User talk:Noetica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi Noetica! Since no one else has welcomed you to Wikipedia, I will do it. :-) Glad to have you here. That's some good work you have been doing in the music area. Thanks for the correction of "rhythm" to "time values" in the article I wrote on Notes inégales; your version is more precise. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions! Best regards, Antandrus 16:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Yes, I also love that Pindar quote; I've carried it in my head for a couple of decades now; if only I could read it in ancient Greek, alas, but then I haven't quite exhausted all the limits of the possible myself yet.  :-) I first encountered it as the epigraph to The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus; but I see its applicability to Valéry's poem as well! (Interesting, there is a poem by Swinburne on a similar subject, only in his the cemetery is being devoured by the North Sea; it's even more melancholy than Valéry's). Happy editing! Antandrus 23:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! and thanks for the comment. Oh, yes, the trusty n-dash, my friend and accomplice on nights when I'm too tired or stupid to do serious research and writing. And I continue to be impressed with your good work; you're doing a great job polishing the writing around here, which sorely needs to be done. Be well, Antandrus 02:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Handy characters, etc.

[edit] Possible worlds

I liked your edits on possible worlds. Please look at my comment (question) in the talk page Talk:Possible worlds on defining the metric between possible worlds.CSTAR 03:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You have new messages

...and it's an apostrophe. What a disappointment.  ;( --Henrygb 18:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski

I just had to say hi to someone who knows what affirming the consequent is and recognizes it when s/he sees it. ;-) Just a point about analyse/analyze: the practice here is to continue to use whatever spelling style is already dominant in the article, so if it's American, that's what's used; if British, then that. There is some debate about this going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style in case you're interested. Some editors want articles about Americans always to be in American English and so on. But broadly speaking, the first major contributer gets to decide which style to use, the exception being if the topic is inherently tied to a particular country; for example, an article about the British prime minister should be in British English. It's all pretty silly in my view, but there you go. Hope this helps, and welcome to the madhouse. SlimVirgin 03:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noetica-- thanks for your note. I'm sorry I had to be a stickler on spelling. I'm enjoying reading your points on the Dembski page, and am leaning toward the fallacy in question being a case of affirming the consequent. Please stick around and contribute. I hope you don't mind being challenged, because we all get it at one point or another on these contentious articles, and more often than not are compelled to justify our positions. Which is a good thing, I think... --FeloniousMonk 18:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing to be challenged when it's done in good faith with the aim of improving the article; FM's challenges are always good faith, and I sense Noetica's will be too. The problem arises with editors who are only out to make trouble or to make POV edits, and there's at least one of those hanging around the Dembski and Human pages. Then it becomes conflict for conflict's sake, which is tiresome. SlimVirgin 01:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greek stems

When I say a y can never be followed by a z I of course mean "in verb endings." Adam 08:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Search and accents

That's a good point you raise about the accents. I'm not sure where you should report that, but the place to start is probably Wikipedia:Village pump. The technical one is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where you just leave a note as if on a regular talk page. However, there is a comment at the top of that page saying there is no guarantee that developers will read it, and they suggest going here, though I've never seen this page and don't know how it works. I'd probably start with the village pump technical page if I were you. Hope this helps. Best, SlimVirgin 08:01, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rules, hyphens, & dashes

No, I'm afraid that I've been extremely busy (the last week of term, reports to be written, arrangements to be made for next term the backlog of essay marking to be tackled, etc.). I don't understand why you'd make it a principle to use the same size dash for different purposes; why is that more sensible than, for example, deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both? Modern publishers (especially, though not only, non-academic publishers like Penguin) have ditched many of the standard rules, largely because they no longer employ proof-readers or copy-editors, and they want to make life easy for their typesetters. That doesn't apply here on Wikipedia, of course.
The only book I have to hand (that I could find in the piles that are at the moment teetering on my study floor) is Herbert Rees' Rules of Printed English. After distinguihsing between the en rule, the em rule, and the 2-em rule, he says (§§59ff):
The en rule should be used:
  1. “to mark off a parenthesis which makes a notable break in the flow of the sentence” (or to avoid parentheses within parentheses);
  2. to join numerals, etc., names of joint authors, etc.;
  3. for various other minor functions (indicating drawling or stuttering in reported speech, etc.).
The em rule should be used for all other functions (he mentions a number, giving examples, such as: “...the pursuit of the arts, the rule of law, love of country, reverence for the gods — all this makes up civilization”).
The 2-em rule doesn't really concern us in the sort of writing found in an encyclopædia.
I have in the past checked Rees against other books for typesetters, and have found only differences in detail.

Theses are the rules that I've always followed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mel. Yes, I thought from your style here and there that this might be your approach. You don't actually answer my repeated question about colon-like uses of the dash, unless the last example you cite (the "recapitulating" one) counts as one such use, which is debatable. Never mind! I now understand the situation well enough. Myself, I favour the clean style that Penguin has developed. And I would point out that, since the em dash was pretty well universally used in earlier work for sentence-level punctation (that is, excluding cases in which the dash functions much like a hyphen), there is really no long-settled precedent for modern practice. This amply justifies Penguin doing what it does. In fact, it could be argued that the precedents are all for uniformity, so any distinction such as you favour, following Rees, is out of step with a broad and long-established principle in the use of dashes.
As for your question earlier on ("I don't understand why you'd make it a principle to use the same size dash for different purposes; why is that more sensible than, for example, deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both?"), there is an easy answer. There is plenty of precedent for using the same punctuation marks for different purposes. Consider commas, which we use in numbers like 1,000,000 and also in sentences. Consider full stops and their various uses (like marking the shortening of a word), or colons for that matter. And then consider your own use of the en dash for joint authors, page ranges, etc., and your use the same en dash parenthetically in sentences! Penguin (and I) are more consistent; and I could ask rhetorically in reply "Why do you use two different styles for sentence-level dashes?" The difference between commas and semicolons is quite a different matter, since both have long-established (though mutable: see the comma in Locke and Hume, for example, compared to modern usage) distinct roles.
But my point didn't concern using one mark for different purposes, it concerned using one mark exclusively (“deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both”). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)
Finally, I venture the suggestion the Rees way is demonstrably a minority way. In most published texts the parenthetic and colon-like dashes are the same, whether that same be em dash or en dash.
Anyway, as I say, I have my answer. We'd better not spend too much more time on this. Thanks!--Noetica 10:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looking at a range of books, the older ones tend to use both en and em rules, the newer (mainly computer-produced) ones use only one. I still contend that, when we have two rules and a variety of purposes, it makes it easier for the reader if different rules are used for different puroposes. Thus if I meet: ‘ – ’ I'm prepared for a parenthesis, while if I meet: ‘ — ’ I know that something else is intended. Simplicity's fine if it makes things easier for the reader; I don't see that sticking to either en or em rules does that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate your practice and the reasons you offer for it. I still wonder how you would accurately and objectively individuate distinct "purposes"! There are many more purposes than there are available marks, so we cannot "carve at the joints" with them. Nor must we strain to do so, since context in written language plays its helping role. I too would want things made easier for the reader; and we simply disagree about the means. That may in the end be an empirical matter, and neither of us has done the required empirical investigation.
In the end, I would not want the practice you advocate dismissed lightly, as if it had nothing going for it. But I would claim the same indulgence for the Penguin practice, which I favour, after what I think you will allow me amounts to a pretty searching examination. Appeals to precedent in this domain are particularly suspect, as I have pointed out. As for Wikipedia, I think we agree that the case is different from others that you or I may find ourselves involved with. Now I propose that we move on. --Noetica 21:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Pleasant surprise to see your name scrolling by in Special:Recentchanges. Hope all is well, and happy editing!  :-) Antandrus (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)#

[edit] Apostrophes

Thanks for your help with those queries, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. Do you think the Apostrophe page could do with an explanation of my query, as an example of hypercorrection? It's just a thought, perhaps that page is cluttered enough. Thanks again. FreeMorpheme 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consecutive fifths

I'll be happy to help, to the best of my ability. My knowledge of music theory is limited. I'm probably the ideal reviewer, though; not knowing the rules intimately, I'll be a good gauge as to whether what you're writing is expressing what you want it to. Not knowing the material as well as you, I'd prefer to follow your lead. Peirigill 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HizbUllah

it's ok; I thought it must be a mistake, but since you insist I'll check it. I find it rather unlikely that Arabic stress should fall on an i`rab vowel (the -u-) in any case. I suppose you'd agree it has to be hIzbun, al-hIzbu. Any chance you can point me to somewhere I could verify it is actually hizbU- in idafa? Is this a matter of dropping the final -i, hizbU-llah but hizbu-llAhi? dab (ᛏ) 22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, I won't interfere with your choice of featured English pronunciation, but I have misgivings about being assertive about the Arabic one. I suspect that the BBC's recommendation is directly based on the proper High Arabic pronunciation: In High Arabic, I *believe* (I am not an expert) the proper pronunciation would be hizbu-llAhi (four syllables, stress on the third). Except nobody bothers to pronounce the -i, which would yield hizbu-llAh. But it is possible that in acutal usage, the stress *then* moves to the new penultimate, hizbU-llah. I will readily believe that the Lebanese commonly do that, but I would be careful about stating outright that this is the proper Arabic pronunciation. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics/wip Progress

I was also getting a bit impatient with how nobody was willing to move things on; so, far from being offended, I commend your effort to keep the discussion from stalling. I imagine that at least one person will object that there are actually two separate points in your motion that they may not both wish to agree with. Therefore, I will reply to your post on the wip page and vote for both separately to keep things moving (rather than have someone point this out and call for a remodified motion). We really must keep people interested so that they may constructively contribute, so I commend you again. Krea 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Aey

Hello Noetica,

I saw on user:aey's page that he had screwed with your work. I am a fellow victim of this sort of nightmarishly-bad editing. My article, indeterminacy in philosophy, has suffered from multiple edits by Aey that render arguments incomprehensible, self-contradictory, and, in many cases, grammatically or syntactically incorrect. He or she refuses to discuss reasons for such edits on the discussion page and insists that I am wrong on many points without providing a shred of evidence for these claims. I, for my part, have backed up every point made in my article with mountains of evidence.

I would appreciate it if you could find the time to take a look at the discussion page for that article and let us both know what you think of what's going on, since it seems like you are experiencing the same sort of problem:

"

  1. What was wrong with the information you replaced?
  2. What are the "complex aesthetico-philosophical premises" of which you speak? (Why do you mention them, and why do you label them in that obscure way?)
  3. Which existentialists are they, who think that way about Nietzsche?
  4. What is a "self-defining paradigm"? How can Nietzsche's thought be reasonably considered "one characteristic" of it?

"

I have asked user:aey similar questions about fifty times now in response to similar edits of my work, and have received the same non-answers that you have. Aey obviously does not know Nietzsche; you seem to, and I hope you'll agree that I do too.

Thanks very much for your time. I await your reply. If you do decide to read the article, make sure to read my latest revision, and not one by Aey. If you can help me explain to him that his actions are inappropriate, I will gladly do the same for you.

Tastyummy 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Just added this because I accidentally called my last edit "minor" when it wasn't especially so. Tastyummy 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Noetica. I find Tastyummy's talk in bad faith. He's lately taking our recent discussion at Indeterminacy (Philosophy) very personally and right now wishes to use a recent discussion between you and I that has well been settled (and isn't even remotely related) as a way to bring you to his side. Anyway, I would like that Tastyummy not resort to personal attacks and rampant bad faith assumptions about me, but that cannot be helped, apparently. All I wish to say is that you take these considerations with some seriousness. Thank you for your understanding. Aey 06:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I did at one point personally attack Aey. But he has now done the same for me, as is noted on the discussion page. I would, indeed, appreciate having you "on my side", but I obviously expect you to decide for yourself whether my article is or is not conformant with Wikipedia policies. If it is true that you settled your dispute with Aey long ago, then I apologize for wasting your time in "rampant bad faith". I merely thought that you appeared to be a fellow grammarian, and my problems with Aey's edits of my page mainly stem from his replacement of my English grammar with his, which to me is often virtually incomprehensible. If this has been a waste of your time altogether, again, all apologies. Tastyummy 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring much of the other assumptions Tastyummy is using here, he doesn't recognized that the discussion you and I had was about content, not grammar (and my grammar isn't usually all that bad, only a few times, for my mother tounge isn't English), which Tastyummy has blown far out of proportion to the point of absolute absurdity. Anyway, I really don't wish to contribute to that page due to Tastyummy's behavior. Aey 08:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[This is my reply to Tastyummy and Aey at my talk page; I have posted this message at User_talk:Tastyummy and User_talk:Aey also. For convenience, please continue the discussion only at MY page, if you want me to read and contribute to it. Best that it be in one place. - Noetica 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)] Well! Tastyummy, you are very welcome to approach me as you did. I am not an expert on Nietzsche, but Philosophy is an article that I am certainly competent to deal with, and I do give it my attention from time to time. Aey, I am not satisfied that matters have been resolved at that article. I have simply left things for a little while, warning you as I did so that I'd be watching. I have been, and I am tempted simply to revert the text to how it was before your intervention, which I find decidedly substandard. I am just an ordinary editor, not an admin. But I am not impressed with your behaviour around the place. If you do not show more insight into the limitations of your offerings, and more care, consideration, and restraint, I may take the matter to an admin; or if anyone else wants to do that they can rely on my support. I'll continue to monitor the situation, and I'll look more closely at the article Tastyummy refers to. I hope the two of you will feel free to discuss things calmly at my page, with a view to sorting all this out. - Noetica 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


It seemed to me that the "content problems" in my article weren't being discussed on its discussion page; rather, the argument was something like

Aey: "This doesn't conform to policy, whether you believe me or not." [Italics added-- but I believe he did use the exact phrase "whether you believe me or not", or one very similar to it, multiple times in his "description" of the "many" "specific" problems in the article.

Me: Here is evidence to the contrary: [insert evidence here]. Please support your claim.

Repeat.

Aey contributed very valuably to the discussion in other ways, such as by telling me I needed to cite more sources. This was true, and I began to do so immediately and am still gathering more. But, for example, is it really necessary to source a statement that experimental data must be quantifiable in science when I'd already linked to quantifiability, the scientific method, et cetera-- i.e., provided the reader with enough information to back this statement up? I could certainly be wrong in that it may indeed be necessary to cite every other sentence in my article, but this would make it a very unusual Wikipedia article indeed. He also let me know that " - " should replace double hyphens due to wikipedia style policies. I had been wrong on this and it was useful to know.

As for my attacks against Aey's grammar: these followed his attacks on mine, as is shown in the history and the discussion page. I was, thus, actually defending my original formulations in order to prevent their being replaced with ones that didn't make sense. For example, Aey reformulated a grammatically-correct example of finding a loop of definition in a dictionary into a grammatically-incorrect one, because mine was supposedly "unclear".

It was this lack of evidence that anything was wrong with my article that made me look for more opinions. Aey cited only wikipedia policy pages in his statements that my article didn't conform; he almost never actually discussed specifically which parts of the article didn't conform (although he did a few times) but generally simply freely edited the article. Of course Wikipedia allows this, but it is counterproductive, and it was particularly so for this article, since, on more than one occasion, his editing actually turned my writing into nonsense. My original formulations have almost invariably been fine. An exception: his replacement of "cherished in science" to "central in science", which I agree is less emotionally-loaded. But by and large, I think the page history will support my statements.

I, for my part, backed up each statement I made in the article with mountains of evidence, both within the article itself, on the discussion page, and in linking to other articles whose veracity has not been called into question.

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your mediation of this conflict.

Tastyummy 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Tastyummy. I see that Aey has decided to withdraw from English-language Wikipedia. This drastic decision will avert the problem, of course, though we might have wished for a more collegial resolution. Let's maintain goodwill, and see what happens. By all means keep in touch! - Noetica 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That certainly seems pretty drastic. I, for my part, got pretty pissed at one point and said that I was going to leave Wikipedia, but I'm glad I didn't follow through on this (and, really, I knew I wouldn't the moment I said it). But I have to be honest: I am really quite glad that aey is (supposedly) gone.

Someone recently vandalised my user page and accused my best friend (in real life as well as here on Wikipedia), user:Max18well, of being my sockpuppet, presumably over the article we've been discussing. Luckily the vandalism of my user page was caught by user:khoikhoi; the history for my page shows that Aey did something to it, but I keep missing it in the diff, so I can't tell whether he helped vandalise it or was actually trying to say something to me yet-- I'm too distracted right now to read through the whole thing, but I strongly suspect that Aey contributed to vandalism. Nevertheless, I will continue, as you suggest, to "show goodwill": Aey, and whoever else vandalised my page, if you're reading this, I apologise for my rudeness and hope you'll do the same.

Anyway, I would love to keep in touch. You seem to be an excellent grammarian-- Wikipedia needs more of these-- and your contributions to Wikipedia's philosophy article are excellent. I'd also be interested in your personal opinion of my article, simply because I admire your writing and I hope you find mine to be at least passable.

Tastyummy 09:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I am happy to keep our correspondence on this page if this is more convenient for you; however, I invite you to use my user talk page for discussion at any time. Thanks again, Tastyummy 10:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that you seem to be a lover of music. Listen to [this invention]. I wrote it a couple of years ago and synthesized it on my computer since I'm no pianist. I'd be interested in your opinion. Tastyummy 12:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again, Tastyummy. I do like your invention. Have you done much of this sort of thing? I am a composer, but a very lazy one. I haven't done much for a long time, and have nothing to send you at the moment. I won't chat for long right now, because where I am in the world (remember the world?) it is late at night, and I must sleep (remember sleep?). Thank you for your compliments concerning my edits and my English. Yours are good too. More soon, OK? - Noetica 13:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "the world" is something pretty alien to me right now, and I can barely remember sleep. :) I've suffered from insomnia since I was very young; tonight was a particularly wakeful night (hence the approximately-twelve-hour editing frenzy) and I hope I'm not becoming too annoying in constantly editing your discussion page... It's totally understandable to want to ignore Wikipedia altogether for extended periods of time. I just can't ever manage to actually pull this off. Call it weird, (and I don't think you will), but I love to write. As for more composing, I more or less stopped altogether for about a year, and if that's not "lazy" then I don't know what is. But I'm getting back into it. That was some of my better work; if and when I come up with anything else that I'm not ashamed to hear for myself, I'll post it, if you like. Glad to hear from you, Tastyummy 15:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list

Hi, can you raise any problems you see by generally removing the quotes? We might get around them by using parentheses in a few places. The website for the Reith lectures audio streams is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/lectures.shtml

As for parallels, I've had my hands full with all of the politics at FAC, FAR/C and WIAFA talk, and trying to make my 1a page look presentable. Tony 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds excellent; will do soon. Tony 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It will be nice to have it tidied up, especially if the article is cited externally. Tony 06:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Physics development activity

Hi, thanks for the kind words. With regard to the specific points you made - they are both valid things to say. Unfortunately the mediawiki software isn't all that good at discussion presentation (and I believe that is something that is going to be improved in the long term) so things can get a little messy and hard to follow. Hopefully things will flow along in a sensible manner, but I am happy to structure discussions into logical layouts if the need arises. The idea I had was to follow an iteration style model - after a sensible amount of time of discussion I would form a "first draft" proposal for the particular discussion area and then let a new round of chatter take place. Following on from that a second draft would be postulated by me based on the new discussions - and then let the discussion rage again. The process then continues until we have a situation that everyone is happy with (or a supermajority if we can't get complete agreement). Obviously the multiple iterations won't be needed for all areas - on some aspects things should hopefully naturally come together without any problems.

I am happy to let things flow naturally at the moment and see where we go. Hopefully the "area" up for discussion each time will be nice and tight enough to stop rambling discussion covering a whole swathe of topics (which is exactly the problem with the main talk page - there are so many things going on in there is hard to keep track of anything). Once we have the structure setup then it will just be a case of looking at each chapter in turn and formulating what goes in it. Obviously this first bit is a little more boring than getting straight in to the "Physics can be defined as..." textural discussion - but if we have a solid chapter framework then we should be able to hang text off of it in a structured manner. SFC9394 22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing unsigned posts for others

I do this a lot, myself. There are actually template for it:

Template:Unsigned and Template:Unsigned2.

I tend to write something like:

{{subst:unsigned2|05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)|Rainwarrior}}

This creates: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainwarrior (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

You can copy the needed information to fill it in right off the edit history. - Rainwarrior 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While unicode accidentals are more aesthetic

indeed, I prefer them- and the consistent use of -flat/-sharp or - ♭/ ♯ in a document is even more to be preferred I agree- the relevant Manual of Style only actually wants to forbid, I think, constructions like Ab or C# instead of A♭ , A-flat, C♯, C-sharp. the Ab and C# are forbidden, the other four aren't. So going through and replacing -flat and -sharp with unicode is maybe lagniappe? Wishing well sincerely to a fellow musiclover Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. First warning. Stirling Newberry 20:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks??

I observe that Stirling Newberry (recently blocked for a violation of Wikipedia policy – so it may be unfair to address this right now) has given me a "first warning" about personal attacks (see immediately above)! I can only think that he is referring to some material at Rainwarrior's talk page. I quote it here, with some highlighting in bold that I have just added:

Hi Rainwarrior. First of all, thanks: both for posting some useful advice at my page, and for looking after things conscientiously at the Sonata article. At the moment I prefer not to say anything on the Discussion page about recent edits. As things stand, I think the article has now been improved, and I am pleased to have had some part in that. I hope it will be clear, from the record that Wikipedia keeps of these things, that my edits are careful and well-intentioned, and that they usually work towards readability, accuracy, clearer style, correctness in grammar and punctuation, and general consistency in an article. If this is not the case, I am more than happy for my work to be undone! I do not currently engage in dialogue with Stirling Newberry, whose rudeness and intransigence were among my reasons for leaving Wikipedia for more than a year. I'm back now, and I very much enjoy collaborating with editors like you. – Noetica 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I now put this on record here, without also putting on record what I consider to be the personal attacks that Stirling Newberry has manifestly perpetrated. They can easily be found here and there, but it serves no purpose to draw particular attention to them. Let's all just get on with editing, I say. And especially, let's take care with our editing not to remove or revert improvements in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and style that we did not make the effort to produce. – Noetica 00:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonata problems--and interpersonal conflict

Hi Noetica,

Yes, indeed, it's been a while since we've properly caught up, and I greatly enjoyed our exchanges last year.

I have been noticing the troubles around the sonata article, and those related. There are, as I'm sure you know, two basic categories of trouble: content dispute, which should be solvable by discussion and participation of others, and the much thornier problem of interpersonal conflict.

Since I've communicated extensively both with you and with Stirling offline, I really can't get involved in this as an admin, i.e. I'm not going to be blocking anyone or protecting anything. I'm an involved party. (I'm not recalling even a single instance of blocking a true, non-vandal editor in my two and a half years here anyway, but that's beside the point.) Well--I'll just come out and say it--I think you and Stirling overreact to each other. You have very different editing styles, and you are both very sensitive to perceived slights.

Maybe this is obvious, but you and Stirling--as well as any other editors--need to start from what you have in common, that you want to improve the articles. Then perhaps list the places that need to be improved, and work on them, with an agreement to attempt to be as tactful as possible, especially in edit summaries and talk page comments. Collaboration with fundamentally different personalities isn't always easy or even possible, but agreeing on these starting points is essential. (And remember I'm writing this for anyone else reading, not just you.) I can provide comment on specific issues as needed, but since I know both of you I have to admit this strains my diplomatic ability to the limit. Good luck and happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[Posted at Antandrus's talk page:]

Thanks for your prompt reply to this at my talk page, Antandrus. Yes, Stirling and I do overreact to each other. For that reason I do not get into direct discussion with him: from my point of view, we are so different that it would be futile to attempt to engage him in dispassionate dialogue aimed at improving articles. I used to try; it didn't work. As I say, I can only claim this as my point of view! My style is to be meticulous in editing, and to declare my hand in edit summaries, where discussion on talk pages fails. If that can't work to make certain articles better, I'll probably stay away from those articles. (We must make what we can of the possible, as an ancient friend of ours reminds us!) Thanks, once more. We'll see what others have to say, and do. – Noetica 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello again ... yes, I'm just starting to look at the History of sonata form. I hadn't been following that one. I'm trying to work out something to say on the talk page without being school-marmy, and I'm having a lot of trouble; we're all adults, and I'm not exactly in the position of a moral authority to tell others how to behave. Once editors start addressing each other on the talk page in a negative way, it is very difficult, but not impossible, to get the editing process back on the rails again. I think the best way is just to ignore--as best as possible--personal comments (God knows it's hard!) and to stick to the article issues. "In" the eras or "through" the eras? -- etc. Please continue editing: your meticulous style is exactly what we need to polish our articles to a true encyclopedic standard. Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC problem

The aggressive nominator of Unfinished work is rebutting my highly critical review of her bid to have this fatuous article promoted to FA status. At the moment, she seems to think that herassertion that the unfinished movement in JS Bach's The Art of Fugue has been completed using a mathematical paradigm is quite OK to leave as a bald statement in the article.

I wonder whether you might chime in.

Tony 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is being misrepresented as a "mathematical reconstruction". I've amended it and left a discussion on the talk page. - Rainwarrior 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Holding flower.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holding flower.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics/wip

Currently, there can be only one <references/> node per page. This is causing problems. If there are multiple versions of a section on a page, then the citations are co-mingled.

The design of this project is not conducive to the wiki way of development, which is based on trust. As a result, page development is slowed to a percentage of its potential.

I do not read the physics page, for as you may have guessed, it is pedestrian to me. Thus I was surprised to see it rated A. But based on the design of this project, the substitute /wip page can replace it only sometime in a distant future, if we stay the course.

I have attempted to make the wip page contribution fun or surprising, but it is difficult to contribute when we are not allowed to help each other out, per the ground rules. That cuts the pleasure of contributing to a fraction of what I am used to.

I have pushed my intro into a hide/show box. Might it be possible for us all to collaborate in the wiki way, somehow. As you might have guessed, I am really trying to get to the content stage; being stuck in the definition phase feels very constraining to me. Alternatively, I can just wait for several months while the project grinds to the next phase. There are certainly enough things to do in the meantime. --Ancheta Wis 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I urge caution in granting too much credit to Schrödinger's role in the discovery of the structure of DNA (the wikipedia article is good, you can see the history there, pretty much). Paul Forman's entry on Schrödinger, Oxford Companion to History of Science ISBN 0-19-511229-6 pp.733-4 pretty much deflates his contribution. Max Born threw out his letters when he moved to Germany, although Born praised the book What is Life?.--Ancheta Wis 12:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be perfectly obvious to the other editors that I could write up the biophysics of a tree in the system of the world pop-up. But I forbear, as it seems ungentlemanly and would simply bludgeon the matter and energy definition. (Which would have been perfectly true before 1905, and especially not true after WWII, when nuclear physics was in vogue) However, my points about the philosophy of the great physicists being a part of their research, are pertinent. The exact correspondence of 'nature' meaning 'characterization' in both Greek and English I only mentioned in passing. But to call physics 'the science of characterization' might work. (Characterization is the first step of the scientific method) --Ancheta Wis 13:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is the double editor?

I didn't spot that. Dbuckner 10:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But I thought double names was sockpuppetry or whatever. Isn't that public domain, and also, isn't that frowned upon? Dbuckner 10:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

--- OK, I read the Valery page and, first, I see that you have presented the case very clearly and concisely, and my first instinct is always to seek that, rather than credentials. You write beautifully, and I wish there were more like you on the Philosophy page.

On credentials, well, I tried a bit at Citizendium and it was awful. So I'm tempted to agree with you. The problem is that there is little reward for being a good Wiki citizen. There are at least two people on that page who are practically insance. Or at least, obsessive. You talk with them carefully, gently point out logical flaws in their argument, try to persuade them that they need to use sources carefully (i.e. so that whatever they quote supports whatever they are saying). Generally be a good citizen. Then of course they spew out the usual capitalized stuff, generally don't follow the thread, shift their position completely, and so on. So, little reward for being a good citizen. And one wants a life. So one leaves. Victory for the cranks, who are far more obsessive. And then of course, because the one things cranks really hate is other cranks, a massive edit war. Dbuckner 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful writing

There is also the issue of sheer mediocrity seeking to assert its rule. It does not always come unequipped, or single-voiced, when it discovers novel tools of subterfuge. May I bring to you both to the attention of that great depiction of an adversary in Amadeus? Are you reminded of that all-consuming envie of our Wolfgang, and the concluding senario at Mozart's death?

Greatings, all Rationalist(s)? Ludvikus 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Antonio Salieri --Ludvikus 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm not asking you to do, or say, anything. You've already made a great contribution with the observation(s) that you've posted. And having an observer who's willing to stick around is an additional contribution.

Why don't you just think of us as earthlings, with you as goddess Athena on Mt. Olympus capriciously willing to interject on the side of one of her heros? I prefer the role of Odyseus to that of Hercules. So that would make you more my goddess than his. I am presuming, by your name, that your gender is tender. But if it's not, that's OK too. As it's said on Seinfeld, "... not that there's anything wrong with that."
Regards, --Ludvikus 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On your Babes in Philosophy

Good job of fighting for your babies in philosophy - I saw your restoration.

I just moved your up (not down) were it belongs, stylistically.
I have some suggestions. If you look at Merriam-Wesbster's dictionary you will find that the 2 compunds are called combining forms. I recommend that you improve your babies by using this term. But the ball is in your park - I will not do it.
Best regards, --Ludvikus 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On prcatice

I agree with you. But it's temporary. But it's not silly. It comes from Marxism: Theory vs. Practice. I'm for the neat version. But if Db be is stubborn, I'll put it in too. Why not? --Ludvikus 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current disruption on Philosophy Talk

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note & I perfectly understand your position. The reason I have been so persistent is in order to take a stand on this issue (i.e. the issue of whether 'anyone can write an encyclopedia'. The individual concerned (L) I have no strong feelings about (except that he is a good example of a congenitally incompetent editor, and therefore a good case to take a stand on). I have been fighting this war quietly (sometimes noisily) for years here, and this seemed like a good time. I suspect it will end in me getting banned, but I don't really mind. Someone has to say that there is a fundamental problem with the way things are, here in the WPhood. Sorry, end of sermon. Best wishes. I hope you understand why I'm doing this. Dbuckner 10:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Horror?

Have I missed something? I skimmed through the discusion at physics/wip when you originally mentioned it ages ago. I didn't see anything that was so horrifying on the face of it. On the other hand, these things don't always appear at face value to an outsider. Dbuckner 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But did you look through the archives? They're a bit hard to find in the usual way, since the page is structured irregularly, and has several odd offshoots not documented below (and scarcely anywhere else). The five main locations are as follows:
Talk:Physics/wip
Talk:Physics/wip/Archive1
Talk:Physics/wip/Archive2
Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition
Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition2
Talk:Physics/wip/leadvote
No, it wasn't as rancorous as Talk:Philosophy has got, but it was maddening in a more genteel way; and therefore in a sense more excruciating. Most of the discussion, at all of the locations, concerned either the content and wording of the lead, or the correct procedure for negotiating about the lead.
I left there some time ago. But recently I went back and suggested that, if they wanted a moderator (and they really do need one!), a philosopher would be their only hope. Preferably someone competent in philosophy of science. Just one newcomer did so much as respond to this thought. The process grinds glacially on, like the Chancery proceedings in Bleak House. In sum, it's just one of those areas, like Philosophy, in which nothing stable can be achieved in Wikipedia. Lord have mercy on us all! –Noetica 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd rather help Sisyphus over there...

Hello! Well, we've (and by "we", I mean Ancheta and myself since nobody else said a thing) decided to cut the bureaucracy at the Physics/wip page and allow free edits the article directly to any section wished. This should hopefully speed things up. The definition is near agreement (I hope!), and I don't hate it (I wouldn't go so far as to say it's great). Now, because things have opened up a bit, I've come to ask you for a favour: would you still be willing to write a "foundations" section that you suggested at the start of all of this? It's just that it was a really good idea and I'd love to see it included. I know that you left the project for a number of reasons, but hopefully those have now been addressed or disappeared: there is less (id est, none bar normal wikipedia rules) constraint on how the article is improved, and a certain unhelpful editor seems to have disappeared also. At least, I hope you will cast an occasional glance at the project to convince yourself that manners have improved. Regards, Krea 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I didn't expect you to come "running back". Your demeanour, as it appears to me, is that of one who stands by their principles, lest they be moved to act by a show of kindness. And it is the latter that was, unfortunately, not offered to you. You stuck a personal nerve when you said that you received only one reply. I apologize: your assistance was not asked for and yet you offered it anyway, and that deserved, at the least, recognition. I partly contacted you now to make amends for that: I felt bad for not saying anything at the time.
I agree that there are great philosophical considerations at the foundations of this subject, and that many editors do not have the competence to at least recognize its importance. I embarrassingly place myself amongst those who formally know little, but have thought "much" about such philosophical implications (although I hope to remedy this fault in my spare time soon). I will be busy, for the next few months in fact, and will be making little contribution to the project myself; so, please do not feel any duty in recognition of my plea to act in whatever way you choose any time soon (I expect to be able to devote myself to the project more during the summer period).
It is, as I recognize myself, too much to ask you for you to devote your precious time into creating something that would not be rightfully acknowledged. But, I hope that you would cast a critical eye over anything that gets added, and, at least, pass the odd concern over to me so that I might argue against anything dubious myself. Perseverance and an accommodating attitude are meaningless without a sharp intellect, and nothing compared to gentility. You appear to be a one of a rare breed to possess all of these, and it is I who must commend you. Krea 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Actually, the conspiring of circumstances are likely to force me to follow the same stratagem! Later... Krea 02:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BITE?

Hello. I agreed with your reversion, but thought the edit summary was totally uncalled for. Looking at your edit history, it also seemed out of character: is everything OK? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diminished seventh

Yes, I'm aware that my recent changes to diminished seventh didn't address your (well-founded) concerns, but they were changes which needed making nonetheless. I, too, learned harmony from Walter Piston's book, which consistently describes diminished seventh chords as "incomplete minor ninths" with missing roots, and we can't pretend that isn't an influential book. However, I know that most other theory books don't treat it that way. I'll continue to chip away at diminished seventh when I get time. What to do about Interval I have no idea. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard the term "diatonic" used in reference to intervals; I don't see why it belongs there at all. Everything you say about "diatonic" in your message to me is good, but it still seems to be about scales. If a chord or interval can be derived from a scale, we should say that, and forget about trying to label them diatonic or chromatic. It's as silly as trying to classify all intervals as "consonant" or "dissonant". —Wahoofive (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciations of foreign names

Hello, Noetica! I have a question. Why is 'w' in the name "Ludwig" also pronounced v in English? I thought only German does this way?! I am not a native English speaker, so I am curious. --- Sautiller 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some other articles on Wikipedia for foreign musicians such as Mozart, J. S. Bach, and Debussy, etc. Other editors only left the pronunciations of the original languages (as Amadeus in German and Debussy in French). How would you consider by adding English pronunciations to those, or removing the English one in Beethoven? --- Sautiller 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, where are you?

I'm in Taipei City, Taiwan. --- Sautiller 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They say it is not surprising that China still claims you for its own, since Taiwan is the most beautiful "Province" of all.

It's quite embarrassing situation as the history mentioned in Taiwan R.O.C.. It's of "face" issue to the polities of both sides (Mainland China and Taiwan). By the way, I've been to China for 4 times in the last three years. My company located some sites in China.

The pronunciations of "day" and "die" sound alike in Australian English?! --- Sautiller 11:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving "diatonic" discussion

Re:

I will just note in passing that the discussion doesn't fit naturally at any existing article,

Agreed. I am even sympathetic to your idea about Diatonic and chromatic. But Diatonic scale seems much closer than Interval, which shouldn't have any references to "diatonic" at all, and everyone (except Feetonthedesk) agrees with that. Furthermore, other editors with an interest in the discussion are more likely to find it there. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have greatly expanded Diatonic and chromatic and included a place for various quotations from reference works, which for the moment I have lifted directly from the various talk pages. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full stop

I'm glad that situation was resolved amicably, and I agree with your current change, which admirably characterises both current majority practice and the references offered.

Now, I need to set to the diatonic and chromatic article, and insist that it covers the meantone temperament as well... ;- / Richard1968 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/e/User_talk%7ENoetica_61cc.html"