User talk:Hyacinth/21 September 2005 - 29 September 2006

Birthday!

User:Jenmoa/birthday --User:Jenmoa 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Jill

Hey Mikhail! I don't know how to contact you besides leaving a message here. Email me sometime! (my last name@rice.edu). It's Jill. Je t'aime ma belle banane!

Transclusions

Hey, here's a boilerplate message:

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Cheers! - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Userpage

I reverted vandalism to your userpage, and I am disgusted that it happened to you. You don't deserve that, you're just a person, hopefully the user will be blocked if not banned. I'll make sure something like that happens. Private Butcher 15:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Help!

MF, I have changed my skin to Nostalgia or something similar and I'm no more able to revert to the MonoBook one. How can I do? user:Attilios

Categorization

MF. Just noticed you removed the parent categories of Category:Musical notation from Musical notation. Is there a specific reason for this? Karol 17:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You

I wish to interview you, or atleast find out your life story, and some other things. I am trying to research all about humankind and all types of peoples. I have randomly chosen you, if you wish to comply to this, it can be done in secrecy through e-mail, or easily on the talk pages, which ever is easiest for you. But if you don't like this idea, then tell me on talk page. Private Butcher 01:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales

Would you like to join my new WikiProject, WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales? —Keenan Pepper 18:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Song integration

Since you are one of the more prolific writers with respect to music, I wanted to let you know that I am trying to integrate the songs found at wikipedia:sound/list. In other words, now that I've spent all this time finding, encoding, uploading, and listing them, I need to actually include them in articles. There are tons and tons of music articles that would be enhanced by such additions (just to name an obvious one, European classical music and its various sub-articles). Raul654 13:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Functioning internal link on Skandha

I've been disambiguating all links to the function page. I removed the link you added in March 2005 to the function disambiguation page, since none of the function pages (function (mathematics), function (programming)) seem related. Let me know what you think. Volfy 07:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

List of GLB composers

In this edit that you made back in October 2003, you added a person who isn't gay (User:Zees), but simply played piano on an album called "Gay American Composers". That person is now complaining that, although he removed his name from the list back in May, it still exists on dozens of mirror sites on Google. There's not really anything we can do about it, but this is just an example of how a mistake can spread and foreseeably have negative consequences. Here is the text of the complaint: — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-23 10:16

"Last spring, a colleague informed me that my name, [removed], was included on the Wikipedia list of "famous gay, lesbian and bisexual composers." As a result of this listing, a Google search of my name gives over 90 results of websites that copy Wikipedia content. The listing of my name as a gay composer is causing confusion and difficulty in my professional teaching and performing career. I am not famous, gay, lesbian or bisexual, nor am I a composer. I am a concert pianist who performs the works of classical composers, some of whom are gay."

• According to the CD details, he is one of the performers, not one of the composers, on the album Gay American Composers, Vol. 2. While several mirror sites do regularly update their content, there are dozens which don't, and others which will probably never update it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 13:49

Edit summary (Phase shifting)

Ummm, I don't mean to be rude but that was in early June. It is now late November and a lot can happen in almost 5 months. My edit summary usage is currently hovering at 99.6%. I now nearly always lewave a summary and understand the purpose of it as such. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Phasing / Phase shifting

I agree with your swapping of Phasing and Phase shifting. Unfortunately, however, this does leave a lot of links to Phasing to change.... TheMadBaron 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Eulenburg affair

MF, I was very interested in your Harden-Eulenburg affair article. Do you still have access to the Steakley source? I would like to know when the "initial incident" happened. It only says "November", but doesn't mention the year. Also, it's not clear to me how the initial incident precipitated the later events, since Eulenburg was not even involved. Thanks! AxelBoldt 06:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Image license

It looks like you forgot to label this one Image:Bach, The Little Music Book of Anna Magdalena Bach, Musette rumba rhythm.PNG with a licens. Did you plan to GFDL it - or maybe we should assume that a small set of muscial notes such as these is not subject to copyright at all? / Habj 05:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Blues shuffle

I have answered to your comment on the talk page of Blues with respect to blues shuffles. I would appreciate a respons. Thanks. Vb 09:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bredel reference on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers

See talk:Erik Satie#Satie's sexuality, in particular the Robert Orledge quote I got from Niclas Fogwall's website, containing:

[...], but despite the suggestions regarding Debussy in Marc Bredel's book, he was not homosexual at all. [...] (emphasis added)

I didn't read the Bredel book - also it rather seemed to involve Debussy than Satie.

So, what I did is provide a precise book reference to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers, to see if anyone read it and thought it justified to add one of the involved composers to that list.

Presently the fact that the reference of a Satie bio is on the list, while Satie isn't listed, works as a sort of reference that Satie is normally not seen as part of the body of "gay, lesbian or bisexual composers". Which is fine for me. I got tired explaining he probably wasn't gay, or at least, there is little evidence he might have been.

None of the Satie bio's I read ever stated he was "homosexual" or "heterosexual" (as in: not an issue).

Robert Orledge is a Satie authority. He collaborated to the presently afaik most "conclusive" Satie website (which is Niclas Fogwall's Satie website). The quote I got from there is in the "forum" application, which can't be deep-linked (so not very usable as a wikipedia type "source quotation").

Also R.O. is quite adamant on the issue, which probably says more about his own sexual orientation than Satie's.

So: how does one write about something about which the evidence is impressive in its absence? I decided to put the Bredel reference on the "List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers", waiting till someone read the book, and see what happens. Anyway it is a viable reference, so I see no reason to remove it.

All this amounted in the "Satie and sexuality" section at the bottom of the Erik Satie article to be reduced to:

Satie and sexuality: much has been said about Satie's sexuality, ranging from "hidden" homosexuality to "ordinary" heterosexuality. In fact, apart from the short-lived, and highly "idealised", Valadon period, Satie's behaviour appeared more or less asexual: he tended to be dismissive when the topic of sexuality came up. See also:

• Gymnopédie
• Forum/News Group application of the Satie website by Niclas Fogwall (see link below).

In the Gymnopédie article, particularily this section: Gymnopédie#Perceptions of Antiquity in the 19th century - which says always the same: although there's no conclusive evidence of Satie being gay or not, it is all in all not so likely - on which most scholars concur.

Still would like to know what Bredel has to say on the point. --Francis Schonken 13:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Shuffle

I wanted to thank you very much for your explanation about blues shuffle. Great! I don't understand much about what you wrote but I think I don't need to understand everything :-) Vb 12:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject World music

MF, I've created progress charts for WikiProject World music. Please come by and help document what we have! Hopefully, a record clearly showing where our holes in coverage lie will help move all world music articles along in the right direction. Tuf-Kat 19:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikihate

Just as a practical suggestion, if these wikihateful comments bother you, perhaps you should not preserve them on your user page where they are liable to attract more of the same--voyeurs and the morbidly curious can always visit the History. I also suggest use of the new "Sprotected" tag. Not saying this to excuse the vandalism/hatespeech, but it is unfortunately the nature of the Internet that anonymous forums attract this kind of thing (trolling) especially when it draws a reaction. NTK 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop-time

On the stop-time page there seems to be an unterminated double quote. I was particularly interested in whether or the Joplin "Ragtime dance" example of stop-time was part of the quote, or not.. since Joplin wrote an even more stop-timey rag called the Stoptime Rag which I would like to mention.. but of course I don't want to break the quote. Could you possibly fix it, or let me know what is going on?Zargulon 02:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback

I see you used rollback on [my edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Bassoon&diff=32666306&oldid=32664132], it was not vandalism so please not do this again. You are mistaken in your change. This was hashed on a long time ago on your project. --209.11.111.66 02:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image licencing

MF Hyacinth. I've been working through the backlog of unlicenced images, and one brought me to User:Hyacinth/Images where I noticed that quite a few of the images towards the bottom of the page were unlicenced. I've tagged them as such, but thought I'd let you know in case you knew what the licencing details for these should be. If you want a list of the images I tagged, have a look through my user contributions for today. Regards, CLW 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve Albini

Secondly, while Albini is respected, and known for his honesty, he is not know for his objective opinions but rather for being willing to trash even those he has worked for.

I didn't know Albini was known for trashing people he works with. What are you thinking of? I read many positive reviews of him of bands like Low and Mclusky, and those bands have only increased in popularity and acclaim. I guess I shouldn't have used the word objective. He's a good writer though. Thanks.

White trash

Why did you revert my changes (marking the reversion "minor") to white trash without any further comment on the talk page, where I asked who dissented a week ago and explained my viewpoint? I'd like to discuss the article with you, if you would not treat me like a vandal. —Vivacissamamente 09:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Block chords

MF, i'm new here. I need to help for my additions to this page and mostly for the language. --Cristiano Ragone 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I create every images by myself because i have experience in music notation and when i have a few time i create always examples in pentagram for my jazz studies, all and always by myself. I hate to copy or take from others. For me it's simple because i already use these things in practice.

You can do -obviously- every alteration you believe and i accept every precious advice from you and others. Thanks--Cristiano Ragone 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"pentagram" as music score?

With term pentagram i'm referring to the music score (basis element of 5 lines), maybe music stuff? --Cristiano Ragone 15:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hate mail

I find it highly hilarious that someone would actually take the time to harass you about your homosexuality on Wikipedia, haha Isn't this, after all, an online encyclopedia? Am I naive to think that people, when visiting this site, might have more worthwhile pursuits in mind? Ah, well, I just updated my page to reflect my sexual orientation -- maybe I'll get some hate mail as well... What assholes! Brian1979 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser...

MF Hyacinth. I'm afraid I really don't understand what has happened to Image:Peggy Sue vocal melody.PNG. I checked the history of the linked article which suggests that I deleted it on 12 January. Sure enough, trawling through my deletion logs shows that it was indeed deleted at 22:23 on that date. However, you subsequently tagged the image as fair use on 14 January, so presumably the image was visible to you then. Even if this was still on the cache of your viewed web pages, I wouldn't have thought you'd be able to edit it. And even if that's the case, it still doesn't explain why my deletion isn't showing in the history of the image page. I guess one solution would be to re-delete the image and re-upload it, but that still wouldn't explain what's happened. So, sorry - I'm afraid I can't provide an answer. But I would certainly like to know myself! Regards, CLW 09:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unlike deleted articles, deleted images can't be retrieved. (I forgot to mention above - this image was deleted as it had had an "unknown licencing" tag for more than seven days - a little over six months, in fact. But I'm guessing you already realised that.) I thought that as the creator of the article you might still have a copy saved somewhere, but if not I'm afraid the image would need to be recreated in order to be uploaded again. CLW 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Polyphony

I'm hoping to reach consensus on spliting polyphony. I believe I've answered your objections on talk:polyphony and wondering if you have further objections. --Trweiss 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to split. I've made a first stab at expanding polyphony (instrument) and I'd welcome your feedback. --Trweiss 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iron_Man_riff.mp3

While converting the few remaining MP3's to oggs on Wikipedia I ran into this... You can not GFDL this recording because the music itself is copyrighted and we couldn't claim fair use on this. I'll get something recorded to replace this... --Gmaxwell 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for modifying the comments I added in the Metta article (in the Six stages part). It looks a bit better now. Andkaha^(talk) 09:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

MF Hyacinth. I'm not sure whether or not your message relates to the image which we discussed above or to another image. I've been deleting images which have already had their full seven days tagged as unlicensed or unsourced, so if you check the "watch" box when uploading images, you'll see when someone tags them as such. If I tag any images myself, I always notify the uploader at the time of tagging. If someone has been tagging your images without notifying you, then you might wish to contact them. However, it's actually the responsibility of the uploader to tag and source the images, and if this is done correctly there should be no need for the images to be deleted in this way.

But I do appreciate the fact that your message was polite (I get plenty of "Why you have delete the image that I have make for the Wikipdia you evil person"-type messages...), so if I do see your name in future when deleting speedyable images I'll hold off and query it with you. However, the whole point of the speedy delete process which Jimbo set up for images is that they are just that - speedyable; there's no need to notify the uploader before deleting as the uploader should have tagged and sourced the images in the first place, and by this stage they have been tagged as due for deletion for a full seven days.

But yes, like I said, if I spot your name on any more images as I work through the backlogs, I'll give you a shout. You might also want to check through your "my contributions" log and check that all the images you've uploaded have source and licensing details. If there are any without the required info and you're unsure how to deal with them, let me know and I'll try to help. Cheers, CLW 12:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

MF again. I personally believe that if images have been legitimately released under GFDL, there's no need to justify fair use as there shouldn't then be any copyright issues. However, others may interpret things differently so don't take my view as gospel truth and yes, I think that the "double tagging" should satisfy most people's copyright concerns. But I'm no copyright lawyer, so again that's just my opinion and view. (See, I said I'd "try to help", rather than promising that I'd necessarily have the answers!)

With regard to your other point, yes, I think you're doing exactly the right thing by adding a fair use rationale for each instance in which fair use is being claimed to illustrate an article. This shows that fair use is being applied with due thought and consideration, and has not just been cited on a blanket basis.

In a way I'm a little jealous that you are able to go for extended periods without computer access. Between my job and my Wikipedia addiction, I find myself devoting far too much time to the virtual world and far too little time to the real world... CLW 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

PS - If you want to satisfy yourself that you're tagging images correctly, you could try Wikipedia:Village pump - someone there is bound to be an expert! CLW 12:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No TV, no computer and crappy stereo? Anni-Frid had the right idea: "In my dreams I have a plan/If I got me a wealthy man..." CLW 13:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Regarding your edit [1], please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

• Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:
  • "Dark Star", a song by the Grateful Dead
  • not: "Dark Star", a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead

Markus Schmaus 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

Yeah, I'll be sure to add edit descriptions from now on--I'd just neglecting them out of laziness.

Thanks, Psfitzgibbon 09:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Noise Pollution

MF hyacinth. see my response to you on Talk:Noise pollution...let me know your further thoughts, best regards, Anlace 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Piping

Note the difference between

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.

and

Please sign your posts on talk pages.

Just one character (the | ) makes all the difference in readability, and it automatically corrects the link for capitalization. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject subproject notification (late, sorry)

MF Hyacinth. I'm contacting you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. This project is inactive but exists. Anyway, I recently created a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia which by right ought to be subproject ot Sexology and sexuality. In fact, I was (properly) upbraided for creating this project without consulting the members of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. (Sorry, I just plain forgot). Anyway, my questions and comments are:

• Are you still an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality?
• MF! As a member of the (logical) parent project, you are invited to view, contribute to, oversee, and/or join the subproject Wikiproject Pedophilia.
• Be aware that we have had a difficult birth and are considered by some to be inherently controversial, and may have some future controversies due to the sensitive nature of the material in our purview, although I hope not.
• In the normal course of things, I would join WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and edit it to include Wikiproject Pedophilia as a subproject. Do you have any objections or comments on that.
• We are considering renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia to Wikiproject Paraphilia, for various reasons. As a member of the parent project, do you have any thoughts on that?Herostratus 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. I'd just like to underscore my opinion that the sexuality issues need some solid, experienced editors, and anything you can offer Herostratus in his efforts would be wonderful, as he is championing a cause that's getting little attention and is fraught with conflict. Even small tidbits of advice would be appreciated. Otherwise, thanks for your time and happy editing! --DanielCD 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Polytonality

MF Hyacinth. I don't want to fight with you about "polytonality," and I'm sorry that I left my changes half-done yesterday. However, I have noticed that many of the music articles in Wikipedia are not up to a very high standard. I am trying to fix these to the best of my ability; this means substantially reorganizing articles, removing inaccuracies, and generally bringing a professional, scholarly perspective to them. Tymoczko 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyacinth. The talk page for the Polytonality article provides precise explanations for the two sentences that I've removed. It is going to severely limit my ability to contribute to Wikipedia if I have to do this for every change I make. Again the issue is that the quality of the music-theory articles is substantially lower than the quality of Wikipedia's science and math articles--they're disorganized, full of unclarities, and often factually wrong. Elementary points of style are not observed. (For example, a period comes after a reference, as in [Stubbins, et. al., 1980].) Many of these articles seem like they're written by outsiders to the field, who may not have a firm grasp on the issues. Consequently, much of what I'm doing here is just triage. Tymoczko 12:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Why do all the redirects I created to information about headings now redirect to information about sections? (except the one I just changed) Hyacinth 10:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• The change you made looks reasonable. I don't know what other redirects you're referring to, but a few months ago, I did consolidate some related pages while cleaning up the Wikipedia: namespace. If you think other redirects should be changed in a similar fashion, I trust your judgement. -- Beland 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reform

Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

Hyacinth, for all your talk about civility, you've now taken to deleting my edits without responding to the criticisms and arguments I make on the discussion page. This strikes me as extremely uncivil. You and I should be cooperating -- instead, you seem to be clinging to your edits with a kind of personal attachment. Why don't we try working together? I've done what you asked and explained why I removed the material I removed. It's hardly fair for you to simply revert my edits without responding to the criticisms. Tymoczko 18:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say I appreciated your recent edits, and to thank you for not reverting mine. Tymoczko 01:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Drone music

May some of your last-year's puzzlements about drone music have been cleared a bit by my edit. Note that one reason you won't find much on Google is because "dronology" is a label's neologism for what is more easily found as "drone music", "ambient drone", or simple "drone" (creating confusion with the other drones, similarly to "it's metal"). 62.147.37.151 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you reverting Ostinato?

I am completely baffled as to why you would revert both Violncello's and my recent edits to the Ostinato article "to the latest version by Hyacinth". Violncello was simply removing double-redirects. I was straightening out clumsy wording and strange links (such as a link to Contemporary when referring to music between WWI and the Jazz Age).

Thanks. Oscar 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Me again. According to the Wikipedia Guide to Layout the term "References" should be used for "any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article". I again changed your term "Sources" to "References".

Thanks! Oscar 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ned Sublette

Good expansion of Ned Sublette. I deliberately left it stubby; Ned's a family friend, and that makes it hard to split out OR, POV, etc. I would't even have been able to judge whether to create a link for Peter Gordon -- is he notable? He is to me, of course. It's sweet to see Ned getting sudden attention for his old song; the "secretly frequently" article needs some improvement on the footnoting -- are you going to do that? (In particular, the "(Tyranny)" in the first sentence is jarring -- but it's also good to see my friend Blue make an appearance in Wikipedia. One thing, though -- story I heard was that Tony Guarneri, bassist at the time with the Saturday Night Live band gave the tape to Nelson. You might want to see if you can verify that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Chords (music) and Chord symbol

MF,

I'm about to merge Chord (music) and Chord symbol and would appreciate yout thoughts (on the former's talk page). Edits to a draft version can be made here. Thanks Andeggs 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Long and Winding Road

Exactly what part of this article do you feel is inadequately referenced? The internet pages and books used are clearly stated. Please explain your objections or I will undo your changes. simonthebold 12:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other

The only other weasel wording that jumps out at me is in the second paragraph of the lead where the article says "Country musician Willie Nelson's cover (iTunes single February 14, 2006) has been called the first gay-themed mainstream country song by a major artist." Who has made this claim? --Allen3 ^talk 12:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

ancient music deletion

I was the one responsible for creating that ancient music footer and putting in your "prehistoric music" article. I see you deleted it. Sorry if it wasn't a good idea. It seemed to be at the time. Jeffmatt 07:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ives

I've added inline cites from the Grove article to Charles Ives. I understand if you think it still needs reference work, since inlines from only one source is somewhat lame, but I just thought you should know. Makemi 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Western Music

with respect I disagree - if "western music" were simply a location descriptor, there would be no need for an encyclopaedia entry. It is shorthand for certain style of music - otherwise wholetone sitar music, if recorded by a traditional Indian group located in Birmingham, would count as western music.

In common usage it is pretty clear that "western music" is music characterised by diatonic and certain pentatonic modes, (and actually only certain of those modes: ionian, aeolian, mixolydian) and not, for example, whole tone modes (which I suppose you'd call sextonic). ElectricRay 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Modulatory Space

I've put something on the discussion page; in particular I'd like feedback about the original research question. Gene Ward Smith 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed what the page is supposed to cover. I'd be interested to have input on whether and where it should be moved. Gene Ward Smith 00:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hip hop disambig unlink bot

When doing Disambiguation link repair I make every desision for the bot. The bot shows me a snippet of the article, and I choose what to change the link to. I am aware of both Hip hop music and Hip hop culture.--Commander Keane 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(sorry for the double post). If you have a specific example I can explain my reasoning, I do make mistakes sometimes though :-) --Commander Keane 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Metanarrative

Please would you consider reviewing the discussion that is taking place on the subject of the 'free market' and 'trickle-down effect' and make your opinions known. Many thanks, --Nicholas 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

voice leading

Hyacinth—I notice that 'voice leading' is categorised as a mystery on your page. Why? Tony 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail—I guess that voice leading is in contrast with harmony (root movement). Voice leading involves such matters as whether two parts are moving with parallel, contrary or oblique motion. When voice leading becomes highly rhythmicised—i.e., the rhythm of the parts is very distinct—voice leading becomes counterpoint.

The term has come down to us in a way that creates confusion. 'Voice' is used in the sense of 'part' ('part writing'); nothing is really led, except that the composer leads the several voices in relation to each other.

Does that make sense? I think that the VL article needs work! Tony 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say rather that voice leading is a property of counterpoint.

Agreed; but I think it's also a property of part writing that is not rhythmic enough to be called counterpoint. VL is a broader category than counterpoint.

Here's one: How does voice leading [of a certain quality] assist or replace diatonic functionality"?

I don't think that it does; it's merely an aspect of diatonicism. Before the emergence of tonality in the 15th and 16th centuries (with its emphasis on root movement and the primacy of the triad), polyphonic music was almost entirely composed of voice leading. After the rise of tonality, root movement and voice leading were the two main components of music (in terms of pitch).

Why use the seemingly redundant term "melodic voice leading" [2], ISBN 0064671682, p.206)? And if it is not redundant, what are the other types that are not melodic?

It's redundant, and shouldn't be used.

Tony 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pitch class space

I question the limited focus of this article, and the way it takes recent Western practice (not even common practice!) as a law of nature. Is this reasonable, or should we simply say it's a term for recent Western music only? If so, what else should be used? I think there's an NPOV question here perhaps. Gene Ward Smith 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Country Music

Thanks for the "heads up" on your revival of the Reception (aka criticism) section on the Country music page. I think the section is out of place. It is not consistent in either tone or language with the rest of the article, which BTW seems to be deteriorating into a super list. I am having a break from editing so may wait until I have the energy to work on the page to do anything about it. I will let you know if I do. Cheers. Tiles 08:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Big Star

No I dont have a source yet but if something is true probably someone is saying it? My idea about Chris Bell is just that it was his band before chilton came along. theres no reason to think something like Feel or My Life is Right have anythhing to do with Chilton and the second album is mostly Chilton trying to capture the Bell sound cause his earlier stuff doesnft sound anything like Big Star really. C ourse September Gurlz is also tyring to sound like ROger McGuinn ccause of the "droning" fifth but thats another story. Do you thiknk this is maybe right?67.188.110.197

Tritone

I made it using some MS software so I assume it is equal temperament. Offhand, I would guess that the interval has a frequency ratio of exactly root-2, being exactly halfway up/down the octave (so rarely or uniquely among the intervals, the equal temperament version of it is accurate, and between the augmented 4ths and diminished 5ths of other tunings), but I don't know quite enough about the maths of intervals and temperaments to be sure. -- Hugh7 08:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if someone re-tuned their Midi to some other temperament, then it would play my tritone to that temperament, but I doubt very much that any significant number of people would do that. --Hugh7 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual?

Just wondering, why do you think the term homosexual is offensive? It literally means: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex - at least, according to answers.com. I would look it up in my dictionary to find another worded meaning (incase I can detect offensive something there), but the cat sleeps in the room where it's kept, and as she's been put to bed, I think it would be mean to disturb her. But (back to the matter at hand) what's so offensive about the term homosexual? Sergeant Snopake 22: 16, 11/04/06

Well, in a few hours, it will have been a week since I put this on your talk page, and you still haven’t got back to me. I’m very sorry if I have appeared rude/nosy/mocking/POV etc, but I really was just curious, and I didn’t mean to offend you! I apologise if I have, and please ignore my insensitivity. Sergeant Snopake, 18th of April 2006, 13:09

Page Deletion Help

MF Hyacinth, I am trying to make the architecture articles become more complete and accurate as they are still mostly undeveloped. One issue I keep running into is people self-promoting. I bring it up to you because you were on the talk page of [Earl_S._Bell]. If you check the links and references on his page it is clear that all of the infamous projects (he) mentions are simply defunct personal projects not of significance. I am wondering what the process is for deletion of such pages. I understand on some pages there are deletion votes, but a page like that wouldn't get enough visitors to work that way I doubt.

Also, I was wondering if you know what the purpose of [List_of_emerging_architects] is? It seems like this page is just asking for self-solicitation. I am resonably sure that all of the architects listed are just average folks. It seems that this page too should be deleted as it will not serve as any sort of encyclopedic use.

Thanks for your help! I am new to this kind of editing. axiomflash 15:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pop music - from M.0 to M.2?

MF there -- Worked earlier today on pulling weeds of bias out of the Pop music page, but ended up deleting loads of garbage that had been heavily criticized in talk. I'm having trouble even reading the talk page, though. Do we ever delete or archive talk? It appears that the page wasn't edited for a while... there are some changes/expansions I'd like to work on that aren't related to things already discussed.

Right-o.

Also, nice notation additions. :)

I

Your template

I noticed that you created {{Pieces-stringquartet-composer}} but only there're only composers under B. You should update it to get rid of some of the redlinks. J. Finkelstein 18:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: Why don't you be bold and update it yourself? Hyacinth 19:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I will! :) I don't know that much about quartets but I'll add some. The task is too intimidating for me—adding every single quartet by every single composer? I'll have to use Wikipedia as some sort of encyclopedia... J. Finkelstein 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheryl Crow image

Hyacinth,

My reply to your query >Do you know what the original picture of Crow that was deemed inappropriate was?

Apparently, that "inapproprite image" that showed Sheryl in a slightly too provocative formal dress was deleted because of copyright issues. It used to be here: Image:Sheryl Crow.jpg The old pages in its history archive should show that picture but do not. Sorry, but its deletion was not my doing, but the work of Wikipedian administrators.

You can check the history of the Sheryl Crow page. Go backwards in time to January 16, 2006, which was the date that I replaced that image with a more appropriate photograph from Sheryl's own website.

Bart 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stiebler

MF, I'm working on Ernstalbrecht Stiebler. It's hard to find anything on him on the internet, but I have some other sources. Perhaps you are able to contribute? Selfinformation 12:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Question re. Mary Daly

MF, this is Rebelrsr. I recently added another bit of info to the Mary Daly Wiki page and would like to know if this is appropriate to copyright laws. I did not want to plagiarize. I took the partial quote out of Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy, page 114. Beacon Press: Boston. 1984. Let me know. Thanks. Rebelrsr 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

MF Hyacinth, thank you very much for your friendly welcome!--Juandelenzina 11:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Shohé Tanaka

The article on Shohé Tanaka, an important music theorist, was removed. I presume this was done without attempting to contact the people who helped write it, or before finding out if, in fact, Tanaka (a music theorist, physicst, and interesting historical character) was worth an encyclopedia article. It seems to be the article removal process is likely broken. I'd certainly like to know if an article I had taken an interest in was up for removal, I know that, and I can't see why an article should be treated so cavalierly unless it is obvious nonsense, which this wasn't. Anyway, I want to undelete it but don't know how. Gene Ward Smith 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Braunarts external link

This is about the braunarts external link you wrote in the george liggeti page.Do you know that the owner lives next door to me.have a nice day goodbye :) Rossyboy10 17:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

a question on finishing an article

Hey, I'm not sure exactly what to do after I've made an article... I'm still adding to it, but it's up. I'm sure there's a few things that need to be done to Wikify it, but I'm new enough that I don't know. The article in question is the First Red Scare, and I'll be creating one for the Second Red Scare in a few days, unless someone else does. Thanks -BigShock 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I'd love to have your input on the List of people from Montana page that I have been working on enhancing. Any additions/corrections would be greatly appreciated.

Deejayk 21:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Deejayk 05:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What did I do wrong?

Hyacinth - I notice that my comment on Tippett, which I added a few days ago and which was listed under 70 above, has been removed. May I ask why? Ranthlee 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

question

how does one become an admin?do you have to be a certain age or older to become one?mrs.sauron 16:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Help with POV

Hi, I've been editing Joan Grant quite a lot recently and will continue to do so. I'm only new and am slightly confused as to whether my edits breach the NPOV standard or not. Can you hemp clear my confusion? Thanks in advance. --Tahren B 05:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What should I do?

Hyacinth – Thanks for your help on Talk pages re Tippett. Now I have a slightly more complicated issue regarding Leo Sowerby. His page is one on which I’ve spent some effort and about which I frankly feel a little proprietary, although I know that’s wrong. The last edit, by a guy called Sesquialtera II, changes the heading “Biography” to “Life” and separates the selected list of Leo’s works to an externally linked page called “List of compositions by Leo Sowerby”. I suppose the change of heading is trivial (although a random search of about ten other Composer pages shows that the majority use “Biography” instead of “Life”), but I find the separation of the list of works to an external link annoying and inexplicable. I could see a reason for it if the list were very long or if Sowerby were very famous, which is the case for most of the composers for which this is done but (sadly) is not the case for Sowerby. I wrote Sesqui asking him what possible point there was in doing this and whether he would mind terribly if I undid the edit and reattached the list of works to the main article. He hasn’t answered (I only wrote to him 5 days ago and he may be busy), and I’m wondering if I’m entitled to do a reversion without his permission. Is there some rule of protocol or style governing this? Ranthlee 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hyacinth, Thanks so much for the welcome. I look forward to contributing further to Wikipedia, particularly in music history/music theory, but in other areas as well. If you happen to be working on similar articles and notice anything about edits I do, do let me know if you have any comments or if there is any policies or whatever that I should be following but have overlooked. Thanks! Jzmckay 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Musicology and Music History

Hyacinth -- I finally decided to be bold and make some updates to Musicology and Music history; I know you've done a lot on these (and many other music) pages so I just wanted to give a heads up and solicit your opinion. Thanks! --Myke Cuthbert 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't Just Revert the Whole Version

Please go back and just remove the inline comments, if you object so strongly to them. Don't just waste all the changes. I'll re-revert if you don't.

However, it would be better to have the comments there for the moment, since they raise important queries in the exact locations to which they refer. They are not visible to readers, and the article is clearly in transition.

Tony 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, what a goof I am for not even citing the article [ tonicization ] at issue! Let's hope that he, you and I can develop a good version of the article over the next few weeks. I think there's good in all our texts, but none is by itself a total solution. Tony 08:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone cluster entry reference style

Hyacinth, I'm really not clear why you've taken it upon yourself to muck about with the references in this entry. The style--perfectly proper per Wikipedia standards--has long been established. MLA-format citations in the middle of running text are not on for this one (as they are not for many other entries; in the case of "tone cluster," everything is clearly cited in the References section of the entry.) Not to mention that your unhelpful intervention wasn't even applied consistently. Leave it alone and spend your time contributing something that's actually edifying, yes? THAT's how to be a good Wikipedian!DCGeist

greetings from z'ev

hello Hyacinth - i am writing you because i have seen that you have done some small additions to the (improperly titled) Z'ev entry -- (and we seem to share some other interests) -- and but so this is why i write you - as you seem to heavily wiki-savy -- ie - (and i have looked everywhere in the wiki tutorials for this info - maybe im just too too nu?) - but anyway - is it at ALL possible to change the typography of the actual entry/page from Z'ev to either Z'EV or z'ev????? - if you could be so kind -- & if so then please feel free to e me at rhythmajik@yahoo.com with your post address and i'll send you some cd's in return - thanking you advance for any time spent in this regard -- respects - z [11:41 pm 4 june]

music questions

Hi, Hyacinth. I have two questions for you. (1) I just finished fixing what was essentially a duplicate entry on Neapolitan chords (there was another article "Neopolitan sixth chord"), however I'm not sure how to fix the spelling in the chord "box" that shows up on the bottom of every page about chords. It still has "Neopolitan" instead of "Neapolitan," but I'm not sure where to find the place to correct this. (2) I appreciate the edits you have made to the Tonicization article; I hope my expansion was useful. I'm wondering, however, about the last edit you made. While I agree that on the surface, you might be able to read some conflicts between the closing section and the rest of the article, I think the distinction I introduced was a very common one used in introductory theory classes, i.e., tonicization temporarily treats another note as tonic (as the article says), but the underlying sense of where the larger tonic is does not change, whereas modulation involves actually going to that tonic. (e.g., do I hear that D7 chord in C major as just V/V, or does it lead a cadence and extended section in G?) Perhaps this needs to be made clearer in the article, but I don't think it should be completely removed -- as the Harvard Dictionary of Music states, "Tonicization... is nevertheless a local phenomenon, as distinct from modulation, which implies an actual change in tonic." I thought that's what I had said. Anyhow, just want your thoughts. Thanks. Jzmckay 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead guitar

Thanks for keeping me in-line, though it's really frustrating to see list after list (that I try and keep in order) being 'un-organized' by people who can't read simple instructions or don't know the alphabet. Anyhow, Sorry --Blahm 15:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Shosei Koda

Hello I was wondering if you can help me. Shosei Koda is an individual, who was beheaded in Iraq. At the end of the article, there is a link to the beheading video made by Iraq insurgents. There is plenty of warning that you must be 18 and over and that the video is graphic. However, a user named Jamezcd is constantly removing it. They seem to have a problem with the video and want to prevent people from having the option of seeing it. The video is not being forced on people. I feel this person is trying to censor, and censoring is something wikipedia does not endorse. The link has been up for a long time too. I believe his/her problem with the video has more to do about them, and them not handling the video, then it does to do with protecting people. They allege they're trying to protect people from being shocked. What an idiot. Can you do something to settle this? TripleH1976 Mon 16:13 p.m., 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What is "Point of View"?

Hyacinth - I recently (last May) wrote the article on Britten's "Rejoice in the Lamb," and Mark Buckles, a new and extraordinarily active kid on the block, has flagged it with a notice that says its neutrality is questioned because of "POV" implied in my use of such terms as "poignant" and "deeply moving" to describe the work. What is the fine line between a Point of View and consensus opinion? If one describes 9/11 as a "tragedy," is that a Point of View or consensus opinion? If one describes Osama bin Laden as a perpetrator and encourager of very nasty actions (being careful not to call him a very nasty man), is that a Point of View or a consensus opinion? Both these are, in fact, consensus opinions in the West, which would be vigorously challenged by an arguably large segment of the Arab world; does that mean they would be Point of View? If one callous toad (I am NOT applying that term to Buckles!) can be found who thinks the line (from "Rejoice") "For I am in twelve Hardships with my Savior" is not poignant when the majority of listeners think it is, does that make the statement that it is, a Point of View? Are all uses of any terms implying emotions or feelings, even if they are so widely shared as to approach factuality, forbidden as breaches of "neutrality"?

Some of these questions may be answered in Wiki pages on style and policy, to which you may wish to refer me, but even if they are, I think the questions should still be raised. Ranthlee 02:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Classical music

Hi there, I am writing you because you were one of the contributors to the discussion last year about moving Classical music to European classical music. Well, the decision to do that did not have great effects - it has created a lot of confusion. Specifically, people editing articles that contain references are almost exclusively using the link classical music, which of course leads to a disambig page. They literally always mean European classical music in their context. So, it is creating a nightmare for us folks at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, where Classical music remains the number one offender as far as the number of articles that link to a disambig page. Which shouldn't happen. I think the crux of the issue is that English-language editors think "classical music" and they know what they mean - and we are trying to tell them that they really mean something else.

(Deep breath) So, we need to try to solve this issue. My inclination is to move European classical music back to Classical music, and then move the disambig page to Classical music (disambiguation), which currently just redirects to Classical music. What do you think? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vocal music

Hi Hyacinth. I noticed you purged the Voice instrumental music article a little while ago and moved the contents to Vocal music. I had also recently happend upon the Voice Instrumental Music page. It was incredibly confusing and seemed to consist of accumulated cruft. I think you were right to change it to a redirect. I've gone through the material now at Vocal music and cut most of it there as well. Probably even more needs to be cut once there exists an appropriate survey article. It's in a bit of a sorry state right now: it has a servicable lead, followed by a somewhat subjective selection of genres, and then the remains of the voice instrumental information, which is essentially a list of examples of untexted vocal music. It's certainly better than in was, though I'm still fairly disheartened. If you have any comments or advice, it'd be welcome. I also noticed Grove doesn't even have an article on Vocal music, which rather suprised me. Maybe they consider it too fundamental to even warrant? Best wishes, MarkBuckles 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

skandha article - okay to replace Trungpa quote?

Oh amazingly prolific, articulate and genius demi-god Hyacinth:

Over a year ago (27 March 2005), you made some truly excellent contributions to the skandha article, including quoting from Trungpa Rinpoche's The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation. At the time, I believe, your excellent incorporation of the Trungpa quotes was to provide authority to the basic definition of the skandhas in terms of their interrelationship and their use in Buddhism. Soon after you included these quotes, an IP-address-identified editor slapped your quotes together in one long quote and, by the time I tripped upon the article in June 2006, the long Trungpa quote was pushed to the very bottom of the article. (Pearls before swine!)

Over the last month, I've tried to re-organize the skandha article so that it opens with a non-sectarian definition, followed historically by Theravada material and then followed by Mahayana/Vajrayana material. The time to identify unique Vajrayana material is coming up (probably in a few weeks, unless someone beats me to it) and I thought I'd quote Trungpa from his translation and commentary on the Tibetan Book of the Dead (co-authored with Fremantle). Towards this end, I was wondering if you would mind if, when the Trungpa & Fremantle material is added, I ease out the once-brilliantly-added current Trungpa quote since, with the recent restructing of the article, the current quote is now a reiteration of existing non-sectarian and Theravadan material and does not illuminate the skandhas in a Vajrayana-specific (Trungpa-Rinpoche-unique) manner.

So, in short, would my deleting your skandha-related Trungpa quote in the near future be okay? Please respond at Talk:Skandha#Mahayana_material. Thanks so much, once again. Best wishes, LarryR 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hyacinth - thanks for the response to my talk page. I've tried to follow through with your request atTalk:Skandha#Proposed Trungpa quote replacement -- sorry for not doing so prior your prompting me to do so. Also, assuming that I understood what you wrote correctly, I regret that you might perceive that my personal beliefs are somehow in conflict with Trungpa Rinpoche (or his quote) and that this might somehow motivate the desired change. I don't see it this way at all myself. If this is your view then, if you like, I'd be interested in discussing this further. Either way, thanks again for your help and guidance. LarryR 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth - thanks for the feedback. I think I understand your analysis and certainly respect and admire your practice wisdom here on Wikipedia. I hope some of the above-mentioned skandha talk page comments have helped address the issues you raised, at least in terms of this specific change. Regardless, it will still be a couple of weeks before I make any serious changes to the Vajrayana section of the skandha article (due to other commitments, both expected and unexpected) and, when I do, I'll try to see if there's some meaningful way to include part or all of the existing Trungpa Rinpoche quote. If, at that time, I think it is best to radically change or delete the existing quote, I'll check in with you and won't make any such change unless we can reach consensus. Thanks again. I hope all goes well, LarryR 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I'll definitely keep it mind. Thanks again! LarryR 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hyacinth - just to wrap this thread up some, I've decided to leave in the existing quote that you initially added and just add some other Vajrayana material around it. Frankly, I wish I could have added more, but I haven't the resources or time. I very appreciate your engaging me on this matter in your intelligent and respectful manner. I regret if I caused you any consternation. Best wishes, LarryR 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Semitone

Hello, Hyacinth! Thanks for your help on the section I put on the Semitone article. (I wasn't sure if it belonged there.) Also, thanks for pointing out I should always sign my name. (The links you gave me should help.) I am fairly new to computerland, and a real newbie at Wikipedia, so please bear with me...I'm bound to make a few mistakes!) In case I mess up on signing, it's Prof.rick, and it's now 12:49 EST, August 14, 2006. Fredrick Pritchard 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ain't I a Woman lk at bell-hooks article

_ _ Ain't I a Woman has become a rdr to Ar'n't I a Woman?, an article (on the S.Truth work) that (now) has an (IMO) ugly two-way ToP Dab. I'd be happy to create a proper dab page (i guess at Ain't I a Woman (disambiguation)), and perhaps a stub for the song.
_ _ The reason i'm bothering you is that among the results was, no doubt with all good intentions, the mispiping of your lk to the b-hooks work. I see you continue active in editing, so you would of course make the most credible corrector of the current problem.
_ _ If you're willing to undertake that, you might also consider whether the move you made deserves clarification. I haven't looked to see if a contemporaneous history entry at Bell hooks makes everything clear (feeling as i do at the moment up to my nostrils in my maintenance of the talk page (and in the contemplated edits that i pushed into my stack in order to undertake the maintenance)), so i don't pretend to know if the cryptic text deserves, say, the addition of a lk to the diff corresponding to that edit (since many readers will not otherwise take the trouble to research and hopefully grasp what you were letting us know).
_ _ Thanks for your attention, whatever you decide. [smile]
--Jerzy•t 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Semitone (2)

Hi, Hyacinth! I hope I have placed this comment in an appropriate location! I noticed you removed the final paragraph from the section I contributed to the article, Semitones (Rational expressions...). I appreciate your reasoning, but feel this paragraph contains important information, relative to the ET semitone. Would you considering either making suggestions on what changes might be made for it's inclusion (preferred) OR, if you see fit, re-writing the paragraph, so as to relate more directly to the Semitone? I feel the paragraph, and the matter of "audible harmonics" is important in establishing "natural intervals" (including both the 3mu and it's consequence, the ET semitone). (It is not indispensible to the section, but, I think, expands it appreciably.) With appreciation and thanks, Prof.rick 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but wonder why "Semitone" has been redirected to "Minor Second". (We know they are not the same! A semitone can also be an augmented unison.) Unfortunately, much of the essence of my section was lost. Nonetheless, I appreciate your inclusion of some of my section in the redirect, such as references to historic definitions of the semitone, and the rational expressions I presented.

Personally, I believe my initial paragraph (regarding the expression of intervals as integral fractions is relevant, since the semitone is, in fact, an interval). (Perhaps if I had started, "as any interval, the semitone is often expressed in terms of integral fractions" you might have accepted it.) I also question your statement that the 3mu is not about the semitone. (It is an interval which can be used to define the semitone. Just as the semitone can be defined as the 12th root of 2, the octave, it can be defined as 8 3mu's.) Since the octave is not a semitone, should we therefore forbid references to it in discussion of the semitone?

Octaves are expressed in powers of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16 etc.). Is it not then reasonable that the semitone should be divided into smaller units by the same principle (inverse powers of 2)?

I appreciate your conflict...music is a diverse although highly unified art, with elements of pitch, time, volume, and timbre intimately interwoven in any musical composition. As an editor of an encyclopedia, you must necessary dissect music, and each of it's elements, into isolated components. I do not envy you!

Wishing you the best, in your work with Wikipedia, and in all matters, yours truly, 216.208.65.2 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Prof.rick 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone cluster

Hi. I posted the following two messages on the tone cluster discussion page. Realizing that you might not have call to revisit it any time soon, I'm posting them here as well to get your input. Thanks, Dan—DCGeist 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel you're right about making it more accessible to the lay reader, but how? You were absolutely correct to dispense with my word "synchronically," but you also eliminated a practical example that gives the nonspecialist a picture of one sort of tone cluster (I've restored it). Do you have any other ideas for making it more helpful to a broader audience? Best, Dan—DCGeist 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [Since writing this, I've added a bit more explication to the lead graf.—D]

As a follow-up, I admit to being confused by your reference to criterion 1b. You seem to be referencing the following statement: "[W]here appropriate, [the article] contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles)." Are you saying the article, at its current length, should be broken into more sections? Or that it's not currently long enough to qualify as a good article? If there is a minimum length--I don't know that there is--surely this one surpasses it. Do you think it's not long enough for the given topic? Please clarify. Thanks, D—DCGeist 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Five Pieces for Orchestra

I've been going through articles on works by Arnold Schoenberg, and I came across Five Pieces for Orchestra, on which you left a reference to "Erickson, 1975" without an actual mention of what source that is. I assumed that this is the source:

• Erickson, Robert. Sound Structures in Music. University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1975. ISBN 0520023765

Was this a correct assumption? - Rainwarrior 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Serious Errors in Source Material

Hi, Hyacinth. As you've seen, I'm new to Wikipedia. I have now read the Wikipedia policies and understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability of having been published by a reliable source, and not truth. Unfortunately, many reliable sources (including academic publishers) publish information that is seriously in error. By this I mean that the author is clearly in error, and that anybody with reasonable knowledge of the subject, including the author if confronted with the error, can see that a mistake was made and that it is not simply a matter of opinion.

When such errors creep into Wikipedia because they come from verifiable sources, Wikipedia's usefulness and authority are diminished. Certainly having multiple points of view, theories, and speculations presented verifiably is useful and authoritative, and I do enjoy seeing them in various articles I have read. But some things, if included, are simply incorrect and misleading. It would be unfortunate if there were no way to correct them except by citing published sources that point them out; not every source is critically peer-reviewed and/or publicly reviewed prior to or after publication. A professor choosing a textbook will reject sources containing many serious errors, or may choose a substantially useful textbook containing one or two serious errors and point them out to her students; in both cases, the professor may not have the time or energy to publish a review.

Specifically, the content in A Hard Day's Night (song) attributed to Middleton is in serious error. I do not know where or how Middleton got the lead sheet, but the guitar chord notations are correctly in the key of G while the tune itself is written in the key of C, and the first three notes are incorrectly transcribed. This is self-evident and does not require any other source to dispute. Play the chords with your left hand and the melody with your right, and you will hear a bi-tonal mess. Perhaps the source's policy was to transpose everything into C in order to make it easier for students to follow, while retaining the original key in the guitar notation (not a bad way to write lead sheets for most singers, who don't follow the notes anyway, but challenging for anybody with "perfect pitch" or for an instrumentalist trying to play along); I highly doubt that to be the case, but if it is, it should be cited from the source in order to provide an accurate context to the lead sheet and accompanying analysis. I don't care what the key signature is; as somebody pointed out on the article's talk page, the signature for G mixolydian is the same as that of C major, and if I were to transcribe the song I might leave out the F# in the signature to avoid the need for so many accidentals (naturals) on the Fs; unfortunately, the tune was not transcribed as G mixolydian--it was transcribed as C major, with accidentals (flats) on the Bs. The author consistently refers to the notes of the lead sheet, and not the song itself, in his analysis, perpetuating this obvious error into statements that, though extremely debatable in some instances, would at least match up with the reality of the tune as sung and recorded if the note spellings were correct. Again, if it is the authors policy to present analyses in the key of C, it should be cited, but I doubt that, as the author is cited as describing "G as the dominant in the key of C major" to establish G's function in the context of the tune, which constitutes another obvious, self-evident serious error; every other source indicates that D is the dominant and that the key is G major.

So, what is a conscientious Wikipedian to do? Except for the note and key spellings, Middleton's analysis would be merely debatable and certainly admissible. It isn't worth anybody's while to publish a correction, so the spellings must remain, and if the contribution remains, there is no way other than the talk page to point the errors out to readers lacking the analytic skills to detect them. I don't think keeping a contribution with serious errors on the main page and the corrections (which are self-evident and do not require original research) on the talk page is a good solution. If I were the author, I would pull the contribution and put it on the talk page with corrections. My vote is for somebody else to do just that. What do you think?

AlanH212 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Misdirection!

Hi, Hyacinth! While I find many commendable features on the "Minor Second" article, I find it very confusing that I am being redirected there from "Chromatic Semitone". (A minor second is a Diatonic Semitone!) Pity the poor student trying to investigate the Augmented Unison! The "Unison" article has only a link to "augmented unison", which leads (falsely) to the Minor Second Article. Can someone do something to clear up this confusing issue? (See my comments also on the "Discussion" page for "Minor Second".) Thanks! Prof.rick 05:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

minor second: archiving

Hi, Hyacinth! I have made a suggestion on the Minor Second article (Discussion page), that all items up to item 17 be archived. These items are in reference to articles which no longer exist, and are not relevant to the current Minor Second article. (Really, such a long talk page is a little awkward for editing, too.) I noticed that "archiving" was on your "To Do" list for the page in question...and I completely agree! Can you do it, or can you suggest someone who can? Thanks for your help. Prof.rick 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing (or moving) Minor second to Semitone

Hi, Hyacinth!

It seems we have finally arrived at a deadlock on the "Minor Second" page, and need your help! To keep it as brief as possible:

1. We can "sort out" the content of the Article; although there are serious problems in this area, I feel they are within the reach of Users to ammend (with administrator's intervention, as appropriate).

2. The BIG problem supports a suggestion you made to Mark: instead of creating numerous, small Articles, why not rename (or move) the present "Minor Second" to "Semitone"? Mark and I support this idea.

3. Rainwarrior opposes the move, claiming that "chromatic semitones and/or augmented unisons are forms of the minor second." This is FALSE, and very confusing to students. (Obviously, augmented unisons are forms of the unison!)

4. I understand that Users CAN move pages, but I really don't know how. Also, if there is any controversy, apparently an Administrator should be consulted, in any case.

If you could look over the Discussion page, roughly from item 18 on, I am sure you will understand the situation clearly.

We want Wikipedia to be as informative and accurate as possible. I realize that we could call upon other Administrators, but your knowledge and competence in this field have led me to ask you first.

Can you possibly help?

Best Regards, Prof.rick 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists of pieces which use serialism

Your article/list is an orphan. Since you know it better than I do, could you please create a link to it from another article? --meatclerk 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I note you have added links to the article. I thank you very much. I will delist this article from the orphaned list. Thanks again. meatclerk 09:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Consensus

Hi, Hyacinth. I'm "Mountain" from Chinese Wikipedia, and I'm an administrator of Chinese Wikipedia. I have noticed that you are the first author of our policy - Wikipedia:Consensus. This policy is a fundamental of Wikipedia community culture.

Now I am writing a presentation on Wikipedia community culture. So could you pleased give me some background on the creation of this policy? What inspire you to write the first few sentences about “Wikipedia:Consensus”?

Thanks.--Mountain 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A few queries?

• How do you start a wiki project on a certian topic?
• How do you get assistance for starting and building new pages so they conform to the Maanual of style?
• and What is the copywright status of images of abudcted children?
• --Lucy-marie 00:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--Lucy-marie 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)