User talk:Rainwarrior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Info You may leave a message for me here by using the new section button above (it looks like a +). Please sign every message with four tildes (~~~~), which will produce your username and date. If I have left a message on your User talk page, you should reply to my message there, as I will be watching it. Likewise, if you leave a message here, I will reply here. This will keep the conversation in one place.

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Rainwarrior, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Hyacinth 11:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcoming welcome! Rainwarrior 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! Hyacinth 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales

Welcome to the project, and thanks for the nice user box! Are you on the tuning list? —Keenan Pepper 02:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've known about the tuning list, but I've never joined. I'll take a look. (The only really visible thing I've done in the internet microtonality community was write the windows MIDI tuning program called "Intun"... I should put that back up somewhere, it hasn't been available for a while.) Rainwarrior 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pipes and Drums

Good call on the bolding. Michael Dorosh 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I ended up on "Pipes and Drums" from the redirected "Pipe band", so it kind of stuck out to me that it wasn't in bold as per wikipedia's guidelines. Rainwarrior 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links on piano tuning, absolute pitch and elsewhere

Greetings: I chimed in with just a small comment where you requested. In my opinion, we should avoid commercial links unless they happen to include really significant content that is not duplicated in the article: some of our articles turn into link farms very quickly.

And while I'm thinking of it: I'm glad you're here. A belated welcome to Wikipedia from me, a few months late: we need more people knowledgeable about music, tuning, theory, Slonimsky, and other good things. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! - Rainwarrior 04:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute pitch

The histories of deleted articles are preserved for a while (or forever?). The capability may be restricted to administrators, but go to the deleted article (as if you were creating an article with the deleted title) and the edit box page will open. There should be a button near page history etc that says "View X deleted edits" (X being the number of edits in the edit history) which takes you to a page that lists all the edits (generally you choose the most recent). I suggest Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, but I can't find where I learned this information. Hyacinth 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a feature that is restricted to sysops, (myself, I don't actually have such a button). Thanks. - Rainwarrior 21:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bumblefoot

I've noticed your category that Bumblefoot has absolute pitch. Can you verify this with a source, please? I suggest looking at WP:Verifiable for info about this. Death2 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I knew this would happen. The category was a replacement for a page which was recently deleted listing persons with absolute pitch. There was originally a citation for it on that page, but I did not come up with that citation myself so I am unable to provide it (not having access to the deleted page). Ask your question at Talk:Absolute pitch, and someone may be able to answer it there. - Rainwarrior 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, he may well have a perfect pitch. But what's the point in creating the category when the list was deleted by many votes pro. Can we contact Bumblefoot and ask him :) ? Death2 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think inclusion in a category requires a verifiable source. Categories are a navigational aid, not a source of information. For example, Wikipedia is not claiming that all the members of Category:Pseudoscience are actually pseudoscience, because that would violate NPOV. The point of that category is to help people find articles about pseudoscientific theories when they can't remember their names. If someone was trying to find the article on Bumblefoot, but couldn't remember his name, only that he supposedly has perfect pitch (perhaps an unlikely situation, but possible), it would help that someone find it. It doesn't matter if he actually has perfect pitch or not. —Keenan Pepper 02:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The circumstances of its deletion were a bit crummy, I think. I actually agreed with the deletion beacuse I thought it should be a category instead, but it happened while I wasn't watching and all of the info was lost (sort of... sysops can get to it). What's the point of having it? Mainly to keep the Absolute pitch page from getting cluttered by a gigantic list of people who might have it. (As a category instead we will no longer have to clean up vanity entries, and the list is automatically maintainted.) - Rainwarrior 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
And, yeah, if you've got the means, why not ask him? - Rainwarrior 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: IIRC / GDFL ?

I responded to your concerns about my egregious acronym usage at my talk page. Thanks. TheProject 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign languages in cadence (music)

Please see my note at Talk:Cadence (music). I haven't reinserted the German names but wait for your opinion on how to approach it. Rigadoun 16:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have replied there. - Rainwarrior 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piano tuning revisions

Good work on the revisions to Piano tuning. A definite improvement. Carboncopy 18:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd been meaning to do that for a while. - Rainwarrior 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railsback

... and thanks for suggesting this sensible merger. Opus33 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marking unsigned comments

Did you know there's a template, Template:Unsigned, specifically for marking unsigned comments? Use it like this: {{subst:unsigned|name of author}}. —Keenan Pepper 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I'll try it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainwarrior (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Spinet

Thanks for watching over spinet, Rainwarrior. I think the longer article I've put up there doesn't omit anything you had included. If you can check it over for errors I would appreciate it.

Yours truly, Opus33 19:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What you've written looks good. I'll give it a full read in a moment; I just copied the stuff you had removed from the Piano page to hold it over while you were working on it. We might want to put a more prominent link on the Piano page to this new article. - Rainwarrior 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marudubshinki running unauthorized bots

I think it's time this was dealt with. See WP:AN/I#User:Marudubshinki_running_unauthorized_robots. -- SCZenz 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Rainwarrior 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing List of polytonal pieces

The above article has been deleted, as requested.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Rainwarrior 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinet image

Hi Rainwarrior, I noticed your suggestion about how to make the spinet image legal after I had already implemented a quick-and-easy suggestion from MarkBuckles. Clearly, what you propose will be the right next step to take if the quickie solution doesn't pass muster. Thanks for your help, Opus33 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've had problems with the image policy bots myself, so I hate seeing it happen to others. ;) - Rainwarrior 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tritone

Thank you for correcting me on that. It seemed like a reasonably correct legend, but then again it originated from my dad (who is like that uncle everybody has who can do that thing with the coin on his elbow, you know what I mean?) so it's probably not infallible. --Pika132

Discussion continued at User talk:Pika132.

[edit] Hi

Hi Rainwarrior! I just wanted to say hello since I've seen you around on several music-related articles. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and I'd like to get to know more of the music editors. Thanks for your response on the Conducting talk page. I must have added that tag while I was just browsing through and forgot to come back and list examples - I just left a rather exhaustive list. Most of the issues are really rather minor, but I think it would help the article a lot to state much of the same information in a different way. Anyway, just wanted to say hello. Cheers, MarkBuckles (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, a list of things that need improvement is quite a good idea. Actually, now that you've given your reasoning for a list of things you want to change, it would be fine for you to edit the article yourself. That's a really good way to edit, actually, so when you make a lot of changes that you can't just explain in the edit summary, you leave your reasons on the talk page, that way others can understand your reasoning. (Often when someone makes changes without any explanation, they just get reverted.) - Rainwarrior 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art and Craft

Conversation begins at User_talk:David_Sneek#Le_Marteau_sans_Ma.C3.AEtre.

Re: Le marteau sans maître, of course there is an overlap between "art" and "craftsmanship", but I'd say "art" touches more on the aesthetic and expressive aspects, while "craft" and "craftsmanship" suggest the skill involved, the techniques that have to be mastered. French "artisanat" and "artisan" - like English artisan - refer to that; in the CD booklet of the recording Boulez made recently on Deutsche Grammophon "l'artisanat furieux" is translated as "furious handicraft". "Mad craft" would perhaps be an alternative, suggesting both the violent, frenetic side his music can have and the expertise and meticulousness with which he prepares and executes it. Fine article, by the way. David Sneek 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Conversation continues at User_talk:David_Sneek#Le_Marteau_sans_Ma.C3.AEtre.

[edit] Boulez Sonatas

Maybe we can divide them between us. If you write about the first and second sonatas, I'll do number three. David Sneek 16:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:David Sneek#Boulez sonatas.

Hello. Congratulations for the new article. Wouldn't you like to add a "Recordings" section to it ? I actually studied with Claude Helffer who recorded all three of them. There is also a recording by Idil Biret and a few others. Good day. Baruch1677 07:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have good knowledge of the recordings of these works, please, be my guest and add it to the article. - Rainwarrior 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for your message and the invitation. I'll add the recordings soon! Baruch1677 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TeX

Although TeX looks very good when "displayed" on Wikipedia, thus:

\int_{-\infty}^\infty 1\,dx,

nonetheless it often looks terrible when it is "inline", thus: ex (although its appearance is browser-dependent). When subscripts or superscripts are involved, it can get badly misaligned, and characters appear comically gigantic on some browsers. Hence your recent edit to homogeneous coordinates may not be an improvement. Michael Hardy 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what we had there was "R^2:(x,y) -> (x+a,y+b)", which I thought looked awful. Are you saying that it looked better that way? I would agree that wikipedia often does a poor job with inline equations (this is a problem I hope they will eventually resolve), but I am uncertain what you are suggesting as an alternative. - Rainwarrior 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion taken to User talk:Michael Hardy#TeX.

[edit] Microtonal music

Hello, Rainwarrior! I added a reference to the History section of Microtonal Music (regarding the 3mu), and somehow your signature was placed within my comments on the "Discussion" page. I thought you might want to restore it to it's appropriate location. Prof.rick 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The signature had been there before. What you did was place your new comment between the last line of my comment and my signature. The usual procedure is to produce a new comment section by clicking the + tab at the top of the page, which adds the new section at the bottom of the page. I am not sure why you chose to insert your comment to the middle, but in the future you should probably put them at the bottom to avoid these problems. - Rainwarrior 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion referenced at User talk:Prof.rick#Talk pages.

[edit] Sorry for misplacement!

Rainwarrior: Sorry I placed my comments before your signature. I am a newbie, and at times, quite dumb. Prof.rick 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. At least you know now, eh? - Rainwarrior 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You bet I know!

Hi, Rainwarrior! First, again I'm sorry about the misplacement of a comment. (I now know enough to use the "+" button!) Thanks for your help!

I don't know what you think of the "case" I have presented: that the 1/8 semitone (of ET) should be recognized as a viable interval. It forms the basis of major works of Carrillo, as well as many of his "disciples", such as Haba, and is also a recognized MIDI unit (known as "3mu"). If you type 3mu into your Google Search, you will find it substantiated. I think this very small interval is becoming increasing important in microtonal music of the 21st century, and is so easily expressed as the 139/138 ratio. Realizing that we define the octave in powers of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16, etc.), it just seems that one of the natural directions of microtonal music should be to treat the ET semitone reciprocally (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc., NOT TO EXCLUDE other approaches to microtonal music such as the 1/3 semitone (implied by Phi...if you have questions about this one, ask me!), or division of any specific interval into any specific number of subdivisions.

Our response to music is so subjective. Personally, I find a "phi" scale as satisfying as Lucy tuning. (Instead of expanding intervals, it "shrinks" them, ever so slightly.)

Frequencies, after all, are a continuum. Yet logical divisions seem to add "logic" to microtonal music, making it coherent and at times, even pleasing to the ears! I believe, as musicians, we have a responsibility to compose music which moves the emotions and, in turn, behaviour, toward positive paths.

I know you are a busy person, especially with your intense involvement in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I would really enjoy and appreciate you feedback on the above comments. Prof.rick 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my opinion on the 3mu is that it is quite an obscure term, and your suggested google search only turns up one page that uses it in the context of tuning. That tonalsoft article, and your mention of it are the only mentions of it I have ever seen. Furthermore, I don't see how it relates to MIDI at all, since the MIDI pitch bend is a 14-bit number usually distributed over 4 semitones, giving some 4096 divisions of the semitone. I don't know where this business of 8 comes from.
As for tuning by a 1/8 of a semitone, I really haven't heard of that, either. I think the Carrillo bio page deserves mention of the interval (which it has). And if we want to mention it in passing on the Microtonal music page, I don't see why shouldn't. Looking at this "history" section though, it is disturbingly sparse. I actually haven't edited the article yet myself, I don't think, but I do think it needs much improvement as to history. Where's Partch, Holder, Mersenne, Mercator, Gallileo, Tartini, Ives, etc...?
Okay, so that is commentary on what you have said, but are you asking me about how the page should look? I'm not sure if there is a question in there that I am not answering... but, ask again if there is. - Rainwarrior 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage suggestion - thanks

Rainwarrior, thanks for your tag usage clarification - I was mistaken in my understanding of the tag and was rather anticipating someone else using it and thus saying to them in advance "yes, you're right, but I can't find it right now". Hmm I probably have a few more to fix... Carry on. Baccyak4H 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A good thing to do with this kind of information is to bring it up on the talk page. Sometimes someone there can substantiate it for you, but in the article, it'll just get removed and forgotten. - Rainwarrior 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Second

Hi Rainwarrior, I have added a few comments to the discussion page on the Minor second Article (sections 20, 21, 22). I hope you will check them out, and consider my suggestions. I noticed that Hyacinth had placed a "To Do" list on the page, which included some archiving. (I feel that items 1 through 17 could be archived, since they pertain to Articles which no longer exist.) They also tend to make the page long and confusing for editing. Thanks, Prof.rick 00:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

When you make replies, click the "edit" link next to the specific heading that you are replying under, this confines your edit to that area of the page, and makes things simpler. I don't think we should archive anything at the moment, as most of it has recent comments, and the talk page is currently under heavy use. When it calms down and the things are no longer relavant, maybe then it should be archived. (Also, these things don't pertain to articles that no longer exist, because Minor second is now all of those articles. It was merged.) - Rainwarrior 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonata

I have lots of problems with Noetica's edits, and I consider it bad form to mix copy editting with a revert, and then have people complain about the loss of copy editting as a way of continuing the revert war. I think it best that the issues get resolved on the talk page, not mixed in with copy editting. It is also fairly clear that Noetica regards this as an edit war, not as collegial editting, and it is probably best to lower the temperature. There's no reason for the hostility in the edit summaries I've seen from Noetica. Stirling Newberry 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

reply by Rainwarrior at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry#Sonata_reversion

I reverted because you took dumped gasoline on a revert war. Noetica, not I, is the one who removed material without putting anything on the talk page. I've reverted to the version where you inserted Harry (arguable but not an argument I'm going to engage in since I don't specialize in the period in question). You will also note that I already had put something on the talk page about resolving these issues - I think our edits crossed, so I will leave it at this.

Stirling Newberry 17:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

reply by Rainwarrior at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry#Sonata_reversion

I'm going to again call for lowering the temperature accusing me of being angry, when I am not, isn't a good way to do this. This is about the content on the sonata article, and our duty to our readers to get it right. Stirling Newberry 17:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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 note the bad faith edit ganging and personal attacks. Since the best way of dealing with these matters is to avoid them I will not edit this page in the main. I am protesting the bad faith and personal attacks, but am not in any mood to engage in an edit war unless there is some substansive issue (such as the number of movments in a Haydn sonata) at issue. You win, but under protest.

Good day.

Stirling Newberry 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I win what? What is bad faith edit ganging? In what way have I personally attacked you? This is a confusing message. - Rainwarrior 06:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, I think the Sonata article is shaping up really nicely. Just one thing: I'm not sure what you find ambiguous in this sentence:

Both theorists argued that tonality, and hence sonata structure in tonal form, was essentially hierarchical, and that what is immediately audible is subordinate to large-scale movements of harmony.

I agree it may not be the most felicitous of constructions; I was trying not to inferfere too much with what was there. Anyway, this is just curiosity on my part, because I'm happy enough with your change, if not with the whole sentence as it now stands, as I am about to explain.

I share your concern with sequence of tenses, and I think that systematic work on it needs to be done throughout the article. For example, look at the sentence I have just quoted, which we have both already worked on: why should it have was essentially hierarchical, rather than is essentially hierarchical? (For that matter, why not are, since arguably the subject is plural.) We've both already made some progress with such things. I might run through the whole article with an eye on tenses and the like, sometime; but if you want to do it (with perhaps some tweaking from me, afterwards), I have not the slightest objection. – Noetica 05:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be is or are (I don't think it matters which). I missed that one. Anyhow, the meaning of the sentence isn't ambiguous, but reading it, the grammar becomes difficult to resolve for me, which is what I meant by ambiguous. I think it is awkward because it is not immediately clear whether the subject is "that what is immediately audible" or just "what is immediately audible". Because the former doesn't really work out in the end (once the sentence gets fully resolved in my mind), it defaults to the latter, but only after a moment's pause for me. In short, I wanted to revise its wording because I found it difficult to read. (My initial incorrect switch to "that which" from "that what" stemmed directly from this difficulty.)
As for the page, I'm happy with it for the moment, I think. It still has problems, but it's readable enough I think. It's in good enough form that I'd rather work on other articles for a while. I'll still be watching it though, and I'll comment if I think of anything. - Rainwarrior 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Rainwarrior. I now think I'll leave the article for a little while, too, and just be vigilant for problems that may arise in it. Note the small change I have made involving "held" and "argued", in response to your change. Perhaps the lesson for us both is that we should sometimes be more bold, and forge clear sentences from scratch, rather than tinkering with complex constructions that we come across. I sometimes hesitate to do that, because authorial feathers can get ruffled! Best wishes to you. – Noetica 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. I understand that change. English is weird for having so many synonyms. I find authors in other languages aren't often so hung up on "tiring out" words. Nevertheless, I agree with the change... this is a problem with editing a small part, sometime I lose track of the whole. - Rainwarrior 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, I don't mean to bother you unduly about this, but I'd like a second opinion on something at History of sonata form. As you know, I've been working on a number of the sonata-related articles, and it's been hard to achieve the kind of consensus we would like in Wikipedia work. Would you please glance at the sentence that has recently been reverted? I can't see how it is grammatical, or at all helpful to readers. We need to make these things much clearer and less bloated. Same also at Sonata form, especially with the whole awkward paragraph beginning "The term sonata form is related to sonata,...". I'd be grateful for your comments. – Noetica 22:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've undone the reversion and left a comment on the talk page. As for Sonata form, I agree that the wording is quite awkward of that paragraph, but right now I don't wish to take the time to read the talk page and review the edit history before I begin making edits. I'll put these pages on my to-do list. If you'd like me to comment on any particular changes (like this reversion), feel free to ask, but otherwise I'm not going to poke my nose into those pages just yet. - Rainwarrior 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

These matters are somewhat delicate, and I understand your not wanting to be involved too closely in the articles in question. I myself have avoided them for a long time, having other complex areas to engage me. I may be back with more another time. Meanwhile, many thanks for your careful attention to the point that I raised. Happy editing! – Noetica 23:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more, there are continuing problems with the series of articles on sonata, sonata form, criticism and sonata form, history of sonata form, recent theory in the exegetics of postmodern views of neocolonialist acceptations concerning the history of the sonata form, etc. I see you have had a... conversation about this, in a discussion page. Frankly, I don't see how progress can be made unless someone initiates an RFC, or complains to the appropriate Wiki-authorities, or similar. I am unfamiliar with the procedures involved. Any ideas? I think I might draw all of this to the attention of an admin who is also an avid editor in music articles. Meanwhile, take a look at recent edits at Sonata form concerning the very meaning of sonata form. That whole article is steadily deteriorating. It's getting more and more laughable, if it were not a tragic waste of effort and time. – Noetica 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've posted the following at User_talk:Antandrus:

== Sonata problems ==
Hi Antandrus. It's been a long time since we've caught up with each other. I see you're still a keen editor of music articles. I'm now approaching you in that capacity, and in your role as an admin. There have been continuing difficulties at Sonata form and History of sonata form, along with other articles addressing sonata (of which there are far too many, but that's another matter). I would be very grateful if you would review the situation, looking at those two articles and also at their talk pages. A useful conspectus of some of the issues is to be found at User_talk:Rainwarrior#Sonata. As you know, I am a serious editor in these areas, and I have been patient (well, I also call a spade a spade in edit summaries). But I now need some advice from you about the best way forward. If things can't be put on a better footing, I fear that the suite of articles on musical form, in which Wikipedia has a genuine opportunity to excel, will be jeopardised. Thanks! – Noetica 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Antandrus is very wise and active as an editor and admin. If anyone can sort something out here, I think he can. – Noetica 01:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czerny

He published at least 800 opus numbers (one of the most published is opus 821) - the 80 there don't even get to his first symphony I think, and the second symphony is past opus 700... - so no, not complete yet! Thanks - Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay. I don't know a lot about Czerny, but I figured the list was likely to be incomplete given the comment on the article page. - Rainwarrior 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies!

Whoops sorry about that. I saw someone's post on some French discussion topic asking for help with the pronunciation so I put down the pronunciation according to the orthography I saw. Apologies. - Retroviseur 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. His name is a tricky one, anyway. ;) - Rainwarrior 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk page - semitone

Please, I'm almost done! If I can just add another couple of lines, then I HOPE you can help me move it! Prof.rick 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving new semitones talk section

I've also left this message on my own talk page. I am a slow learner...I want to follow your suggestions, but I'm clueless. Is there any way to move it without having to retype it a third time?Prof.rick 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to start a new talk page heading here if you're continuing a previous comment. Anyhow, I've responded on your talk page. - Rainwarrior 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, I'm Nimue...about the Piano article...

Hello Bradley, I just wanted to ask you about the piano article...so do you think it should be merged with pianoforte? For the life of me, even though I'm a pianist, I can't see any difference at all except what time period they started speaking funny! =P Could you please reply on my talk page? I'm usually straight off to editing rather than checking all the bits that I replied to...

Cheerio, Lady Nimue of the Lake 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:Lady Nimue of the Lake

[edit] Shadow Volumes article

In response to the comments in your recent edits:

1. there is such thing as non-polygon shadow volumes, 2. w=0 doesn't work on a lot of hardware, 3. capping is required in all methods for robustness, not just depth fail.

All three of these statements are incorrect. No one draws shadow volumes in any practical situation without polygonal data, w=0 works on all hardware (if you don't understand why, then I'll explain), and capping is only necessary when using depth fail (ibid). See my Gamasutra article or my book for details. Also, why did you delete many of the facts that I added to the article? Eric Lengyel 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to this at Talk:Shadow volume#Editing 25 October 2006, as the discussion may be of use to others who have worked on the page. - Rainwarrior 06:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Fink

Continuing and continued at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry#Atonality.

I'm thinking of the UCLA musicologist who has argued that the tropes of European Classical music have been replaced by flow and pulse to present the same "desire" towards recombination. If it is too obscure a reference then by all means take it out.

Stirling Newberry 09:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

In response to User talk:Paul Niquette#Links to your website:

Bradley Smith,

Thank you for recommending that I study the guidelines for external links, which I have now done for the second time. I think I am in full compliance with all of its provisions; however, after your move when you have time, please identify for me any specific actions that I need to take.

Best regards, Paul Niquette Paul Niquette 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:Paul Niquette#Links to your website.

Thanks for your guidance. From now on, if I have what I think is a relevant and informative link, I will mention it on the talk page and let Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. Best regards. Paul Niquette 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric music

Reply to Rainwarrior's comment from User talk:Hyacinth#Prehistoric music

I don't know at this point if Bob Fink's published works are reliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

As for contributions by Bob Fink himself to subjects on which he has written, they are in violation with Wikipedia:No original research. As such his contributions of this nature may be reverted. I believe he has been pointed to the policy, but I'm not sure. If not he should be.

Continuing to promote himself, his publishing company, and books through adding original research to Wikipedia, despite repeated warnings regarding Wikipedia:NPOV, is vandalism, and as such would be grounds for blocking under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption. If he has not been warned he should be.

So, for any action, I think you would need to show that he has been told not to add additional original research and non-NPOV self promotion, yet continues to do so. Hyacinth 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Rainwarrior at User talk:Hyacinth#Prehistoric music


[edit] Microtonal music redlinks

In response to Rainwarrior's comment at User talk:Frédérick Duhautpas#Microtonal music redlinks.

Hello Rainwarrior

Well, first I’m probably mistaken but I can’t help but finding your tone a little bit aggressive, so I deduce I have offended you without willing it with my restoration. If so please accept my apologies. That wasn’t my intention. But there’s no need to overreact. I’m sure we can come to an agreement without that. But let me explain my point of view first. Then we may see if we can find some agreement.

Why keeping redlinks of composers you seem to doubt the significance?

Of course Redlinks names by themselves are useless…I don’t deny that. But who said I (or anyone else) wanted to keep them red forever?

Why don’t I create a page about them ?

Well, who told you I wasn’t planning to create them?. I was indeed! Do you know who filled the redlinks of composers such as Pascale Criton or Jean-Etienne Marie lately? Me…(btw anyone that can correct my English in those articles is welcome)

So I consider these redlinks are temporally. And they will be filled in time. But I do it when I can. I really was planning to fill all these red links. I don’t know all of these names but I intended to make some research about them. As for names such as Matther, Stahnke or Mandelbaum (especially these ones) I can assure you, they are important names. And I have to add Alain Bancquart and Jack Beherens as well.

No offence but I am surprised -if you’re into microtonal music and you’re Canadian- that you never heard of Bruce Matther who is by far one of the most important Canadian microtonal composers along with his disciple Jack Behrens. Because here in Europe these guys are regarded as important composers in the microtonal circle.

Moreover Matther was the disciple of microtonal Pioneer Ivan Wyschnegradsky and he writes music in direct continuation of Wyschnegradsky.

Greetings Frédérick Duhautpas 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:Microtonal music#Composer redlinks.
Reply at User talk:Frédérick Duhautpas#Microtonal music redlinks.

[edit] Semitones

Hello Rain,

I was just reviewing the article on Semitones (which we both worked on). I hadn't checked the article since it's completion. But it seems to me that (in fairness) separate sections were given to BOTH the aug1 and the m2. I can't find a m2 section now! Was it removed, or is my memory wrong? Prof.rick 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semitones corrected (I think)

Sorry for the trouble, Rain. I think I have restored Minor Seconds section to the Semitone article by copying and pasting from History. Prof.rick 10:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Semitones

Hi Rain!

Thanks for checking my correction of the Semitone vandalism. I notice that Answers.com still carries the previous version, with the Minor Second section still missing. Must we do something to resolve this, or will it eventually be corrected automatically?

Another interesting point: What is the inversion of aug 8? Is it a simple interval [dim 1] or a compound interval [dim 8]? (Either answer seems to have it's pros and cons, but arriving at a definitive answer could potentially require some changes in our "table of intervals".) Please leave your views about this on my talk page.

Hope you have successfully completely your move. Best, Prof.rick 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Semitone related discussion at User talk:Prof.rick#Semitones.

[edit] Chris Forster delete comment

Perhaps not that important to the deletion, but I wanted to reply to your comment. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cris_Forster_%28second_nomination%29

Apparently I was mistaken, the entire manuscript is not available online; I knew what was available online, but I thought that was the entire manuscript. Apparently there is more. It is still true that the information available online at Forster's site is not available on any other site I've found, including Joe Monzo's. How relevant that is to Forster's inclusion I don't know, but it's true. The link to the site from the Just Intonation article is still there, so I think people interested in tuning will be able to find it. That Monzo remains and Forster leaves is strange, but I guess should be rectified by more external sources on Forster.—Badmuthahubbard 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay. Yes I do think there is some good information there on his site. That's why I left the link to the just intonation page in the article (thought I really wish there wasn't a gigantic block at the top asking for help getting his book into print; there are more tasteful ways to do that). At this point I think enough people have made comment about him that I think he's notable, but so far it seems no one has stepped up and written a good article about him. I think a few possible sources were mentioned, but no one bothered to cite them in the article? I don't think I'd nominate it for deletion again, the first two times it was because it appeared to be an autobiography. I expect someone else would nominate it though. - Rainwarrior 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musical notation

Hi Rain! Hope you're enjoying California! I took another look at the Musical Notation page, and it was still a disaster area! I have added some ethnic references, rewritten the lead, and re-organized the entire article. (I still think it reflects a western bias, but western notation now dominates Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Australia...so it DOES deserve a high ranking.) But section 4 seems excessive. (Really, WHO CARES about hemidemisemihemidemisemiquavers??? There is also too much focus on computer linguistics...which is not within the realm of "human reading". I think the whole article is a bit lengthy, and could use some cuts.

Would you please (when time permits) check the article, and see if my edits at least warrant removal of the "non-worldwide" tag? Can you remove it?

Oh yes...about Musical Acoustics!!! That's more than any New Jersey court could take! I think you've presented your arguments fairly and squarely, but you've been bashed, man! We might not always agree, but I support you 100%, on the basic tenets of Wiki. Cheers, Prof.rick 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can remove the non-worldwide tag. If you think you've solved the problem, take it out. I went over the notation article a few months ago, but I'll take a another look when I have time. - Rainwarrior 04:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Octave scale

I saw on your userpage that you were interested in fixing up Octave scale. Can you read the discussion at Talk:Octave#`The' 10 octaves and contribute your suggestions? The treatment of this topic is scattered between several articles and not very consistent (as I'm sure you noticed and that's why you were considering working on it). Rigadoun (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. -- Rainwarrior 04:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musical notatation?

Hi Rain! Regarding the dispute at "Musical Notation", I think there has been an error of judgment. The (unregistered) user, Ocanter, has does MANY revisions, without leaving comments in the Talk Page, and with INSULTING comments in the History page. He has undone/redone the edits of various editors, working together. Please examine this page, its history, its talk pages, and try again!

WE worked together on "Semitone", and generally arrived at agreements. However, Ocanter does not seem willing to co-operate. He removes others edits and adds his own...NEVER with an explanation on the Talk Page. Look at the insults on the History Page!

Please, reconsider your call on this one! Just read the two alternative leads! Does Ocanter produce a paragraph or two, previewing the article, and enticing the reader to look further?

Also remember, this article is the process of a rewrite. (Did you see it 6 months ago?...it was a disaster area! WHY SHOULD ONE EDITOR COME ALONG, AND UNDO THE HARD WORK OF SEVERAL OTHER EDITORS, WHO HAVE DEBATED POINTS, AND COME TO RESOLUTIONS?) The article is now BIASED, in Ocanter's favour.

The "Music of Other Cultures" is only partly completed, with some deletions and additions to be made. I am getting the impression that Ocanter "owns" this article.

IF you can spare the time to study the history, the talk page, etc., you might change your mind! I learned a lot about editing from you. Does it no longer hold true?

If this dispute does not end fairly, as per my proposals on the talk page, I simply won't be bothered by this article.

I was in the midst of an editorial revision of the Lead, but ran into an editorial conflict. I will try to post it again. I think, if you read it, you will find it provides a much wider preview of the article, a reasonable compromise between Ocanter's views and my own.

(Or are you, like Ocanter, "a match the dot to the key" kind of musician???)

Goodwill, and asking for a second call. Prof.rick 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) PS: Your "call" comes as a real disappointment to many editors, who have worked very hard on this (yet incomplete} article.

I did read the two alternative leads, and I commented on that. If you look at Ocanter's edits, he hasn't "undone" much at all; and I don't know what you mean by "Ocanter's favour", nor do I know what "dot to the key" means, but I don't think it's relevant. When I looked at the changes made to the page, I thought Ocanter's changes were sound, though I didn't think his edit comments were. What followed, however, was your complete reversion of everything he had just done. While his edits had made alterations to some things you had recently added, he did not just revert your entire effort point blank, as you did to him. He read over the entire article and changed only the things he thought were improper, and this is very evident from the edit history. Your reversion did not do this; you took offense to his rude comments and wiped away all of his work on the article. Now, I don't think who did what is relevant; if you want to talk about the actual content of the article, we can do that, and I have commented on the specific changes I supported on the talk page.
Finally, if you want both parties to take a break for a week, you have to be willing to actually take that break yourself. If you say "lets take a break", and then revert the page an hour later, you're not actually taking any break, are you? Also, you refer several times to "other editors". You should ask them to comment on the talk page instead of claiming that they agree with you. No one will pay attention if you attempt to speak for them. - Rainwarrior 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] よこできました

I really enjoy the work that you put out toward enhancing the Classical Music articles of Wikipedia. Just letting you know a user appreciates it. Keep it up. z ε n .ıl 08:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

どうもありがとう! - Rainwarrior 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fredrick Pritchard Article

Hey Rainwarrior,

I think the views you have expressed on the above autobiography have been very fair. You have at least provided opportunities for the article to remain, and offered valuable suggestions. I also recognize that you are highly dedicated to your duties as a Wikipedian, including the "patrol" of autobiographies.

It seems that I fall into the "gray area" of notability. I will not be offended if the article is deleted (although some world-famous musicians whom I have trained may be disappointed). If the article is deleted, one of them may submit a re-write.

Hope your move is now fully complete, and you are comfortably settled in your new location.

Cheers, Prof.rick 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you don't take personal offense. It certainly isn't intended as a personal gesture. I feel that autobiographies of any kind on Wikipedia need to pass a deletion review. It's not really appropriate to be writing an article about one's self. That sort of thing belongs on a personal website. Now, if you can find sources that substantiate your notability, then we certainly should have an article about you, but I would still suggest that you refrain from trying to write that article. You may think that you can write about yourself in a neutral way, but I don't think it's possible to do so. With proper sources, however, the knowledge that can be used for the basis of an article about you can be subject to scrutiny by independent editors. Without sources, this can't be done. How else can we verify the truth of what you say about yourself?
Thanks for asking about my recent move, I am mostly settled in and very much enjoying my new job (making computer games). - Rainwarrior 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

Hi Rainwarrior. Good to see you around the place, working on improving Wikipedia's coverage of musical topics. Thanks for the new redirects and changes connected with Diatonic and chromatic. May I hope that you will assist in developing that article, and in the rather tricky business of sorting out Wikipedia's use of these terms? –Noetica 07:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it on my list of things to do, though it might take me a little while to get around to it. I left some suggestions at the talk page for some possible material. A real diatonic/chromatic page has been a long time coming, and I'm glad it's finally been started. - Rainwarrior 07:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up Diminished seventh on this point. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I generally like the re-orgaizing you have done at Diatonic and chromatic, but there is a problem. You have:

In equal temperament, there is no difference between the tuning of a diatonic interval and its chromatic equivalent.

The problem is that diatonic interval, as you use it here, is not defined! The reader who read up to this point conscientiously will not be able to understand; nor is the matter necessarily resolvable by what follows. You see? I'll leave it to you to sort this out for now, if you like. It's your special area. I'll keep adding to the long footnote explaining the many vicissitudes of the term diatonic interval.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the disambiguity that exists involving the minor scales does not apply outside of equal temperaments, I was just about to write a talk page comment about this, actually. - Rainwarrior 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a quick note...

About all of your valuable Absolute Pitch debate info. Benchilada 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/i/User_talk%7ERainwarrior_ec65.html"