User talk:Toccata quarta

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]

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 for reverting the vandalism to my user page! –BMRR (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Carlo Grante requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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]

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]

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]

Hello Toccata quarta. I've addressed your {{which?}} question. Thanks for your interest in the article. What do you think about it? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:11, 17 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]

With reference to this edit I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the existence of {{subst:uw-minor}}. __meco (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to it.—Toccata quarta (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Thanks for the note and links! 93.50.155.140 (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 03:08, 9 October 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: Isaac Boleslavsky, David Bronstein, Akiba Rubinstein, Alexander Khalifman, Edward Lasker, Richard Reti, Grigory Levenfish, Miguel Najdorf, Johannes Zukertort, Jacques Mieses. (I'm sure there are more.) Any help / guidance / suggestions / comments is appreciated. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:PEA. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:PEA. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already was attributed, that's why I added a ref to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources have to say. Have you looked at WP:PEA, specifically the Bob Dylan example? Accusing me of violating WP:PEA and describing my adhering to a Wikipedia policy as "clumsy unreadability" is needless and will get you nowhere. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 (CBM · talk) 16:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Just what I was hoping for. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the list for 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]

Well, he has also removed 21st-century works. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:36, 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]

	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]

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]

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]

Hi. I've started a discussion about today's links to klassik-resampled.de at: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Links to klassik-resampled.de. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:D clef's edit on my talk page indicats that there is a COI. I have left a message to that effect on D Clef's talk page. I recommended using a edit request. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think it's right that Tarik O'Regan's Algerian heritage is included in his biography because it has become notable to his identity as a composer, as per MOS:BIO. In other words, what makes him notable as a composer is that he writes works based on (or referencing) his Algerian heritage, with which he self-identifies, and has become notable for that fact. For example: http://www.schirmer.com/default.aspx?tabId=2422&State_2879=2&newsId_2879=2571 and http://www.chesternovello.com/Default.aspx?TabId=2432&State_3041=2&workId_3041=35661 and http://www.wqxr.org/#!/articles/q2-album-week/2012/jan/10/celts-and-christians-collide-tarik-oregans-irish-colloquy/ and http://www.artsatl.com/2011/03/tarik-oregans-triptych-british-music-in-a-free-concert-on-emory-campus/. What do you think? Grovereaper (talk) 16:54, 9 December 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]

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 here before 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 WP:3RR is subject to exceptions. The overall spirit of Wikipedia is a bit absurd in terms of gender—on the one hand, we have Category:Women composers (although there is no Category:Male composers or Category:Men composers), but at the same time we are instructed to use gender-neutral language. Whatever the case, I really don't see why we should single it out. Homosexuals are a minority too (among composers), but I don't see the label "LGBT" in the list 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]

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-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 spam as you have repeatedly added a redlink like this one into multiple articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of links (see WP:NOTLINK), nor a platform for self-promotion (see WP:SOAP). As you can see, promoting non-notable material constitutes spamming. I'm well aware of Wikipedia policies, but you apparently are not, since you speak of "deleting" accounts, although on Wikipedia they are either blocked or banned.

I also strongly suggest that you have a very careful look at WP:SPU. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 info-en@wikimedia.org. 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 notable, then the reversions that I have done are indeed less than appropriate. If the material is not notable, then my reversions are fine, and you are deliberately 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 WP:WTAF is nothing but a falsehood—the editor who referenced is was User:Jerome Kohl, not me. Accusing somebody who reverts something of being a vandal is a very serious accusation, and is not taken lightly. For relevant reading, please see WP:3RR and WP:CIV. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. I create the article about a composer.
2. I start to update any othe article with the content which references the article created.
3. 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]

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]

A relevant discussion of this topic is found at Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 1#Category "Jewish chess player". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:38, 27 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 WP:3RR as I am—see [3], [4] and [5]. You threaten to report me for edit warring, even though you have performed just as many related reverts as I have. You are also blatantly distorting the policy WP:OWN. You are not seeking to achieve consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Infoboxes (yet again). either, and focus only on my edits, while ignoring the fact that the consensus is also reflected in the edits of other users—see [6], [7] and [8].

I also suggest that before bringing "you have no authority I will report you" drama anywhere, you have a thorough look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 consensus. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TQ! Can I suggest that you are careful with using WP:PEACOCK? I think you have mentioned that English is not your first language, and I do not feel that the language you are copyediting in Richard Wagner falls into the 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]

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. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 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. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 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. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I can say the same. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:20, 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. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 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 Wikipedia:Wikiproject composers#Sections. "Biography" is the standard word across WP: see MOS:BIO and 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]

Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:54, 28 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!
	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 Chess ending.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That lead is a real gem. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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. doktorb _words^deeds 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to what? Toccata quarta (talk) 21:13, 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? doktorb _words^deeds 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at Chess Olympiad#Recognised sport, chess is a sport (in terms of being recognised as one by reliable sources). I don't know what you mean by "enough", but it's not obscure by any means, receiving attention not only in newspapers and news sites in Norwegian—see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and [27], for instance. The achievement is not "alleged", as you can see from the above sources, and I think you should read Elo rating system. It mentions that the Elo formula is used—in an adapted form—in the association version of your beloved football. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:47, 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. doktorb _words^deeds 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]

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]

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]

I've gone for the second option. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like your choice! Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"worldwide popularity"? That likely will never be cited which is why removal is better.Curb Chain (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 60 Memorable Games#Reception should suffice for extrapolating sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So such a statement would be composed through WP:SYN by you?Curb Chain (talk) 23:56, 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:SYN. Article writing is not the same as endorsing WP:OR and I am telling you not to do it. And read 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]

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 musical architecture—some of them use baroque forms, while other are 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]

Tocatta, when I've used:

Kasparov, Gary; Keene, Raymond (1982). Batsford Chess Openings. American Chess Promotions. ISBN 0-7134-2112-6.

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]

Here's a pic of the book cover: [32]

I see on the new edition (BCO 2) the spelling is the same: [33]

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some guidelines on this at 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]

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]

The article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji for things which need to be addressed. Tomcat (7) 13:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 12:56, 27 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:

1. 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."
2. 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.
3. You have not replied to my point about bloodlines not being relevant to a composer's name or lifespan.
4. 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]

Hello Toccata quarta.

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:Blah, WP:XYZ, WP:This or 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]

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]

You formatted in 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]

I agree that if it is unsourced it can't stay in the article, but the claim is very apt and true. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:48, 30 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]

My reference to MOS: had to do with "circa". Regarding capitalisation, I followed the conventions set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Capitalization conventions. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		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]

Oops, I edited too hastily; thanks for fixing. Opus33 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 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]

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:

160. le Fleming 1954, pp. G26, G27
161. le Fleming 1953, p. H18
162. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I do not take orders. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry – I didn't intend it that way (and was certainly too direct in my phrasing). Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK; apologies accepted. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:06, 5 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]

I think this topic should be raised at Talk:Magnus Carlsen, to establish consensus. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:08, 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]

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]

You're welcome. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Sections offers a recommendation, but no more. The approach I like best is the one I used in the article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. I've never liked the solution used in the article Gustav Mahler, for instance. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:42, 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)[