User talk:Microtonal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Dan, I noticed your talk page was still blank, so thought I'd give you the old wikipedia official welcome stuff, so there you go, consider yourself officially welcomed! All the best. Anilocra 22:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Microtonal, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

[edit] Greetings

Greetings! Was delighted to see the creation of Der Corregidor in Special:Newpages and thought I'd say hello; so hello, from another music editor. (Nice username, too.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yet another

Hi Microtonal--Mindspillage just pointed out your Der Corregidor article to me (pleased to see it, and to see that someone else knows what it is!) and I also noticed your Chigi codex article. So, a warm hello from an early music enthusiast and fellow grad school veteran, and I'm glad to see another music editor here: there really aren't that many of us. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It never stops

So, you got two of these in one day this weekend, but I also wanted to say hi. I'm a musicologist-turned-librarian at Indiana. I come from more of a new music background myself, though I haven't done a whole lot of it on here. Anyway, it would seem that one from your ranks is joining ours—a Baroque oboist/possible musicology PhD student will be coming here in the fall. You know who I'm talking about? I think a girl I went to high school with also may be playing euphonium there. I'd be more forthcoming, but you know... the whole putting people's names on the Internet thing. Just thought I'd ask. --NymphadoraTonks 30 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)

[edit] Who's RFA

Thank you for your vote of support on my RFA. ∞Who?¿? 20:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for supporting me

Hello, just a quick note to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA. I'm sure I'll become a familiar face on places like the Administrator's Noticeboard and Requests for Adminship, as well as the murkier parts of my new job. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Thank you for believing in me. :) GarrettTalk 10:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alfons Mucha {{Link FA|ru}} template

Thanks for info. I do have images switched off so I saw only space and I never noticed this template before (and coudn't find the template page either). The idea of such template itself looks as quite useful. Pavel Vozenilek 03:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UT music department

Hi, I saw that you're a grad student at the UT music department. I know it well, my father (Doug Green) was a theory professor there for over twenty years (he died in '99). I was in String Project from 4th grade to 8th grade and again from 11th to 12th. And when I was an undergrad there from 1986 to 1990, even though I wasn't a music major, most of my friends were. Give my best to ol' MRH (which I still think of as the "new music building" even though it must be 25 years old by now)! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Lyric Suite (Berg) has the red link Douglass M. Green on it, but Wikipedia's policy against family vanity prevents me from writing an article. Hint, hint! :-) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to of course, if you don't want to! I don't think he ever had a CV on the web, but there are some obituaries with biographical information: [1], [2], [3]. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've thought more about it and have decided it's best not to give him an article. He doesn't really seem to pass the criteria at WP:BIO, or the criteria of any but the most rampant inclusionists at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics, and trying to find anything out about him on Google, other than the fact that he died, is extremely difficult, raising issues of verifiability. So I hereby officially withdraw my hint! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Vandy Logo

Personally, I think the black-and-gold logo is too colorful for the infobox. The gold and the grey clash, IMO.
-Ttownfeen 01:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Either/or is fine by me...thanks for the contribution. I see you're a Vanderbilt alum; I hope you stick around. I'm trying ever so slowly to possibly get the article to at least FA-wannabe status, but I don't have the time to do all the researching necessary. Any input you have would be greatly appreciated. Ttownfeen 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And I just want to point out that I have shamelessly copied your VU alums userbox on my own page, which I hope you don't mind my doing. Esrever 08:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Dan: I was looking at the list of compositions of JSB (specifically the cantatas); I liked the set up you have devised for the description of the cantatas. Got me to thinking: should we create a Bach Portal? Would people be interested? I am a big fan of all the Bachs, and would be interested in helping create such a portal if you think it would be useful. Let me know. --FeanorStar7 01:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Main Page Election talks

A discussion has begun on how to handle an official election for replacing the Main Page. To ensure it is set up sensibly and according to consensus, your input is needed there. --Go for it! 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UT Austin Wikimeetup

With the March SXSW conference coming soon, I thought it'd be a good idea to start having regular meetings. Since everyone listed attends the University, I thought we should meet somewhere on campus in the next week. Please come to Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin and let me know what you think. — Scm83x talk 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin with the group photo, which can also be found at Image:Austinmeetup04feb2006.jpg. Nice meeting you. Hook 'em! — Rebelguys2 talk 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks at Ravi Shankar

Hi Microtonal. Thank you for expressing your opinions on the Ravi Shankar talk page. I have withdrawn my request because of the opposition that it has aroused. I found some of your remarks to be directed at me rather than at the topic of discussion, and I found them rather offensive. It would please me very much if you would remove those parts of your comments that refer to me in particular. Thank you. BostonMA 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The "significant opposition" from yourself included the statement "I don't see any harm in what you propose". My understanding of consensus is not that everyone necessarily agrees, but that everyone can live with a particular decision. I'm sorry if I misconstrued your comment as implying a lack of a strong objection. The other objections were equally mild. If there had been a strong objection, I would not have taken the actions I did.
Your comment state:
"I stated that this was a pointless move the first time the issue came up, but you went ahead and did it anyway."
However, I made the move after an extensive discussion in which I sought consensus, and observed no strong objections after several days. You also write:
"Yes, BostonMA, disambiguation and redirects always cause problems for editors, but I don't think it's at all fair of you to appeal to editor-friendliness as a reason for moving articles around when you're the one who changed all the links to Ravi Shankar (musician) in the first place, thus instigating the entire problem. And quite unnecessarily so, IMO."
In this statement, you claim that I "intigated" "the entire problem", and "unnecessarily". If you are unwilling to remove this statement, could you please explain what problems were experienced, and how I was the cause of these problems? Thanks. --BostonMA 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you wrote:
Please don't misquote or quote-mine me. I'm not one to take offense easily, but misrepresenting what I've said is pretty much the only way to really piss me off. To wit, the phrase "not insignificant" is in absolutely no way equivocable to "significant", and you'll find that my statement "I don't see any harm in what you propose" was followed immediately by "but I also don't see the need for it." I'd like to add that I was attempting to be diplomatic, there, but apparently I did not make my true opinion of your proposed move clear.
Please do not take offence. I did not intentionally misquote you. Perhaps my comprehension of English is not as good as yours, but I did not see the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote, and will probably require someone to explain it to me. Be that as it may, I understood that you followed the statement I quoted with "but I also don't see the need for it". I realize you were neither agreeing with me, nor supporting my actions. However, I interpretted your statement in light of my (possibly flawed) understanding of how consensus works on Wikipedia. My understanding was that everyone need not agree, provided everyone can live with the result. I do not think you needed to throw a temper tantrum. However, you could have said "I think the proposed change would be harmful". That would have been clear. (I do not fault you if we miscommunicated, as that is part of life.)
Now, to the point: From the discussion I see at Talk:Ravi Shankar, it appears that the majority of posters (Wasted Time R, Silence, Natalya, Zoe, William Allen Simpson and myself) actually disagreed with you, both prior to your first move and again the second time around. The fact that no one threw a temper-tantrum about it in no way mitigates the fact that few users, if any at all, thought the page should be moved according to your proposal. Understand that I am not accusing you of moving the page in bad faith, I simply think that you did so in bad judgement. The fact that you "sought consensus" does not mean that a consensus was actually reached, and the fact that you did not perceive a "strong objection" does not mean that there was no objection.
I understand.
As for the problem itself, I'm talking about the same one you are: the existence of allegedly "ambiguous" links to Ravi Shankar. Yes, that's a minor problem, and perhaps a slight inconvenience for the casual editor who may or may not know how to use the "what links here" special page effectively, but the absolute LAST thing you should do when faced with "ambiguous" links is to create an entire new article. By doing so, you have increased the potential for ambiguous links, rather than decreased it, because more pages equate to more chances to get the link wrong. This is particularly true when the page you want to be the "main article" is a dab page or has a parenthetical title. You're going to find that most editors, when linking Ravi Shankar, are never going to write [[Ravi Shankar (musician)|Ravi Shankar]], and you're just going to have to go through and fix all those new links, anyway. In every case, it is the link that is wrong, not the article that is being linked, and that is what should be fixed. Leaving Ravi Shankar as the main article and dispensing entirely with Ravi Shankar (musician) and Ravi Shankar (disambiguation) (at least until they become absolutely necessary, which doesn't seem likely) is going to cause all of us significantly less link-fixing work in the long run. It also has the advantage of not being blatantly and arbitrarily contrary to Wikipedia dab policy.
You say that "the problem itself" is the same one that I am referring to. However, then you continue by talking about "ambiguous links", and some other stuff about inconvenience to a casual editor. There seem to be two things here, the problem that you perceive that I have caused, and the problem that I have set out to solve. I would like to know more about the problem you believe I have caused, because I really do not understand it. If a naive editor makes a link to Ravi Shankar which is a redirect page to Ravi Shankar (musician), neither the naive editor is inconvenienced nor is a reader of the Wikipedia inconvenienced, unless I am missing something (which is quite possible). People who have an objection to redirects on principle will be put out, but there are many, many redirects and I don't see how they are harmful, as long as the redirects are not multiple redirects. Redirects allow users to reach the same page using many different queries, and this, I would think is an advantage to users. You state that most editors will write Ravi Shankar rather than Ravi Shankar (musician). But that is in most cases what I want. If you don't want to fix the links, you don't have to, and everything still works, however, if you are like me, and want to find the cases where a link to Ravi Shankar should actually have gone to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, or to some other person who may not have an article, then it is very valuable to know which links have been researched, and which have not. Consider for a moment how it works with regular dab pages. We know that links to the dab page have not been checked, but links to the actual articles probably have. Fixing the links removes them from the list to be fixed the next time around. The difference between a link to a dab page and the case with Ravi Shankar pointing to Ravi Shankar (musician) is that links to dab pages are an inconvenience, whereas links to a redirect page are transparent.
In short, had you not created Ravi Shankar (musician), there would have been absolutely no need for you to pipe all of those Ravi Shankar links to point there, and there wouldn't now be a need for someone to go and fix all of those links so that they point back to Ravi Shankar. And if the article is located at Ravi Shankar (musician) there will always be a need for someone to keep watch over new links to Ravi Shankar and pipe them accordingly. If it isn't, that entire problem never even arises. Microtonal 01:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, I think we see different problems. You see my piping the Ravi Shankar links as a burden, which I unfortunately created by having Ravi Shankar (musician). I do not, because I believe there will always be a need for someone to watch over new links to Ravi Shankar. The links that had already been created demonstrate that people will link to Ravi Shankar, even when the person meant is not the musician. This will continue to happen, and it will continue to need correcting. The question is are we going to make it easier on those who do the correcting, or are we going to make it harder. I can appreciate the argument that the needs of the end users and the needs of the editors outweigh the needs of link-fixers. But I have yet to hear exactly how an editor or an end user is inconvenienced. If you could explain that to me, I would be very grateful.
On a final note, your comments about me in the Ravi Shankar talk page, may or may not be accurate. That is not the point. They are hurtful to me, and I would be very thankful if you would remove them. --User:BostonMA 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permissions

We request that permission for text should be under the GFDL license, which permits derivate works (that is, modifications). Hope this helps.

(Note, however, that we are not permitted to libel, etc., individuals, but this has nothing to do with copyright.) David.Monniaux 05:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sports wiki

Hi fellow "Dan":

I noticed you were active on many sports pages on Wikipedia. My friends and are I starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles, as well as regular encyclopedic entries. If you're interested, contact me and I'll give you the URL. --DNL 17:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! The site is here.

[edit] template:user fsm

I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm. Janizary 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Ack, I screwed this up, just go see my response on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports & Opera?

Hi Dan. I just wanted to drop a line, saying how impressed I am to find anyone else on the planet who appreciates both opera and sports/basketball! Thanks for adding the women's hoops championship venue. -Deebkie March 31, 2006


[edit] Meetups, events, &c.

Hi Microtonal,

There's currently some discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]; among other things this could help better organize meetups and gatherings at large events and cons. I'm trying to notify people who have been involved in local meetups; if you are interested, see the mailing-list and meta-page on the topic. Cheers, +sj + 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this.   — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary music

Hi Microtonal, I wonder if you would be interested in joining the new WikiProject Contemporary music that I helped organize recently? Our goal is to help improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the subject. Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pos-box1.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Pos-box1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pos-box1.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pos-box1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Esrever (klaT) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)