are riddled with what CAN, if you push the parameters a bit, be classed as OR. Wikipedia would be unworkable otherwise, since we're not allowed to just copy blocks of text.
To put it another way: nothing wrong with originality, in fact the best wiki articles are full of original "thought". Obviously this originality has fairly narrow bounds (hence the "original research" criteria), but there is a real danger in drawing these bounds tighter than necessary. I think on the whole we should give "borderline" cases the benefit of the doubt.
But actually the main point is that at the moment this question is hiding in an inconspicuous little tag: I deleted the tag so that the question might be raised responsibly in talk. Fair enough, you think this IS OR (or at least "bordering" on it) - so why not raise this in talk, as I suggested. I would have done so myself, but since my own opinion is so much "on the other side" this might have been biased of me. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for grumpy edit summary - I'm a bit like that I'm afraid (allowed to be at my age!)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally - have a look at
WP:SYNNOT - I know it's "only" an essay and not official policy - but there's a lot of sense there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
MOS:LQ
Hi there. You may remember that we discussed an ambiguity in
WT:MOS#Regarding MOS:LQ. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Sick mouse
Toccata, thx for the restoration at WCC. (Don't know how that happened; my mouse might be going bad.) Thx again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I realise that it is perhpas a marginal case, but wouldn't you consider Hinton a musicologist, albeit in a narrow field? He is curator of the Sorabji Archive, hsparticipatedin editing the music, and has written on Sorabji. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is something of a bordeline case. However, due to the high degree of specialisation in his case, it may be better for the article to just state the extent of his involvement in Sorabjian scholarship and score editing. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Britten: I wondered about that, looked at the article, thought they are a set, then capital Suites. If suites, then move ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that they are not meant to constitute one big piece, since they have different opus numbers. The article makes the "series" claim, but this may not be supported by sources. See for instance [35]. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats
The Original Barnstar
For continually working to improve the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work! —
Thanks for your tweaks to the work in progress on the Britten article. Is a double space (inadvertent when I perpetrate one, though some seem to favour them between sentences) something one needs to look out for? That is, does it have bad effects on some screens etc? Always glad to add to my technical knowledge. Best, Tim riley (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PUNCTSPACE says, "the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page". Nevertheless I prefer to remove double, triple, etc. spaces (although usually when my edit includes some other change), since 1) it saves space, and 2) one browser that I used to visit Wikipedia with did display double spaces. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting, thank you. I'll remember that. (Incidentally, my raising that small technical point doesn't mean I'm unappreciative of your other additions to the Britten article!) Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is a living person's age not suitable material for the lead section? Otherwise I'm not sure what the link to
WP:LEAD
is trying to tell me. Apparently WikiProject Classical music has decided no infobox is allowed, so I'm not sure where else this should go. If the answer is nowhere, I will struggle to calculate 2013-1947 in my head.
--WikiWikiPhil (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA to see that is the standard practice on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem citing
WP:OPENPARA that everything not explicitly recommended is prohibited? The dates of birth and death are suggested, so for people not-yet-dead, is the age template not appropriate? --WikiWikiPhil (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at
Circa can be abbreviated to either c. or ca. Either is correct. I wrote much of the original article and thought ca. was correct. Article summaries are not required; I find your claiming an edit was "vandalism" rather offensive. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the
MOS: is not very clear about this; it says "the unitalicized abbreviation c. (followed by a space) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx", but there's no clarification of whether "preferred" means "better", "more popular" or something else. I did not claim that your revert was vandalism; on the contrary, I pointed out that that was the claim implied by your edit summary, since it contained no text by you. Whenever I click on "Undo", I get the message "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." Toccata quarta (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
Hi, you removed these lines about the April Fools' prank on the King's Gambit article citing WP:DUE. Could you clarify? It was a story that apparently had the chess and techie internet talking, not to mention the only notable event concerning the opening in years. As someone duped by the prank who came to WP for more information, it seems worthwhile to have it here. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's significant enough to merit an inclusion in the article, especially since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of pranks. I can't recall seeing coverage of any other April 1 ChessBase joke here. And, for what it's worth, Wikipedians tend to
dislike April Fools' jokes on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Furtwängler
I don't agree with you, but I am not in the reverting game either. I did not say anything about recordings. He is considered to be one of the greatest of all time. It is said some separate recordings of Karajan were sometimes spliced together for better effect. Hmm. In any case, it is better to say he is considered 'to be' rather than 'to have been', as he is still considered to be ...! At the mpment, I am more interested in the 24-year-old blind Japanese pianist Nobuyuki Tsujii. Have a good morning, day or evening, wherever you are.--Zananiri (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chopin
Thanks so much for weighing in on this. I am trying to knock the article into shape but as you see it is a major task. Apart from cutting the crap and then completely rewriting, virtually all the references need to be replaced. This will probably be a long haul. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; usually I end up wherever there is activity on my watchlist. Do you think the external links have already been cleaned up enough? The "Recordings" section is another unsourced magnet for spam, and it contradicts the list given in the section "Influence" (where neither list should be). Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, there is still a lot more cleaning up to do. Also to chuck out a lot of sentimentality, 'Polishism', and general droning in the text.--Smerus (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
I'm curious about your edit comment when removing a sample game from the BGD article. (I'm not arguing that the game should be kept; I don't really have a strong feeling about that either way.) "If it is a draw in objective terms, then this doesn't belong here." I don't understand that reasoning. A sample game in a chess opening article can only be objectively won? Quale (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the game was introduced with the text "Below is a sample game that features the unusual feat of Grandmaster Efim Bogoljubov beating Diemer with his own favorite opening". If he won the game on time then the introduction is inadequate. I have no problem with using draws to illustrate how an opening has been played. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to hassle you, but I almost always understand your reasons even on the occasions when I don't agree with them. I don't agree or disagree with this, it just doesn't make sense. If there is a problem with the introduction, then the usual way to fix it is by editing it, not deletion. Also, last I checked winning on time is a legitimate way to win a tournament game. If the victory had been awarded by the arbiter for a cell phone violation or the like I would see your point as that would have nothing to do with the choice of opening, but part of the game of chess is to make your moves in the allotted time. The amount of time a player takes is very often directly connected to the opening, and most losses on time are caused by spending too much time on the opening phase. I don't see how the introduction was inadequate, but even if it was, are you saying you wouldn't have deleted the game if the sentence explaining that the loss may have been on time had appeared before the game score? That's how we know that the position was objectively drawn, because it was stated directly in the article. Your logic here escapes me completely. Anyway, I don't have anything more to say about it. Quale (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling the win illegitimate or anything. But the point is that, while such a win could be used as a "time management lesson", it's not an example of one of the opening's proponents getting outplayed in it, just losing on time. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ponziani Opening
I am David Taylor co author of Play the Ponziani. In Wikipedia there is no source for the statements that the Ponziani is inferior to
the Ruy Lopez and Giuocco Piano. There is a source of statistics. It is from 500,000 games played since 1991.
Chess.com is possibly the online chess site which has the most members. Over 7 million. There are hundreds of teams which play Vote chess.
Playing vote chess is team vs team. The members of each team vote for each separate move. The Ponziani Power Vote Chess Team has been playing other very strong teams. Teams with players rated 2200 and up to above 2400. Ponziani Power has played some beautiful Ponziani games and has won against 13 teams in a row with no losses or draws. This is a remarkable achievement considering an individual game can be won or lost or drawn and there is no opening in chess where you have a 50% chess of winning. [as there are draws]
To win 13 such matches in a row by luck alone would be one chance in more than 100,000 [Ponziani Opening win 41% Loss 29% draw 30%] so 41% times itself 13 times is less than one in 100,000.
There are hundreds of vote chess teams in chess.com but not one has such a amazing record. This says a lot about the playability of the opening.
The remarks about the various opening variants are not correct at all. Why give them without adequate references? Why give quotes from more than 100 years ago when the theory of the opening was not developed?
Now, super grandmasters are playing the Ponziani. Why the super negative when I can provide much positive?
Sincerely, David C Taylor co author of Play the Ponziani author of Ponziani Power co author of Center Counter Uprising. 7th United States Correspondence Chess Champion.
In response to your comment on my talk page, the reason I did it is because the final rating calculation for the event will be based on August ratings, and months/years after the event is over, it would be more "correct" to look at the August ratings rather than the July ones in order to see the rating difference between opponents (and possibly do your own ELO calculations). Secondly, it's consistent with every other chess event page wikipedia has: every chess tournament page always lists the FIDE ratings (provided they exist) of the month the rating change calculation for the event will be based on. With that said, I see the problems you have with this, and I even thought about leaving both July and August ratings, but without a proper table this would look messy. If you're in charge of these pages, it's up to you to decide what to do, and if you know how to make the participant list look like a numbered table, you could create a template, and I would be even willing to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtwz (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. Please note that I'm not in charge of any page—see
The wikipedia page on the Halloween is outdated and biased. It claims the Pinski line is a refutation and that is not true. Zimbeckchess.com is not the only source. A simple search on google can show other supported links. There used to be a pdf ebook from UON on the Halloween however nobody hosts it anymore. Therefore Zimbeck will be one of the only people on the internet with the theory on this. I challenge you to find theory that covers every line elsewhere. Zimbeck is a senior master with a rating of 2350 he has published books which have sold and database which have sold and recently won 1st prize in Strategems for one of his puzzles. His analysis is done with a supercomputer that has several clusters of processors that was orignially used to proof highly comlex puzzles. The analysis is good and the entry on the Halloween is simply curt. The Zimbeck site is a result of a lifetime of chess experience as a master and analyst of gambits and therefore enhances the page on Halloween which is very biased. The line with Euwe was pre-computer and is very out dated almost 100 years old. Theory has changed since 100 years ago. Kaufman did not analyse his line with a computer he is not an expert on the Halloween. The comment on Kaufman is simply something he made in passing he has no book on the subject. Zimbeck does have a book on the subject which has been purchased over 100 times (his database). Therefore, Zimbeck and IM Wind are more qualified than Kaufman. Kaufman only recently made grandmaster. To say Zimbeck is unknown is offensive if you lived in the USA you would know who he was. He is in the top 50 in the usa for speed chess. And top 100 players in the usa. Zimbeck in fact has beaten Kaufman in traditional time contols. He is not unknown. He is one of the only sites that offer databases exclusively for gambits. The Halloween was ONLY studied by coorespondence players such as IM Wind. Wind deserves credit since he was one of the only ones to develop the theory. Brause was the first public appearance of the opening however it was played by Gregor Minchev who has beated the likes of Topalov and IM Tim Taylor(who Minchev defeated in the Euwe d5 line which your page lists as refuted). This is not the case and analysis using Houdini is evidence of that especially with the aid of Zimbeck and Winds theory. Kaufmans line drops a pawn for white. It is a mistake that literally falls for a one move tactic. Its an egregious error. He clearly missed Qb4 Qxb4 cxb7! which regains the pawn and is clearly equal. Your page contains a one move blunder and it NEEDs to be corrected. The second game featured has white trading on d7 which just loses immediately. No resource anywhere on the internet would recommend that against f5. The blunder is below the 1800 level. You can analyse the material with Houdini if you wish we can send it for free. The databases have sold. Davids analysis was almost exclusively used for Scheerers new book on the Blackmar Diemer gambit which he was credited for. David is one of the only people who analyses these unorthodox lines with the computer. Some of the lines many unintuitive moves needed to be made that the computer itself can not find without the assistance of a strong master. I dont want to comment war. I have removed the self-aggrandizing comment about Zimbeck as well as the "modern theory" comment however the Pinksi line needs to be changed its misleading and incorrect. Chess is not such a simple game that a line such as this can be refuted within 5 moves. Chess is far more complicated than this and the entry here inserts heavy bias that the line is somehow easily refuted. Also, it pushes a line that gives back the piece which only makes for boring chess and is not recommend by Houdini. f5 is met with Bd3 where houdini lists within +0.00 hovering about dead even. You can say black hold the advantage if you wish (although I also believe this to be untrue) but to state that a line that drops a pawn is and is refuted within a couple moves is simply wrong. If you are a decent player I am sure you have Houdini or fritz we can send the lines and you are more than free to look at them but please stop inhibiting developement. This is why content on wikipedia is so low in the first place. At a minimum we do not want to feature lines as refutations that drop pawns to one move tactics. Again, look at it with Fritz or houdini we can send Zimbeck analysis for review using a computer. If you find errors within Zimbecks analysis then by all means send to us we would like to know. But since Zimbeck is one of the only people who have a full database on the openings it would be bad form to not allow it on the page. The database on his site is also 3 times the size of the material featured on the page. Please discuss for resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.31 (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[36] I don't know how familiar you are with academic processes, but there is nothing very unusual with putting your PhD thesis, or a synopsis of it, on a website. It's not like anyone else usually wants to publish them. What is odd is he doesn't seem to give a proper full citation, despite a video of his public defence. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that those two things are exclusive. However, if his thesis was defended successfully, then I would expect him to provide a link to a webpage at EThOS, for instance. Besides, the video may not qualify as a reliable source. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenance template
it said it needed additional citations, I thought the two citations (to chessgames and fide) would be enough to remove that problem, sorry if it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.204.136 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with chessgames.com as a source for biographical information (not chess games) is that it is to a large degree user-generated, and thus not an optimal source (see
Hi TQ! Sorry to be boring but if you would e-mail me your question I will give you a detailed reply. Unfortunately a number of uncivil editors watch my talk page and I would prefer not to discuss these issues before their eyes.--Smerus (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you a message (not through e-mail, though). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia Palermo
I am legal counsel to Ms. Palermo. Please note that the celebrity Olivia Palermo's legal middle name is Butterfield. The use of Toledo is an imposter highjacking a celebrity profile. I would like to request that this profile be locked so that edits are approved by a Wikipedia administrator.
The citations to Toledo are based on companies pulling information from this incorrect Wikipedia information and various imposter profiles that we are also working to remove.
Thank you for your reply. However, neither of those two references is adequate, since both are user-generated. What other sources do you have? If you wish to request page protection, see
She does not use her middlename in her celebrity so there will not be stories with her middle name. Obviously I am not going to post birth certificate or drivers license. I can send a lawyer letter on letterhead if that would suffice (please send me an address for this). Please provide any legal record that "Toledo" is in fact her correct middle name. The 2000 entries out there are self referential, i.e., rely on Wikipedia or are also user-generated / imposter posts. The website www.oliviapalermo.com states that it owned and operated by Butterfield Global LLC see http://www.oliviapalermo.com/terms-and-conditions/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amytecko (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pachelbel's Canon
Hi,
I presume you did not like my reference to theis music being used in funerals as it was unsourced? I can give you my references for making this statement. It may be simpler just to clairfy the statment as being for funerals "in Great Britain".
I did not challenge th existing statment: "It is frequently played at weddings" as it may be used at weddings and I have no knowledge of that. That statment is not sourced.
Let me know a private email and I can send you information that proves how I can make the statement about this music in UK funerals.
Hi Toccata quarta, I partially understand your revert due to WP:WTA but why not delete the relevant words and leave the essence of that short paragraph ? רסטיניאק (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק[reply]
That was indeed an option, but there is an important question to be asked: why single out those concerts? I'm sure Muti has and will conduct many concerts in his career. Why are those three concerts significant enough to be mentioned in the article? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking the most important question, and I'll try to supply a few answers. Anyone whom I encountered who was at one of these concerts in Salzburg (and I attended the August 18 one) commented on the rarity of that performance, and this comes from people who are very well acquainted with performances of the Requiem, including the 1951 famous recording of Toscanini with NBC orchestra. The Israeli conductor Noam Sheriff commented to a friend that the August 17 concert was the best Requiem he ever heard. I believe that there will be more written about this production of the Requiem, the equisite leading of the orchestra and the choir, and the wonderful Mezzo (Elina Garanca), the Soprano and Mezzo duets, the final Libera Me of Soprano Stoyanova.... We could wait for more reports to be convinced of the special character and impact of that production, or change the WP:WTA to a milder description, possibly using quotes from http://www.bachtrack.com/review-vienna-philharmonic-riccardo-muti-verdi-requiem-salzburg-festival-2013 which used "impressive" in the title...רסטיניאק (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק[reply]
Using quotes from reviews would indeed be the best idea. By all means feel free to add those (and re-add the deleted paragraph) to the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Callas
Hi Toccata quarta. I support the statement that Maria Callas was a "Greek soprano", which unfortunately is seen as not appropriate according to a user who behaves as the article is in his ownership and states that "American-born Greek" is a better solution (albeit not allowed according to WP:OPENPARA). Your thoughts are welcome on the talk page, where you can find an ongoing discussion about the issue. The only reason for my change to drop any mention of the citizenships or natinalities was to keep it neutral until the issue is resolved. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spem in Alium: Renditions : list of modern 40-part works inspired by Tallis.
Dear Toccata Quarta,
In the Renditions paragraph of the Tallis "Spem in Alium" page there is a short list of modern 40-part works inspired by Spem In Alium , together with the names of their composers and the dates of composition. I added to this list a reference to a 40-part work entitled "And There Shall Be No Night There", composed in 2002 by Dr. Robert Hanson (of Dartington and Morley College). This work has enjoyed more than one London performance, the most recent being on Thursday March 22nd 2012 at St. Martin in the Fields, as part of a Borough Chamber Choir concert within the 2012 Brandenberg Series. The above concert also included a performance of "Spem in Alium".
As you have undone my addition I assume you do not agree that the work deserves a place in the above list. I am not sure what might qualify a work for inclusion, but I suggest that a well-received performance of a substantial 40-part work by a serious (if not widely-known) composer in a respected London venue as part of a major London concert series must go some way towards justifying its place !
If you decide to undo this addition a second time, could you please let me know the reasons ?
Thanks,
Dillettante
(yes - two "ll"s!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillettante (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the addition since Wikipedia does not have an article about the composer. However, if the piece in question has received significant coverage (in the form of reviews, for instance), then I would see no problem in having it mentioned in the article (as long as there are
WP:REFerences to justify its presence). Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Factual errors
Dear Toccata quarta,
I realise that I should not write an autobiographical article. However, I did not do so - I merely corrected some gross factual errors in the article you left. I have no idea who you are, or whether or not you, in fact, wrote the article. I urge you, though, to verify the information you have written about me WITH ME, if possible, or otherwise with someone who has access to the facts about my life. I am not the son of my ex-wife. My accident was not in the Greek Islands, and I recorded the Strauss Duett-Concertino with Kim Walker, and not with Kim Hunt. Thank you, and best wishes, Dimitri Ashkenazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimclarinet (talk • contribs) 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. The main reason why I reverted your edits is that you removed multiple references from the article, which is a big problem (see
WP:BLP). If there are any other errors in the article, feel free to list them here (or at Talk:Dimitri Ashkenazy), and I will gladly look at the issue and change the article as may be necessary. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Facebook criticisms
I moved the section inward so it wouldn't be confused as unrelated. It could be confused as a different dispute the way you have it because in every other section, every time there's a new paragraph, it starts with a different matter. There needs to be some indication that the two sections are related.AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the indenting? It seemed to me that your goal was to merge the paragraphs, but that hasn't been achieved. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
article about Dimitri Ashkenazy
Dear Toccata quarta,
Thank you for your reply. I am not opposed to leaving the references as they were (I simply thought them unnecessary in view of the fact that I was, myself, correcting the article and therefore needed none). Would you be open to having the article as I wrote it, while leaving the references intact? Thank you again for your quick response, and best wishes, Dimitri Ashkenazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimclarinet (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
further errors
Dear Toccata quarta,
Thank you for removing the most egregious errors in the article about me. There are more: The accident when I was 9 years old was in Greece, but not in the Greek Islands. Not my father, but my mother accompanied me to Sydney thereafter in order for Earl Owen to rebuild my leg. I have had one concert with my father in Canada, so to write that I have toured there with him is not accurate. I have premiered four clarinet concertos, so if you wish to list only two, the wording should reflect that. I do not consider myself primarily Russian, so putting Icelandic (my only passport is Icelandic) first would more accurately reflect my nationality. My family did not move to Meggen in 1978, but to Luzern. We only moved to Meggen in 1989. I subsequently moved back to Luzern in 1992, then to Neuchâtel in 1997, to Corcelles in 2000, back to Luzern in 2003, and finally to Basel in 2012. To state that I moved to Meggen in 1978 and have lived there since is inaccurate. I did not join the Conservatory of Luzern in 1989 - I entered it. It is not a club, it is a school. Finally, I performed with my father with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, not at it. We performed at the Sydney Opera House. Thank you for your help, and best wishes, Dimitri Ashkenazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimclarinet (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“No improvement?” Really? I deliberated over a lot of different ways to structure/phrase it, but you do know a # symbol is essentially meaningless to anybody who doesn’t know HTML, right? —Wiki Wikardo 00:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM:
MOS:LINK2SECT
Chopin
Hi TQ - as you will see, this page has now been semi-protected at my request, which should stop the IP editor carrying out his edit war. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that; the protection is most welcome. Did you receive my message, by the way? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't receive it, I'm afraid. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't e-mail it to you, I used one of the Internet's most visited sites to send it. You should be able to find it there. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of Chess
Please discuss your revert to my edits on the talk page, I raised some points there, thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the feedback, I wasn't too sure what constituted a minor edit!Mfrm123 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toccata, can I solicit your advice (you're pretty good with article names) ... What title would you say is best for the Fischer–Spassky 1992 rematch? (I suppose that itself is an option!? I'd like to minimize need for rename later after throwing up a basic article containing the games.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UCN covers this. Since the event is generally not considered a World Chess Championship, the names "Fischer–Spassky, 1992" and "Fischer–Spassky (1992 match)" seem fine to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
Hi Toccata, it's my understanding that refs are still needed in Lists articles. (I know it seems redundant, but one explanation given to me was, if a subset of WP articles is ever printed for resale, all the articles referenced in the List article might not get printed in the same volume so the List items would lack references then. I must admit that seems like a lot of work to me and I doubt editors would ever complete that kind of effort, so even though duplicate referencing might be technically correct policy it seems a hard idea to get behind.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually unaware of
WP:LISTN, and thought that the references were there to support the inclusion of the links in the list, rather than the list's existence. Thus I don't mind the state of affairs. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That confuses me. It's my understanding each item in the list needs a reference (even though there is a corresponding WP article). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In most lists it seems that requirement is more honored in the breach than the observance, but I believe that is correct. It is my understanding that lists have the same
WP:V requirements that regular articles have. The ugly appearance of list of chess grandmasters is partially due to a (in my view somewhat faulty) application of that requirement. Quale (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for that explain. (Made me laugh, too!: more honored in the breach.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Köchel edit
Wanted to let you know that the "–" added to between the dates of "July and August" in K. 167a, and 167b should still be an "and", as this is listed in the NMA. Thanks for the other edits, though, as I was not aware there was an "MOS". If you still believe it should be "–", please explain, as this is, from what I have read on the MOS page, is correct. I could be wrong, though, so please do correct me if I am. Thanks --ZSNES (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DATESNO covers this. Which part of the MoS are you referring to? Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This is what I was referring to, as the pieces were supposedly written/completed on both July, and August, not July through August. Regards, --ZSNES (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are distinct dates in the months where WAM worked on the compositions, as opposed to a time range covering the work, I think using "and" in the
My goal is to convey the dates as accurately as possible, the problem is some of the works composed by W.A. Mozart do not have precise dates, only estimates, this is why a few are only given a date range in a specific season. If there is a way that I could give an accurate date range, without using season names, please tell me, as I do not wish to be perceived as arrogant with said terms for the seasons. Regards, --ZSNES (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Czechia
Do you understand the difference between the geographical name and the political name? If not, look here, how awfully are political names used in the wrong context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Czechia is an official English geographical name of the Czech Republic. Czechia was in English first used in 1866. If You have any problem with th word Czechia, please write it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frédéric Chopin
I would like to know how you can consider Chopin Polish and not French-Polish while Chopin held french citizenship ?
It seems quite silly to consider Stravinsky and Offenbach French, or Händel British, but Chopin only Polish and not French-Polish ! --
"Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident..."
The Napoleonic Code of 1804 said "is French a child born from a French father" so even although he was born in Poland he was still French. Furthermore, he held a French passport since the 1st August 1835.
Thus by applying
WP:OPENPARA
, his French nationality must be quoted.
--
talk
) 18:46, 21 September 2013 (CEST)
Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge
Hello, Toccata quarta! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!
Comparison of top chess players throughout history
I don't want to start an edit war with you, and I will not touch that article again, but my discussions with the new user have led me to the conclusion that I can't stop him from adding his own table any more than I can justify including yours. If you insist on keeping both tables without any justification as to why they are encyclopedic content and necessary for the article (and one of them still requires citations, and any editor has the right to remove uncited material), I can't stop him from adding his own. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Martinů
I notice you've deleted bohuslav Martinu as among the greatest of Czech composers. I can only assume that either you've not heard much Martinu or have have poor taste in music to believe Smetana to be a great composer ! Never mind, Wikipedia is not the fount of all knowledge whatsoever and a general consensus among those who do know something about music invariably concur Martinu is a great Czech composer, i suggest you listen to some of his music sometime !Norwikian (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of any particular claim in Wikipedia depends on whether or not it is verifiable; see
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwyn Pritchard until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Notification added on behalf of the editor who nominated the file for deletion, which was not me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have recommended on the AFD page that it be speedily deleted as a copyright violation in 24 hours unless it is re-written as an acceptable, copyright-free, article which uses
reliable sources to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I also summarily removed all obvious copyright violations from the primary source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borislav Ivanov until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Frédéric Chopin".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 13:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edits on Gary Kasparov Article
Hey, I'm sorry I reverted your edits on the Garry Kasparov Article; I was acting rather hastily and I didn't intend to revert the edits back to my own. I'm working to add some new information to this page and I see that you have a history of edits related to his bio. Should I run some future edits by you? I found a few more sources related to his career.
WP:BB covers the rest of the issue, but if you want feedback on something then I'll gladly provide you with it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello,
I wanted to run some material by you that I am interested in adding to Mr. Kasparov's biography if thats ok? The politics section fails to mention that Mr. Kasparov was elected as Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation in early 2012, after the passing of Vaclav Havel in December of 2011. I propose adding the following sentence and reference to the third-to-last paragraph of the Poltics section. The paragraph would read like this:
Kasparov was named Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation in 2011, succeeding the recently deceased author, activist, and former Czech president Vaclav Havel.[67] On 31 January 2012, Kasparov hosted a meeting of opposition leaders planning a mass march on 4 February 2012, the third major opposition rally held since the disputed State Duma elections of December 2011. Among other opposition leaders attending were Alexey Navalny and Yevgenia Chirikova.
I have made two more additions to the Garry Kasparov article that I thought you might be interested in:
Kasparov wrote in February 2013 that “fascism has come to Russia....Project Putin, just like the old Project Hitler, is but the fruit of a conspiracy by the ruling elite. Fascist rule was never the result of the free will of the people. It was always the fruit of a conspiracy by the ruling elites!”
In April 2013, Kasparov joined in an HRF condemnation of Kanye West for having performed for the leader of Kazakhstan in exchange for a $3 million paycheck, saying that West “has entertained a brutal killer and his entourage” and that his fee “came from the loot stolen from the Kazakhstan treasury.”
I have found a good deal of sources relating to his recent work with the HRF and would like to continue adding them to his biography, do you think that would be ok? Best, Comatmebro~Come at me~ 07:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I do not see anything wrong with it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again!
I have added another paragraph to Gary Kasparov's page and I wanted to see if you had any feedback for me. The paragraph covers Kasparov's commentary on the cooperation (or lack thereof) of Putin and the FSB after the Boston bombings. The new paragraph reads as follows:
In a May 12, 2013, op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Kasparov questioned reports that the Russian security agency, the FSB, had fully cooperated with the FBI in the matter of the Boston bombers. He noted that the elder bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had reportedly met in Russia with two known jihadists who “were killed in Dagestan by the Russian military just days before Tamerlan left Russia for the U.S.” Kasparov argued that “If no intelligence was sent from Moscow to Washington” about this meeting, “all this talk of FSB cooperation cannot be taken seriously.” He further observed that “This would not be the first time Russian security forces seemed strangely impotent in the face of an impending terror attack,” pointing out that in both the 2002 Moscow theater siege and the 2004 Beslan school attack, “there were FSB informants in both terror groups—yet the attacks went ahead unimpeded.” Given this history, he wrote, “it is impossible to overlook that the Boston bombing took place just days after the U.S. Magnitsky List was published, creating the first serious external threat to the Putin power structure by penalizing Russian officials complicit in human-rights crimes.” In sum, Putin's “dubious record on counterterrorism and its continued support of terror sponsors Iran and Syria mean only one thing: common ground zero.”
Kasparov on the Anand-Carlsen Chess Match
Kasparov recently commented on what is being called, "the most anticipated chess match in decades" on Business Insider. The match is between Viswanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen, two of the highest ranking chess players in the world. Here is what Kasparov had to say about the match:
Anand is a fantastic chessplayer who brings honor to the sport and to his nation with his skill and his boundless good nature. If he wins this match his high place on chess Olympus is assured. I am predicting a Carlsen victory because of his talent, his results, and the tides of chess history. I am rooting for a Carlsen victory because a new generation deserves a new champion. Most of all, I am hoping for big games, a hard fight, and a great boost for chess around the world as a legend and a legend in the making do battle in Chennai.
Would it be ok to add this to Kasparov's bio? He is cited in the article as "probably the most famous chess player of all time."Comatmebro~Come at me~ 22:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on my paragraph that you reverted tonight. I wrote on your talk page and on the Garry Kasparov talk page what I was interested in adding a week ago. Had you have told me "no you cannot add this" I would not have added it. I will keep an eye out for his post-chess-match comments and let you know what I find. I still have a few other sources I am interested in adding, and I will be sure to run them by you before adding them to the page. Best, Comatmebro~Come at me~ 07:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting addition of piano piece to List of longest non-repetitive piano pieces
Hi,
I notice your quick reverting of my addition. I'm not sure I understand why. At two hour it one of the shortest pieces on the list but I thought that the spirit of this article is to list unusually long piano pieces and two hours is longer than most pieces I know.
Should more specific parameters be listed? Can we discuss this?
Canticle (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no criteria on how long the pieces included in that list should be. I wouldn't mind input from members of
--Dtoub (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stop reverting Canticle's edit. There is a two-hour work by Sorabji listed on this page. It seems a bit incongruous to then disallow a 2 hour, 8 minute work of mine.[reply]
By your own admission, you have a
WP:COI
.
You may have noticed that when you are reverting an edit, you get the message "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."
Sorabji's Symphonic Nocturne for Piano Alone is included there because it is a single-movement piece lasting two hours. Not many, if any movements in piano works are that long. Obviously it could be deleted, along with your work. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grosse Fuge (Beethoven) edit revert
Could you please explain me why you reverted my additions from Nov 3rd to the reception section?
I wrote in the edit comment Citation following soon. I edited late in the evening, and had no time to add the sources, since, as you may imagine, some people have to go to work the other morning.
I also won´t support your edit comment too much WP:OR
The reception section is not adequate to the opus imho, since the citation from "Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung" is out of context somehow, for it, besides calling the piece "chinese", also pays some respect to it and admits it possibly being easier to understand any time in the future.
Big part ("Reception") of the section only relies to de Marliave, and thus makes it somehow unbalanced or biased.
Reception of the Fugue is wider and should not be limited to only a single point of view. I just tried to spread the angle a bit wider.
For example the view of the first musicians (Schuppanzigh Quartett) to perform it.
I cant find any OR in that. Neither do I find the information is too much for such an important late opus of B.--46.115.33.218 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I was fairly careless when reverting your edit. I just saw a big edit without references, and decided to revert it after seeing the sentence "These difficulties may not have made reception easier.", which is
WP:OR. Feel free to restore your text in the article, although I might tweak its wording a little bit. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Overlinking
I share your dislike of the linking of words so basic they add nothing. In particular, for JS Bach, a link to Germany (or German people or whateveritwas) will probably tell you less about where he lived (etc) than the Bach article itself. Particularly as the modern German state is only distantly related to the mishmash of protectorates and whathaveyou of Bach's time. However, it does seem illogical to have: "German composer,
violinist", where all but one of his occupations are linked. I think either all should be linked or none... no? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
War Requiem thanks
determining/decided -> deciding/chose - better! David Brooks (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hello
Just so I know you know my view on it, I don't think with spacing (1. e4 c5) and without spacing (1.e4 c5) in the same article is inconsistent. I see it as "method". (When bold, space; when not bold, don't space. [Why? No space after dot is what's prevalent on the Wiki {that was weird to me actually, but I've adjusted to it}, and it *does* save on horizontal space in a full block of game score. But for me that doesn't work when the moves are in bold. {Too crowded, jammed, and hard to read then.} I know my own view is probably unique, and means more maintenance. I would just say always have space for total consistency, but again that's not how most articles are.]) But I know there isn't any accepted convention on same.
On another matter (personal), how do you avoid burn-out? You're a medicine the encyclopedia needs. (I see you dealing w/ a lot of crap rather consistently, and don't believe I could last it. Is there a pill for that?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't find it too crowded, although that might have changed had I spent more time looking at it.
As for dealing with tedious editors ... in the past, I occasionally behaved less civilly than I do nowadays. Ultimately I concluded that it's better to reduce the heat in a discussion, since that's what furthers Wikipedia's growth.
WP:DENY can be applied not only to obvious vandals and trolls. Feeding edit warriors and POV-pushers is sometimes comparable to feeding a vandal; you end up looking bad, and the other editor becomes even more vicious. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
Stop your contentious editing. As I have made clear, references are NOT included with headings. This should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did not make anything clear, as you made no reference to any relevant Wikipedia policy/guideline (or even an essay). Neither
forbid references in headings, as far as I can see.
But then again, you did put a redundant period at the end of the heading of this section, so you are surely an authority on such matters, aren't you? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious formatting reason why references are not included in headings is that the reference numbers are then included in the headings in content boxes. Your petty personal remarks are best ignored. Afterwriting (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"An obvious formatting reason"—so you admit there's no Wikipedia policy/guideline backing you on this.
MOS: where it is stated that "Citations should not be placed within or on the same line as section and subsection headings." Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the detailed reply. I didn't find that part, since I did a CTRL+F search only for "ref". Toccata quarta (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chopin's nationality
What primary source? You think I talked to Chopin personally? Ravpapa (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
personal attack and has no place in wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you please provide evidence that my post constitutes a personal attack (and please also provide a definition of a "personal attack"), rather than a critique of your behaviour? It is interesting that you went out of your way to violate
WP:TPO and remove an alleged personal attack, even though you had previously called me "anal" ([37]). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.
Hello Toccata quarta. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Namah, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Invalid CSD criterion. You are extrapolating from A7, which does not apply to musical recordings, and A9 does not apply because the artist has an article. Take to AfD. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typo
thanks for that,made it on a few others, I'll get onto correcting them all. Waacstats (talk)
Rapidly changing the subject (ahem...), I don't know whether I can enlist your interest (or that of any of your chess stalkers) in this. It seems to me that some rather tenuous historical claims are being given undue weight here based on a likely oops. Although I've tried to nuance the writing somewhat, I'm not too sure on the next move. 86.173.45.97 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Kislik (chess player) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page
.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
IM tournament in October 2008<ref>http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_report.phtml?event16=15486&t=0)</ref> and April 2009.<ref>http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_report.phtml?event16=16468&t=0)</ref> He also won the Caissa GM tournament in February 2012<ref>http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_
Thank you for your note regarding the sourcing of information relating to living persons. I actually acquired this information from the Portuguese version of Wikipedia regarding the same person, which was also unsourced. In the circumstances, I thought it best to leave the amendment unsourced too, rather than paste a link to the Portuguese version.
If you still consider that an alternative source is necessary, I will do my best to locate one.
You seem to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia matters and I need some advise. I am thinking of deleting paragraphs 2-4 in the Career section ... is that a good idea? As it is now these paragraphs seem to describe a small and not fantastically interesting fraction of Nina's busy career. Less is more sometimes. Andersneld (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline or policy for writing about the careers of musicians, and I agree that the risk of
Hi again, in the Nina Stemme article I recently added a table in the Repertoire section, where I included the info I was certain of but left many cells blank, hoping that others might be able to fill in the blanks. So far that has not happened. What should I do about this, just leave it as it is or try to enlist help? If so, how? Andersneld (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mentioned the Opera WikiProject previously. Just leave a message at
WT:OPERA, and interested editors will take note of your request. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Kuczer's logo
Tocatta, I can not exactly follow the rules you suggested for the changing of the placement of the logo/signature in the article about Bernardo Mario Kuczer. I read that the "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." What I have understood from Kuczer is that this logo/signature has become a very important part of his Identity, in general and is present in everything he does. He explained, in a mail, that, for him, today, his logo is even more representative than his photograph. I think this is a good reason to make it visible at top, and to put it where it had been till now, also, accepted by all other contributors (like Jerry, etc). You seemed to be very experienced, and I would like to respect that, but I think this is a good case in which the exceptions part of "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions" should be considered and be applied. I would therefore ask you kindly , if you could restore the signature to its previous position. Thanks and greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammero (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mozart's nationality
Thanks for spotting my unintentional edit to this article and fixing it. Opus33 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen. Some statements will always be opinions. "Nomen Nescio called Maria Callas the 'greatest operatic singer of the 20th century'" is not synonymous with "Maria Callas was the greatest operatic singer of the 20th century". Besides, the article isn't about Leontyne Price, and her reception by music critics should be covered in the article on her. However, if you insist on adding an assessment of Price's operatic skills into the other article, use something like "critically acclaimed", which is factual and more concrete than a vague word like "legendary". Toccata quarta (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly your only interest is in being disruptive. Not only have you consistently reverted to a version that is factually incorrect, e.g. Price is not just an American soprano, but an international one; but you appear ignorant of the very policy you keep touting. You have also removed several reliable sources! Apparently you have also not actually read
WP:PEA, which simply requires attribution. Instead you have arbitrarily tried to enforce your own POV then arrogantly and uncivilly accused me of POV, despite the fact that only I - not you - had posted reliable sources. Plus you post false not to mention hypocritical 3RR warnings on my talk page? Enough of your trolling nonsense. You are being reported. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Reference Errors on 13 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Happy to let bygones be bygones MaxBrowne (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of longest piano pieces
OK, I'm not understanding why the addition of David Toub's piano work was deleted. Do we in fact have criteria for this article or is the decision subjective? I don't want an editing war but I think I am making reasonable assertions here and am well within wikipedia guidelines.
Please advise.Canticle (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, your edit is too selective. Let me give an example:
This is a list of the longest symphonies ever composed.
Composer 1, Symphony No. 1, 4 hours
Composer 2, Symphony No. 1, 4 hours
Composer 3, Symphony No. 1, 3 hours
Composer 4, Symphony No. 1, 5 minutes
Admittedly my example is extreme, but it makes sense. If you insist on adding that piece to the list, you should also include works longer than Toub's piece (such as Andrew Violette's Piano Sonata No. 7). Toccata quarta (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tochnaquart
Does the above user generate confusion with you? George8211 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, and it certainly doesn't appear to be an attempt at impersonation. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a user of Wikipedia from the Italian one. I see you are interested in classical music like me. Today I've just wrote a big analysis of the Opus Clavicembalisticum, an half-forgotten piece, in the Italian Wiki. If the Rollbackers don't cancel it, do you want to translate it in English? It can be useful. 2.39.44.113 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the English Wikipedia
cannot accept original research, so any content added would have to be based on what has already been published about the piece. That being said, if you have an interest in Sorabji research, you may like to join the Sorabji Forum (which numbers Sorabji scholars and performers among its members) and share your findings there. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't panic: I have used some Internet sites that you can find in the end of the page. Nothing is invented and there is no violation of copyright. A very good analysis is on Scribd.com 2.39.44.113 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chopin
Happy New Year, and all that! Many thanks for your consistent care with the Chopin article. I think it could be close to putting up for GA now - what do you think? Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have a happy new year too! :-) The article looks much better than it did just a few months ago, and I think it is close to GA quality. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Old move
Hey Toccata quarta. Per your revert edit summary, where did you see an error notice? Note that if you're talking about the error message in the template itself, it's supposed to display there, since it's not on a talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the error message that I referred to. I will revert my edit now that I know better. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Basically, if it's not clear, that code will only show that error message on a page if the template is placed and it's not a talk page. It is confusing that the template (and this is not the only one) will display the error message in the template itself, but I don't know of any workaround for that. The point of the code I added is so that the template doesn't say "On DATE it was proposed that this article be moved..." when it is placed on the talk page of templates, files, Wikipedia project pages and so on. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Marian Dawkins
Why are you tidying up entries written by a disruptive troll on Talk:Marian Dawkins? Are you trying to give them an air of respectability? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I have no dog in whatever fight is going on there. I did a little bit of talk-page cleanup; that's all there is to my edit there. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel Short
Hello, thank you for your recent correction to this article. Is it possible you can update two tournament results in the international team section please?
Short's results at the previous two European Team Chess Championships are as follows:
Porto Carras 2011, Board 2, 3/7
Warsaw 2013, Board 3, 4.5/7
I look forward to working alongside you on further chess articles. Best, Kaygrub (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original research
Toccata quarta, I do not understand your message to me about "private research" not being allowed.
(1) I made some simple calculations and added a comment to a Wiki about Water Waves and those seem have been accepted .. at least they are still there.
(2) I once corrected a wedding date of my friend Vic Schoen, and that is still there.
(3) Now I have added some personal knowledge about Vic and you tell me that is NOT accpted.
Apparently, if I had published my remarks about Vic somewhere else I could have posted that on Wikipedia and given a reference.
"An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. In particular, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, the following are not usually linked:"
It states that one should not link: "everyday words understood by most readers in context;, the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations; and pre- and post-nominals;Common units of measurement, e.g. relating to area, length, temperature, time or volume (if both non-metric and metric equivalents are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), usually neither unit need be linked because almost all readers will understand at least one or the other unit);dates (see below)."
also avoiding pages that "redirect back to the page the link is on" except if it is a "redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article"
It also states that a link should generally appear once in the article
Since the see also only had a single link, the providing of that single link does not seem excessive. Therefore, your removal of
History of the Italian Americans in Philadelphia
does not seem to fit any of these reasons unless it has been already linked elsewhere in the article. If this is the case, please tell me where it's being linked from. If this is not the case, please restore the see also or provide another expalanation.
I don't have tons of time on my hands, but since you appear to be struggling with this, let me give you an explanation:
WP:LINK
says, among other things, the following:
In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the knowledge tree. Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles [emphasis added]. Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"
So, how is Lanza relevant to the history of Italian Americans in Philadelphia? The fact that he was one of them doesn't justify the inclusion of that link in the article. For example, the article Ludwig van Beethoven does not link to either History of Germany or Germans, and its lead does not wikilink the word "German".
Hence, please remove the barely relevant wikilink, or submit evidence that Lanza's ancestry is germane to the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BWV 102
I don't understand your changes. Part (music) covers too many things and is therefore misleading, the sections (German: Teile) of a larger composition here, the single voices or players there. A four-part choir is not necessarily SATB, but for Bach cantatas it is. Please adjust. The easiest is a revert. More complex: different links to different sections in the Part article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Hi Toccata,
You told me "You can add categories to an article just by editing it." Could you show me an example of this, and answer on my talk page (rleplin)? Thank you.
Rleplin (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toccata - you keep reverting my updates on the Music for Millions page, telling me I haven't cited or referenced, but you don't tell me WHAT I didn't cite or reference. Please enlighten me so I can correct this apparent fault. Your emails are very vague. Thanks. Zabadu (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the result of
WP:AN3#User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Zabadu (Result: Submitter warned). It seems you were not notified of the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Interested in commenting?
Hey, Toccata, would you care to comment on the use/nonuse of the Bar Refaeli photo in the Supermodel article (Talk:Supermodel#Photo use)? I hate when I start a talk section and it only ends up being me and the one editor I'm in a dispute with. If you care to, thanks! If not, don't sweat it. Mbinebritalk ← 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With Yefim Bronfman everything is OK: Template: Infobox musical artist.
But with pianist Andrei Hoteev was deleted from Toccata, and old infobox person
reset. My question - why?. I beg Andrej HoteevInfobox musical artist new install.
123Apropos— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Apropos (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Toccata. Why the revert? She looks to be fairly successful and well established. Pkeets (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link because at that time Wikipedia didn't have an article on her. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liszt Sonata for Cello
Dear Toccata quarta,
I noticed that you had changed some of my recent additions on 2 pages. Both pages were in fact requesting that there be some sort of citation needed to verify that what is stated is in fact true. And I was linking to the relevant web sites that prove what is written on this Wikipedia page is in fact true. I had not done very many citations before so if you find a better way to write it (I did some research on how to do it which includes what kind of information to include and I did what I thought was correct) please feel free to change it to a better format. I don't know about deleting it as it does in fact show information about what was written. Thanks for your kind consideration. All the best... Swanstone (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although references are indeed a vital component of Wikipedia, the ones that you added linked to commercial sites, and as such constituted spam. (For more details, see
WP:SPAM.) If you have links to non-commercial sites to support currently unsourced statements, feel free to add them to articles. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand now I think. Thanks for the help. All the best. Swanstone (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning up the page. I do try and get these things as right as I can before posting, but obviously a few things got through, especially in the post upload phase of editing. Graham1973 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hello there! I'm currently rewriting (read: trying to rewrite) Aram Khachaturian article and I have a few question I hope you can help me with. Is there a standard way of organizing articles of classic composers, especially those of Khachaturian's generation? If so, how much should I write about his works in the biography section? How do I organize the "Works" ("Music" in Shostakovich) section? Is there a GA or an FA of a modern classic composer that I can use as an example? As someone who is familiar with the field, do you consider Dmitri Shostakovich an exemplary article? Thanks in advance. --Երևանցիtalk 04:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These things can vary widely from one article to the next, and I'm not aware of any guideline on this. The article on Shostakovich, although a
WP:FA, contains many issues with citations and unsourced paragraphs, so I wouldn't use it as a model for other articles on composers. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah it seems a little outdated in terms of quality, that's why I asked specifically about it. Would you mind doing a quick review of Khachaturian's article when I'm done? I'm pretty sure I wont be able to make it a GA, because of lack of good, detailed sources online and lack of comprehensive published books in English on Khachaturian, but I do wanna make it a decent article. --Երևանցիtalk 17:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the editor a final warning. If they make another personal attack in the near future, they should be reported at ANI. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No more personal attacks in the last week, but the user has resumed their disruptive editing to
Well, I'm not an administrator, so you'll have to post at ANI, if you believe he should be blocked. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translations of titles
Ligeti: Idegen földön (Far from Home) (1945–46), for example. If the English is a title, it should be italic, if not, it should be "home", not "Home". (Compare Bach's cantatas and a related MoS discussion.) Thanks for your gnomish work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Toccata quarta, there are 2228 articles in this category, so why not my article, please ? Cote d'Azur 09:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Have you read
WP:OSE. Category:1989 operas is a subcategory of Category:Operas, so the latter is not necessary. For example, the article Ludwig van Beethoven contains the categories "18th-century composers", "Classical-period composers", "German classical composers", "Opera composers", "Romantic composers" and "Viennese composers", but does not contain the category "Composers". Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, Toccata quarta, that's not true. Please see the blue information box at the top of
WP:DUPCAT). If you have removed that category from articles on other individual operas, please restore it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Diana Ross intro
Just happened to check back on the Diana Ross page (I came across the article originally via the "random article" link), and saw the intro had been tagged as being inadequate. Any suggestions on what needs to be added? GRUcrule (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution would be to restore the lead that the article had before a well-meaning but misguided editor came along and made it overlong. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to edit the intro, then? I have no qualms about having an attempt I took at it reverted...I just don't want it to be left alone as it is/was because nobody else seemed to want to take the time to edit. I legitimately tried to summarize (my TV script writing experience of brevity-is-best appears to have been used too liberally here), but certainly welcome anyone to improve it. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
How do you know when it's appropriate to remove a category because this was the case in the past, but not any more?. George Washington is in a few categories such as American cartographers, and although this was the case in the past, I'm pretty sure he isn't a cartographer today. Quale (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you include the article in that category, since the event is not held every three years? The Washington issue is inconsequential, as that category does not imply that somebody was a cartographer for their whole life, let alone beyond it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond sooner. So the American cartographers category means that the members were at some point in their lives an American cartographer, but the Triennial events category is only for events that are currently held every three years? How do you know which categories describe a historical fact (was an American cartographer) and which ones describe news (currently triennial)? Sylvester Medal is an example of an event that was triennial for its first 108 years, but apparently now is biennial, although it isn't currently in the biennial events category. Perhaps an oversight, although both the biennial and triennial categories are very sparsely populated. Quale (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could create an RfC regarding this? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sentimiento latino (Juan Diego Flórez album)
restore
Considering that the title of the album uses "Latino" (and not "latino"), how do you justify your edit? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source from Gramophone Magazine in the footnote - a cover is not a print source. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you on my Talk page? because "Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)" has nothing to do with the Grammophone magazine. There are various guidelines relevant to caps but this isn't one. If I want to see further discussion I will check here. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on your talk page because I wanted to ask you a question; surely I'm not going to post on my own, talking to myself. You are claiming that Gramophone magazine (which is certainly a reliable source) should be used to determine whether or not the title of the page should have "latino" or "Latino", but then you dismiss
WP:UCN (which is based on the content of multiple reliable sources). What's up with that? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@In ictu oculi: do you realise that you have failed to make reference to a single Wikipedia policy or guideline, on top of claiming that Wikipedia's policy on article titles is not relevant to their use of capital letters? I don't mind being proven wrong, but I do object to not being shown any evidence. What are you trying to achieve? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:NCM, La bohèmeCategory:Mélodies. For classical composition titles we follow the native capitalization, as does Gramophone, as does Grove. However this is an album - with 2 covers 2 capitalizations - I have moved it to L. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
(
WP:NCM would be a complete a miss-application here. See also the use of upper case "L" in the 2009 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year[39]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Be Specific
In one of your recent comments you criticised an edit without citing the edit in question or even the article. Please be specific in future comments. Being specific is the difference between providing constructive criticism and useless pronouncements.
BTW, I've only modified a couple of articles in the last month or so, one fixed a broken table and the other added content. If you were a little more specific or had a clearer definition of "recent" then I might even pay attention. Until then, however, I'll just settle for saying, thanks ... bye. --BenM (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Puffery
Hi Toccata quarta,
Thanks for your recent edit on
WP:PEACOCK creeps through on the articles of people you look up to. Thanks for pointing it out. Can you also look at Viktor Kosenko, another article I had been working on a while back? I would like to possibly take it to GA as well.--BoguSlav 04:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added the page to my watchlist, and I hope I will find time to go through it. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Karjakin/Karyakin
Reverting is not a problem - it's the inconsistency in transliteration. I gave examples in the edit summary. If Рязань and Брянск are transliterated as Ryazan and Bryansk, which is correct, then Карякін/Карякин must be Karyakin. The letter я stands for the same phoneme in all three examples (phoneme ya, like in yard), so it should be transliterated in the same way. It has nothing to do with the sources - it's a phonetics issue (I am a language professor and any person who knows this subject would tell you the same). Karjakin would be correct if the original form was Карджaкин, which is not the case (дж stands for English J in Jack). But OK, I respect. Could you pass this explanation to the community at least? They don't have to change anything, just to see this. And thank you in any case. -- KWiki (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback is for vandals
Hello. Yesterday, someone with IP 50.55.247.210 came to #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel and asked how to remove the refimprove tag. I told them to just delete the line if they thought it was fixed. See their earlier edits with a similar IP. I do not think rollback is a nice thing to do to new users who just want to help out. Maybe undo if you think it is not resolved. I respect your work on Wikipedia and understand how you might think this was a vandal, but it was a good faith user. Kind regards, πr2 (t • c) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with "AGF" is that, in theory, any edit can be viewed as a test edit. It seems to me that going out of one's way to find out about an editor's background defeats the point of the rollback tool, which is to remove vandalism with a single click. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification
I just won't be ce'ing any strict orthochess articles (for as long as Quale is here or is unreplaced, as explained why). (Of course I'd try my best to help out if needed or requested on any specific article no matter, out of respect for you as editor etc. [just ask -- no problemo].) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I understand (and appreciate your offer to help). That being said, I nevertheless hope that one day you will reconsider your decision. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tocccata. (You're a scholar and a gentleman. And I'm totally amazed at your proficiency in English -- not your first language. And in your consistent and professional edits. [I trust for chessproject, you never get burned out or turned off.]) I really wanted to expand the Fischer-Spassky 1992 article (analysis, background), and totally try my hand at extensively expanding biography Carlos Torre Repetto (which would have been totally fun, and even FA potential because I think a very interesting story-tale re his life). Anyway I've had to make arbitrary decision to cut my participation to save my motivation here; thx again for understanding. Change of subject: What has happened to WC chess? (I mean, the World Chess Championship 1972 was riveting not only the politics but the games themselves and the clash of ideas -- e.g. Poison Pawn. Now we have Magnus, who is capable of Mozartian chess, eking out wins in rook-and-pawn endings based on Anand errors ... technical wins, not a lot of imagination in the middlegames. Something unfortunate seems to have happened. Maybe he's just a positional/pragmatic player like Karpov. That won't exactly usher in a new era of chess popularity. [What do you think of Chess960?]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carlsen does have a very "quiet" style of play and likes to enter endgames, as there he often outplays his opponents. I don't have much experience with Chess960, but I find the elimination of opening theory a breath of fresh air (I'm a rather serious chess player, and find the study of openings exhausting and frustrating much of the time). Toccata quarta (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your suggestions, Emilio (Italy) Epessina (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mikhaïl Nossyrev
Greetings. If you do not like the proportion of linkage in the article when compared to its text, might I recommend adding more text to it, instead of reverting it to a state where it was tagged as a dead end? Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I would certainly back any process to take this article to FAR, as I've noted here. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior
Yes
WP:DATERET the articles first date insertion was MDY. Your change exactly a year ago with was uncalled for. I suggest you revert yourself or this will be reported. Articles need to adhere to the MOS and clearly the current version does not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello, and thank you for your concern. You appear to believe that "national ties" is synonymous with "
It's the same as a film made in the United States or as any other company that sells its products worldwide wide. It's about where the company is based and where the film was made. Same goes for this article since Youtube is an American based company. Then there is
WP:DATERET. The articles first date format was MDY, then you changed it with the cryptic edit summery or "Cleanup". The article should retain its original date format. Is there a reason why you changed it and why you feel that the article should be DMY over MDY? I'm not saying I agree with your logic, but by going by your logic alone, since Youtube has videos from all over the world, it would seem that MDY is just as acceptable as DMY. Why DMY over MDY?JOJHutton 11:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Many months ago I wasn't as knowledgeable about Wikipedia as I'm today; for instance, I mistakenly believed that en dashes should be replaced with "[ampersand]ndash;". Eventually I acquired a more thorough knowledge of the MoS and developed various editorial preferences. But that was a long time ago, and I must say I'm puzzled by your reference to the article's "original date format", as it used DMY when I created it. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been determined through discussion after discussion and long term consensus that date formats and spellings are attributed to the home country of the subject. This includes all pages related to the subject as well. It does not matter if the companies products are sold overseas, if a bands songs are sold in other countries, or if a website is viewed by people in other countries. This is backed up by the guidelines. Also a date inserted into the citations is not usually evidence of an "inserted date" the original date is the first date that is inserted into the body of the article. In this case it seems to have been MDY. You need to answer as to why you think that this article should use DMY over MDY, as you haven't given a reason yet. JOJHutton 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
chess
I saw that you edited many times Magnus Carlsen. If you are interested in chess, maybe try the demo that prepared.
I attach the games of the World Chess Championship 2012. In the English wikipedia you had to write the games down, add diagrams and so on, on the Hebrew wikipedia there is a fantastic tool that was developped two years ago - have a look at the demo: HE:משתמש:Yoavd/chessdemo.
I am interested in your view. You can scroll down all the games, then the fast games.
--Yoavd (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precious anniversary
music and chess
Thank you for your tireless work on the maintenance of composers' and chess lists and articles, and facts about composers known and less known, such as Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, - you are an Gerda Arendtawesome Wikipedian!
Four years ago, you were recipient no. 283 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - Would you know more about Hyo-Won Woo? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Five years now! - Today, it's Der Messias. What do you think about the English one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message (and nice to see you still around!). :) The English-language article looks OK-ish, but I'm inclined to say it needs more content (and especially references). Best regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My Wikipedia editing has fallen by the wayside for a couple years, but there remain things that I would like to do and, with a bit of luck, I may find the time and motivation to complete those. If they materialize, I hope to see you around by then. :) --Toccata quarta (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to relay that Cumberbatch and Hunter have been seeing each other since late 2013 contrary to "early 2014" which the Daily Mail and other rags are reporting and is currently indicated in his personal life section.
NOTE: I know the Daily Mail is not reliable source that's the very reason why the info should be amended because that "until early 2014" was actually information from them. The scans are from People magazine where it says they got together late last year and have been together for a year now before getting engaged. He was even featured on the cover in this week's issue: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/news/141208/cosby-cover-768.jpg. One can always reference a print article here and in this case scans of the interview are available to prove it. That's already two non-tabloid publications referencing the "late 2013" timeline.
Thank you for improving both Hunter's and Cumberbatch's profiles! 31.223.159.213 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed your great influence on fashion sections and would like you opinion of how to go about the prevention of the instantnous destuction of links by other Wiki users regarding
external links to a extremely relevant source website.
The site I have linked to, of which I have no affiliation, has the most complete fashion archive of images and current relevant material in relation to many of the model articals on WikiPedia;
In good faith I believe these links are extremely relevant, but would like to get your option regarding the introduction of this site into external links on existing articles before spinning my wheels any further.
For the purpose of encyclopedic resource to imagery pertaining to a person in a article on Wiki, the link is invaluable as it presents a clear unbiased collection of published work larger and better than anything I've seen to date.
Please, Let me know what you think.
173.2.38.85 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of getting a bit spammy myself (having posted similar messages to the user talk pages of this IP editor and [User:Mbinebri], since I don't know where you'll be checking for replies), I suggest you contribute some cited text - especially since you say that some of these articles have factual errors - using this website as your reference. If it is so useful, use it. And do check User_talk:Mbinebri#External_Adriana_Lima_Link for his reply. Apparently, the reliability of the source is challenged by the fact that some of it is cut-and-paste from Wikipedia. In that case, whatever you write, write it referencing the highest-quality sources you can find, which might not be this one. Write it from upstream, using wherever this website steals from. If you're honestly trying to help, I wish you the best. --Anon423 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been particularly active here during the last few months, so it would be nice to mention what is the website that you are talking about. Naturally, if a source copies Wikipedia on a large scale, then its value is dubious. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.michaelfinnissy.info/works/orchestra.php, http://www.michaelfinnissy.info/works/chamber.php, and http://www.michaelfinnissy.info/works/solo_piano.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing
.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Smerus (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom Elections 2016
: Voting now open!
Hello, Toccata quarta. 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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed YouTube videos 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. — Berean Hunter(talk) 15:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beethoven
Hi Toccata Quarta. You seem to be a very educated Wikipedia editor with interest in classical music. Please, if possible, join us in the Wikipedia talkpage for Beethoven, especially in the last discussion opened there titled "Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources". We just discuss whether it is appropriate to include in the lede that Beethoeven is one of the greatest and most influential classical composers.
Because we are only 4 editors (with admittedly quite different opinions), it is becoming so difficult to reach a consensus. Your opinion on the talk page would be really helpful and appreaciated. Best, James343e (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sorabji
Thank you for the message. I was also curious as to whether or not I would include Sorabji in the modernist composers template, seeing how he never really used labels like that to describe his music.
But I came to this conclusion after researching a bit on modernism and comparing him to other modernist composers. His intentions, as murky as they may be, were to more or less create music that utilized his own sets of rules and guidelines, unknown to the music world at the time. I would relate this to other modernist composers like Arnold Schoenberg and Olivier Messiaen, who invented new tools like the twelve-tone matrix and modes of limited transposition, respectively. As well as the time frame in music history, though that obviously wouldn't have much to do with his compositional style.
Thank you for the reply. When it comes to the inclusion of information on Wikipedia, some of the core policies to be followed are those of
reliable sources
. You can review these links if you want (and have not yet done so), but in short, any information on Wikipedia that is not supported by sources deemed reliable can be challenged and removed. I will admit that I've been a bit frustrated by the lack of a suitable label for Sorabji's music. It can be difficult to discuss music (or any concept) without an overarching label and I believe this has been a factor in the rather slow dissemination of it. Even the scholarly literature is very reticent to put a label on Sorabji's style, which leaves him hanging in the middle of nowhere. One 1922 review of a concert featuring Sorabji's music stated that Schoenberg must be "a tame reactionary" compared to him, and Louis Saguer, speaking at Darmstadt in 1949, included Sorabji among the avant-garde of the day that few will be able to understand.
I should perhaps mention that I intend to expand the article substantially in the coming weeks and will be adding these two quotes and other examples of how Sorabji anticipated techniques that appear in (much-)later works by Ligeti, Stockhausen and others, which would make the category easier to justify. But then, we would have to add "neoclassical", "neobaroque" and "postimpressionistic" on top of that, which is problematic in its own right. I guess I'll be pondering this for the next few days at least. Cheers. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE copyedit request
I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. Please expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. It seems the previous copyeditor did the same thing I do, so you'll probably be familiar with what will happen. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Thank you for taking up the copy edit of the article! I too have some questions that I would like to ask, but I will put off those until you are done with yours, as there may end up being some overlap between them. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Thank you for the work you've done on the article so far! I have a few comments and observations on the changes you made, and I have created responses to all the hidden notes you put in the article. Now that the "Music" section is next, I imagine this is where things could get thorny and a lot of checking may be needed, which I will be happy to help you with. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu: I have left further comments on the Sorabji talk page, but I believe I have yet to ping you over those. Would you prefer to always be pinged after the first edit made by me in reaction to your latest one? I often expand my comments during the day as ideas come to me, but I don't want to overload you with notifications. Thank you for the confirmation. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toccata quarta, since we appear to be doing this daily I think a ping can be optional, though I'll leave that to you. I'm slowly working down the list and answering to any replies you may have given me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu: Thank you for the confirmation. A daily schedule suits me as well, so as long as all flows smoothly, a ping may not be needed. But at the end of the day, it is a minor point. Cheers. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu: Thank you so much for all the work you've done on the article and your patience with my numerous inquiries. I suppose the second round has been completed. Do you expect to do a third copyedit? I have asked so many questions that that may not be needed, but it's up to you. I certainly did not expect the talk page thread to reach +161,000 bytes, even with the article sitting at +10,000 words... Toccata quarta (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toccata quarta, honestly, with your keen eye and the constant back-and-forth between us, I don't think it's necessary. If you don't think there's anything else to cover, can I consider the request to be fulfilled? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu: No objections from my end. Many thanks, then, for all your hard work on the article. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toccata quarta, alright then! Best of luck with the FA nomination. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
...for that -- took me a minute to figure out how on earth I had fat-fingered such a thing -- I was probably trying to type 'du' to find "dutch" in the search box but was actually on the edit screen. Oops. Antandrus(talk) 14:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome (and no worries!). As a WikiFaerie in denial (if the lack of any such label on my user page can be interpreted that way), there wouldn't be much left for me to do if no slip-ups ever took place. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schubert image
Hello Dear Toccata quarta,
Why did you change the image of Schubert from a perfect interpretation of a real image of him to a painting painted 50 years after his death? The Wilhelm August painting isn't even symmetric or even close to how he really looked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Ansari (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Edward Ansari, thank you for your message. I have created a discussion on the talk page of the Schubert article, where the issue may be discussed further and other editors may share their viewpoints. Best wishes, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generic titles
What do I not understand about generic names?
Choral Fantasy not generic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I allowed myself be guided first and foremost by the article itself, which capitalized all occurrences of the English version of the title (minus the title at the top of the page). I'll probably get in trouble if I try to formulate a definition that is bullet-proof, but I suppose "Choral Fantasy" is not generic because it is rarely used. That distinction appears key to me. Although
MOS:MUSIC says that "True titles are specific to a single work" (emphasis in original), things are not so simple in practice, else any title would become generic if someone else wrote a piece with the same name. Scheherazade (disambiguation)#Music comes to mind, though there must a better argument to illustrate the issue. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
Thank you! Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt: Thank you too for all your work here! The apples made me smile; coincidentally, I received a large bag of apples yesterday, and their outer colors were very close to those of the ones in the picture. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabji!
Wow. Taking on Sorabji is an intimidating task to say the least. I must congratulate you for all the work you've done thus far! I saw your request for an FAC mentor, unfortunately I don't think I have enough experience with the process (yet) or "perfection of prose" to help out there. However if you were to take this article to PR, do let me know and I'd be happy to help out. With Tim's abandonment of FAC and Brian's passing, composers appearing at FAC has become a rare sight – and other than Smerus's long-term plans for Beethoven I don't know of many others being worked on at the moment. I hope to take some early music composers there but that also seems like a long term thing as well – the point is, it would be lovely to see Sorabji at FAC in the times that seem to be stagnant for composer articles. Best - Aza24 (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24: Thank you for your message. As I mentioned a few days ago in another comment, I decided to skip the PR process after I saw quite a few articles languishing there with no feedback after more than a month. As you may see below, I have received some feedback on the article from Tim riley, and I would say the points raised suggest there is not (that) much left to prune. Maybe I'm wrong and I need to learn my lesson the hard way. :-) Let's see how things go over at FAC (and good luck with your plans for early music articles!). Best wishes, Toccata quarta (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes PR has been dwindling for a while, but actually there is a push that began just a week or two ago to reinvigorate it! Either way, I would agree that the article is in good enough shape without it – some comments and tweaks from the FAC itself would surely suffice. When you do take it to FAC, I will be sure to review it, Sorabji has always amazed me – and I supposed confused me just as often :) Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, and looking forward to meeting you there! Toccata quarta (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji
Comments as requested. Let me start by saying that I shouldn't have guessed that English is not your native tongue. The article is admirably written, in excellent and idiomatic English. But I have a few points you may like to consider.
First, a general one: the article is very long. I am in no position to carp, as I am partly responsible for the (I think) longest classical composer FA – Britten, @ 10,700 words – but when last I did the arithmetic the average length of a composer Life-and-Works FA was 7,084 words; Wagner weighed in at 8,359 and Mahler at 8,975. Reviewers at FAC may (or may not) feel that having almost 10,000 words on a relatively unknown composer is rather too much. For example, do we need 150 words on a blow-by-blow account of the argument with Newman, or another 150 words proving that the composer's mother was English, or quite so many words about his homosexuality?
The second point is your predilection for the false title. It is fine for tabloid newspapers and I know is widely accepted in American usage, but good writers of the Queen's English avoid it. And not only BrE writers: The New York Times's style guide covers the point admirably:
We try to avoid the unnatural journalistic mannerism of the "false title" – that is, using a description or job designation with someone's name as if it were a formal title. So we don't refer to "novelist Zadie Smith" or "cellist Yo-Yo Ma" … Do not make titles out of mere descriptions, as in harpsichordist Dale S. Yagyonak. If in doubt, try the "good morning" test. If it is not possible to imagine saying, "Good morning, Harpsichordist Yagyonak," the title is false.
The present version of the article is full of false titles, most of which can be fixed with the addition of a definite article. For instance, in a single paragraph: with composer and critic Peter Warlock … sent music critic Ernest Newman … met composer Ferruccio Busoni. Where you have two false titles together, I'd say a single "the" would suffice, as in "such as the pianist John Ogdon and organist Kevin Bowyer", but that's just my opinion.
Thirdly, "due to". In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. There are six "due to"s in the text, all of which, in my view, would be better as "because of". (N.b. that I am old, and some younger writers of BrE no longer take this view.)
Fourthly, monetary values: "equivalent to £5,096 in present-day terms" and suchlike are apt to be
WP:DATED
. Better to say "equivalent to £5,096 in 2020 terms" etc.
Fifthly, "significant" – the word occurs eight times in the text, not always – in my view – felicitously. If you can't answer the question "what does it signify?", you probably want another word, such as "important" or "major"
Some individual drafting points, in the order in which they crop up in the text:
"The first significant insight into Sorabji's life came" – I think I'd make the last word "comes".
"convinced him to avoid – this is fine in AmE, but in traditional BrE one doesn't convince to; one convinces of or that, thus "convinced him that he should".
"to premier his Toccata seconda" – "premiere", I think is wanted here.
"Sorabji was not drafted" – "draft" in this sense is AmE. Perhaps "conscripted"?
"he suggested he may abandon composition" – "might" rather than "may", I suggest.
"The papal connection of course was a particular favourite" – the
editorial
"of course" should go.
"Sorabji's otherness was two-fold" – the OED does not hyphenate "twofold".
"Around 60% of his known works" – I can't remember if the Manual of Style prescribes or merely recommends it, but in prose we usually write "per cent" rather than using the % symbol.
"and did not go to university" – I'd put "a" in front of "university, but others may disagree.
"fueling war" – "fuelling" in BrE
"but he regarded Organ Symphony No. 1" – should there be a definite article before "Organ"?
"are also some of his most prestigious" – unexpected and slightly odd seeming adjective. Perhaps "most highly regarded" or something like that?
"Sections titled "aria" and "punta d'organo" (the latter of which have been likened to "Le gibet" …" – I think "have" should be "has".
"the most atonal … of his works" – can there be degrees of atonality? Or do you mean the most consistently atonal? (In passing, the paragraph in which this occurs contains many more technical musical terms than you will find in most composer Life-and-Works articles, and may put some readers off. It is always tricky to get the right balance between accessibility and technical accuracy, I know.)
"Sorabji expressed disinterest" – no he didn't. It would be a pity to muddle the useful distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested". The first means "Not influenced by interest; impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced; … free from self-seeking" (OED) – a judge or referee should always be disinterested; the second is what Sorabji was here – unconcerned, not attracted by.
"Early accounts claim …" – "claim" twice in two sentences. Perhaps "According to early accounts…"?
"As a homosexual in a time when sodomy was illegal in England (and remained so until 1967)" – I don't want to get too technical about this, but (i) sodomy is not exclusively homosexual and (ii) until the 1967 Act any kind of male homosexual activity was illegal.
"Dmitri Shostakovich and Gabriel Fauré are among the composers" – it seems mildly strange to list the later composer before the first.
Those are all the comments I can offer. I hope at least some are useful to you, and I wish you the best of luck at FAC. Ping me if I can be of any further help. – Tim riley talk 11:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley: Many thanks for your comments! I will go through them, weigh them and make changes to the article based on my best judgment. Thank you also for your kind words on the article's prose. You probably won't be surprised to learn that I have had quite a few native speakers compliment me on my English, but it means a lot to me when coming from someone whose command of the language I admire. I suppose I should take this opportunity to say that the lead of the Edward Elgar article (which I believe is [mostly] your work) is one the smoothest flowing in all of Wikipedia (even compared to other FAs) and I would be proud to have my (user)name attached to it. Now, onto my replies:
Article length: You are right that the article is quite sizeable and I'm acutely aware of this. (There is also the GA Pierre Boulez, which, coincidentally, you reviewed back in 2018, when it stood at circa 13,500 words; since then, it has been trimmed to some 11,300 words. The Arthur Sullivan and Gilbert and Sullivan articles come close, but are nevertheless shorter than the Sorabji one.) There is definitely some irony to having such a long entry on a composer who led a largely secluded life and on whom limited biographical information is available (as the article itself mentions). On the other hand, Sorabji lived to be 96 and composed a truckload (at least 140 hours) of music, so its length is a bit more reasonable when seen in that light. Furthermore, we do not have articles like Beethoven and C minor in the case of Sorabji; a detailed discussion of his musical style is concentrated in one article. But I digress. Thank you for highlighting some of the passages that are overly detailed; I've had my eye on these (especially the first and last ones) for some time now and you have confirmed my hunch.
False titles: When the article was copy edited in 2013 (by an English editor), he pointed out that using a definite article in these cases was what I generally gravitated towards. My preference changed over the years and I decided to excise the definite articles in these cases, unaware of the whole concept and the AmE/BrE conventions surrounding it. I will look into various style guides and decide how to handle this. I suppose it is a bit like (not) using split infinitives: sticking to the orthodox approach can cause no harm and will avoid controversy.
"Due to": This is a new concept to me, so at least I must thank you for teaching me something new. :-) As with false titles, I will look into some style guides and decide what to do.
Monetary values: Noted. This text has been generated by {{Inflation}}, but its documentation suggests it can be altered. Templates aren't exactly my forte, but I'll see what I can do.
"Significant": I will look at these passages and change them as needed.
Individual drafting points: I will comment on some of these. As you surely appreciate, my intention is not to squabble, but just to offer you some background on why some passages are the way they are and to ask some questions. Following the aforementioned 2013 copyedit, a second one was done a few weeks ago by (I believe) a Canadian editor.
"The first significant insight into Sorabji's life came" – I think I'd make the last word "comes". That was previously in the text but was changed during the copy edit. Personally, I'm inclined to change it back.
"to premier his Toccata seconda" – "premiere", I think is wanted here. This was also changed during the copy edit and, to my surprise, Wiktionary:premiere and Wiktionary:premier suggest this usage is correct. (Alternatively, maybe the Wiktionary entries ought to be fixed.)
"The papal connection of course was a particular favourite" – the
editorial
"of course" should go. This is part of a quotation, but I suppose I can put an ellipsis there.
"Sorabji's otherness was two-fold" – the OED does not hyphenate "twofold". Noted. Is this also the case for "stand-alone" and "extra-sensory", two other hyphenated words that appear in the article?
"Sections titled "aria" and "punta d'organo" (the latter of which have been likened to "Le gibet" …" – I think "have" should be "has". Marc-André Roberge, who is referenced extensively in the article (and is Canadian), writes, "As suggested by Habermann, the sections (mistakenly) labelled "punta d'organo" can also be included..." (Opus sorabjianum, p. 23). Does BrE discourage such usage?
"the most atonal … of his works" – can there be degrees of atonality? Or do you mean the most consistently atonal? (In passing, the paragraph in which this occurs contains many more technical musical terms than you will find in most composer Life-and-Works articles, and may put some readers off. It is always tricky to get the right balance between accessibility and technical accuracy, I know.) Good point about the degrees of atonality; I will have to check the sources used. You are right that the section is a bit technical, though I've tried to avoid this by placing some of the content in notes. I will try to simplify the text further (unless the content of the notes was your main source of concern).
"As a homosexual in a time when sodomy was illegal in England (and remained so until 1967)" – I don't want to get too technical about this, but (i) sodomy is not exclusively homosexual and (ii) until the 1967 Act any kind of male homosexual activity was illegal. I find this comment somewhat confusing, but I will read up a bit on the history of the legislation and the terminology, so that I'm not spreading inaccuracies.
"Dmitri Shostakovich and Gabriel Fauré are among the composers" – it seems mildly strange to list the later composer before the first. This point never occurred to me, but I suppose it can do no harm to present them in chronological order.
A few questions: You wrote, "Ping me if I can be of any further help." Well, I have pinged you, so I would like to take this opportunity to ask you about a few matters I'm not sure about. Here is my list:
... in the October of that year he put Hinton I have always used a comma in expressions such as "In 1936, he...". However, the last copyedit resulted in the removal of a comma after "year" in the quoted passage. Is there some reason to treat this passage differently than the rest of the article?
... marked the beginning of what has been identified as his "late style", one characterised by thinner, less polyphonic textures, and greater use of extended harmonies Should there be a comma after "textures"? As you may seen in the article source (?), it says, "{{Use British English|date=January 2013}} <!-- without Oxford commas -->".
... [Sorabji] wore a ring that he said had belonged to a Sicilian cardinal and was allegedly supposed to go to the Pope upon his death Could "and was allegedly supposed to go to" be replaced with "and would go to"?
Chisholm apparently rebuffed him, possibly sometime around his marriage in 1932 Chisholm was married twice. Would it help to put "first marriage" in the text?
there have been many myths and legends about him Does something like "many myths and legends have circulated about him" work (or even improve the text)?
Sorabji often discarded large volumes of his letters Could "large volumes" simply be removed or does it impact the sentence meaning? Would something like "tended to discard his letters" work?
Thank you very much for your time and feedback. Best wishes, Toccata quarta (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I hope to set aside time tomorrow to address your questions thoroughly. See you then! Tim riley talk 21:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Profound apologies! I have not forgotten, and I hope to have time to reply properly today or tomorrow. Tim riley talk 14:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley: No worries! I have been rewriting the article these past few days, which has brought its word count below 9,600 words and means some of the topics raised above are no longer open (while other ones have emerged). Even so, I would be interested in your replies, if only to learn something new. (If you don't feel like revisiting the closed issues, I can strike out those bullet points.) The changes I have made since your initial comment can be seen here, though I might make further ones soon. As I've mentioned on your talk page, I have created Wikipedia:Peer review/Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/archive1, so we can continue our conversation there, if you feel so inclined. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! It now appears fitting that I submitted Sorabji for PR just a day before today's anniversary. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's on my to-do-list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt: thank you for the interesting links; I expect to spend a while exploring them in detail. I have just nominated the Sorabji article at FAC here and I would be grateful for any additional feedback on it that you may like to offer. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to the same as FA! - Did you see my little Beethoven frenzy? A composer changing to the dark side as you called it in 2015 by community consensus. - So Sorabji is in god company. TFA on his birthday, how is that? ... or better in 2022, for 120? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I'm so ecstatic I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight (though I'll need to, after such a long week). As for TFA, let's see what the right moment is; for the time being, I'd prefer not to rush things. I missed the Beethoven page, but I can definitely get behind this statement: "Ludwig van Beethoven was possibly born on 16 December 1770, certainly baptised on 17 December, worthy to be celebrated any day." :-) All best, Toccata quarta (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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 2020 election, please review
Hi, I think u posted that template on my user talk page by mistake. I am not engaged, as I only defend the initial state - as the other user tried to revert changes, following his POV. My changes remained. Please, re-consider that communicate. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the three-revert rule remains applicable in most such cases, even if an article has been the way it is for a long time. See
WP:3RRNO for the rules and various exceptions. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, thanks for your reply. In future, I ask you to put answers on my user talk page; then I will be able to see it. Thanks :) Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted information about Chopin’s life
Hi Toccata quarta, you deleted relevant information about Frédéric Chopin’s life. They are relevant apart from the talk about his homosexuality. They are relevant, because they show to the readers how Chopin lived in Paris. The pictures give his closest friends a face and make them visable (wether they have been his lovers or not). These were the persons in his life he sent the most letters to. You deleted these informations. Please provide good reasons for that or undo your undoing.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for your answers. As a reminder: Hi Toccata quarta, you deleted relevant information about Frédéric Chopin’s life. They are relevant apart from the talk about his homosexuality. They are relevant, because they show to the readers how Chopin lived in Paris. The pictures give his closest friends a face and make them visable (wether they have been his lovers or not). These were the persons in his life he sent the most letters to. You deleted these informations. Please provide good reasons for that or undo your undoing.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to inform you: I put a request on the Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRN mentions that {{subst:drn-notice}} should be used to notify users of this. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, okay thank you for the hint! I will. Since you seem to be online, would you please provide the good reasons for your deletings? Thank you, --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing a peer review
Thanks for the help! But remember when you close one, you have to also close it on article talk ... see
Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review. By using the subst, you automatically get all the pieces on talk correctly. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem! Thank you for drawing the right procedure to my attention; I read the page in a haste and assumed there was nothing more to the procedure. I should have known better, as I had already closed a PR of my own. All best, Toccata quarta (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In appreciation
The Featured Article Medal
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, bravo!!! A mighty fine addition to our composer FAs. Aza24 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Toccata, and big shout out and thank you also to Gog the Mild for making the effort to recognize new nominators and reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your kind words. "Probably blood"? I sure hope not! :-) However, working on the biography of a composer who went into self-imposed obscurity and died 32 years ago (which is not much time in the context of classical music history) did present very specific challenges. I don't yet know what will be my next FAC nomination, but I hope my FA journey will not end here. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Jerome Kohl has been edited to add the 4-page memorial about him published in Perspectives of New Music, which I believe is enough now to satisfy notability. Would you be willing to review and move to namespace if you agree? Thank you! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 07:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello, thank you for your message and updating the draft! I do not have any experience with moving drafts into the article namespace and do not know if special authorizations are required. There is a list of volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, so I would check if one of them is active in the field of classical music and contact them directly. Sorry not to be able to provide more help right now. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your help with Jerome Kohl! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jerome Kohl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jerome Kohl, a music theorist of the University of Washington, was recognized internationally as an authority on the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, publishing a book on his Zeitmaße in 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jerome Kohl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jerome Kohl), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
This article is overlistification and original research - no references on why these works are notable for their length
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.
I removed the PROD tag. I simply don't see how listing these is in any way "original research". It's quite a useful list, honestly; I've used it. Antandrus(talk) 23:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus: Thank you for this. Much as I hate to speculate (and implicitly accuse others), seeing a new account launch his/her Wikipedia career by creating an AFD discussion is bound to raise some eyebrows. In any case, let's hope for a constructive discussion. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest non-repetitive piano pieces 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.
Hello, I removed Sorabji's birth name because I believe it does not enhance the infobox. Infoboxes in articles on composers (and art biographies in general) tend to be controversial, as they can overemphasize trivial or minor facts, and Sorabji is not particularly well known for his original name (which appears in the lead, and I find that sufficient). Wikipedia also allows individuals considerable leeway in how they define themselves, which is why we respect the pronouns of choice of transgender and nonbinary people, for example, so drawing attention to a name that Sorabji despised and "blamed" on an "aunt who was Anglomaniac" (to quote a letter he penned in 1980) strikes me as rather infelicitous. For this same reason, the words "England" or "English" do not appear in the infobox either. Lastly, the article received a thorough peer review and is a featured article, and the absence of Sorabji's birth name in the infobox was not the source of a dispute either in the PR or the FAC page. I hope this clarifies and I will be happy to hear a counterargument for its inclusion in the infobox. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
today's featured article for October 15, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 15, 2021
, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
Thank you today for the article, introduced: "This article is about Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, an English composer, music critic, pianist and writer who is perhaps best known as the author of piano epics lasting anywhere between two and nine hours, and for having gone into self-imposed obscurity for some four decades. Sorabji's life and music have long been shrouded in myth, but this situation has improved considerably in recent years. The article draws on the recent scholarly writings that have addressed the myths, misconceptions and sensationalism that pervade much of the non-scholarly discourse on Sorabji, and presents a more thorough, objective portrait of him as a person and artist. The entry is coming fresh off a peer review and I look forward to this FAC (my first one in my nearly ten years on Wikipedia). Whatever its outcome, I believe the text presents one of the most fascinating and colorful biographies and creative legacies, musical or other, of the 20th century,"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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 2021 election, please review
featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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 2022 election, please review
Hello, I recently edited some references to this article. Was there a problem with this? Apologies if I did not follow the formatting you want. I am new to Wikipedia but have been researching and correcting references on various pages. This is the first time my edits have been removed so would very much appreciate your feedback. Thanks! UAAMAZ (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Telugu films of 2001 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Telugu films of 2001 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
