User talk:Pfistermeister

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pfistermeister, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!

-- Kirill Lokshin 00:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mahler

Appreciating your contribution to the Mahler article and discussion. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering where you found your information on the Bruno Walter arrangements, since I cannot find a recording of Symphony No. 2 for piano duet or for that matter the 2 piano version; please point me in a good direction for finding this recording since I think it is out of print. 64bytes 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAPITALS

A word to the wise. Putting messages in CAPITALS is equivalent to shouting, and is not appreciated amongst Wikipedians. Cheers JackofOz 11:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

In reference to your edit summary

  • 16:17 Pictures at an Exhibition (diff; hist) . . Pfistermeister (Talk | block) (Rubbish! Rimsky's edition leaves the 5th Promenade *exactly where Mussorgsky put it*. Keep your stupid and uninformed fantasies to yourself.)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks, Hyacinth 10:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mussorgsky

Hello. I read with interest your expansion of the article on Mussorgsky. Any chance you could add a references section to the article, please? - as you obviously have good sources. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I see that Robert was here first to say something similar! I also wanted to compliment you on your work on Mussorgsky, which I have been wishing to see expanded for a long time now. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahler's 10th

Hi. I removed the detail about the key changing from B flat to F sharp as it did not seem to be relevant to the point you were making. He revised the scoring, and he included the marginalia in the new version, that's the point. The fact that it went from B flat to F sharp or any other key is surely not the issue. JackofOz 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And I don't consider it vandalism to make a serious-minded and conscientious edit to existing articles. This whole project is about continuously improving the quality of articles, which in some cases means removing unnecessary words. Cheers JackofOz 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambivalence

An encyclopaedia isn't about what "term"s "refer to". It is about what things are. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use_of_.27refers_to.27. Uncle G 15:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Thorpe

Hi. Thanks for your correction to the opening paragraph. I had attempted to change the sentence around to indicate that both Thorpe's involvement in the conspiracy and the his gay relationship with Scott were alleged rather than matters of record, but your edit was evidence that this hadn't worked.

Given the resultant allegations of alleged conspiracies, I thought I'd have a stab at a total rewrite of the sentence to try to get the idea across in a more pithy manner. If you feel the edit does not achieve this, I'd welcome your suggestions. Yours, in a spirit of improvement rather than reversion, Hairybottle 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Edit summaries with language such as "you should get yourself off wikipedia" are uncivil, and as such constitute a blatant violation of community policy. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIV. Thanks, Dr U 19:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also about Mahler 6

Considering just replacing this with a bracketed comment for now, but what is

  • I have no evidence that this statement is in fact true Pf.

doing in the middle of the Mahler 6 article (did a vandal add it, did you, .. - why is it there in such an obtrusive form...) Clarification appreciated in advance! Schissel-nonLop! 11:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! Sorry about that! I put that note in when I sent the text to a wiki-friend to look it over: I forgot to take it out when I pasted the text into the article window! Please do with the note as you see fit: I still haven't got a definitive answer about the latest Mahler Society edition. Pfistermeister 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures at an Exhibition

Hi. I will try to handle this maturely, but would you please not call me "clueless"? I gave good reasons for my edits in that article and I have very good sources for that. I even explained that on the articles talk page and what you called "long-corrected errors" were proven with phrases like "seems to be" on that very talk page. I am ready to start a discussion about this, I have spent some time researching the topic and want to contribute helpfully, so I think you can understand my indignant attitude. Mütze 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, instead of simply calling Mütze's contribution clueless it might be worth looking at the reason he has given on the discussion page. I am having a discussion with the same user on German Wikipedia, and I must say his reason sounds convincing to me. Unfortunately I have not enough information at hand to clear up the matter, so if there is anything you can contribute to this discussion, we would all be grateful. Greetings --FordPrefect42 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, almost synchronously ;-) FordPrefect42 13:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote: It is un-encyclopaedic to fantasise about what you think it's 'obvious' that an 'early editor' might have done. The *fact* is that *Mussorgsky himself* wrote 'Con mortuis...' as the title. – Oh no, Pfistermeister, it is even more un-encyclopaedic to fantasise about what Mussorgsky wrote, when the *facts* show, that he himself did not write any of the title versions, and it is most un-encyclopaedic to completely ignore facts stated on the discussion page --FordPrefect42 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schönberg

Hi, Pfistermeister: I appreciate that you corrected me. I just didn't like your tone. :-) (You're most probably my senior...) Back to civilised exchange of information? (I see you have had problems with that earlier... I can understand.) Selfinformation 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov

Hello Pfistermeister. I am "Ivan Veliki". I have made quite a few edits to the Mussorgsky articles over the last month. I scanned, uploaded, and linked all the photos of the composer you see in each article (Hartmann too). You might remember something about this, as you praised my work when I relocated the Repin painting to the end of the biography and added a fine photo of Mussorgsky to the top. However, you might later have forgotten as you also asked "Why is this Ivan V removing pictures (vandalistic deletion)." To answer your question, I was concerned about copyright infringement. I felt I was entitled to remove what I had taken the trouble to add. After reading more about Wikipedia policy and observing other articles, I restored the photos. I also created the Mussorgsky works list. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about Mussorgsky and his works. Currently, I am expanding the Boris Godunov (opera) article. I have put a lot of work into it. I'm sure you can tell, even if you don't agree with all I have said. Imagine my reaction when you made reference to one of my statements as a "ludicrously sub-sophomoric falsehood". I believe you were referring to "However, it [the RK version of Boris] is not technically Mussorgsky, but rather a composition by Rimsky-Korsakov based on Mussorgsky (just as the Ravel orchestration of Pictures at an Exhibition is a Ravel composition)." I don't necessarily expect agreement on such a controversial issue. I don't expect Wikipedians are going to contact me before making edits to my work. I do expect (and I believe Wikipedia policy supports me) that you should show the same level of objectivity, respect, and professionalism in your remarks that you should show in your edits. I don't believe my statement was factually incorrect. I believe any musicologist (I know Wikipedia readers are not musicologists) will admit that arrangements and orchestrations (in academic, or "classical" music) are the product of the arranger or orchestrator, particularly alterations of finished works. If you consult the Grove Dictionary of Music, you will find (correct me if wrong) RK's Boris and Ravel's Pictures listed under THEIR Works Lists, and under Mussorgsky's Works List you will find little or no reference to RK's Boris among Mussorgsky's other operas, and you will find Pictures listed among M's piano works, not among his Orchestral Works. My Mussorgsky Works List, based on M.D. Calvocoressi and Gerald Abraham (who are among the foremost Mussorgsky experts), concurs on this issue. Anyway, you could have shown some restraint in your remarks. I can see that this is an ongoing issue with you, as others have taken offense at your ill-considered ad hominem remarks. ````

[edit] Alma Problem

You have now created 3 separate articles on this subject and I can find only one trace of it on google which is not reliable per WP:RS. Please indicate which article you want to keep and source it quickly as I will otherwise put it up for deletion. If you let me know which article is staying, I will redirect the others to that. Thank you --Spartaz 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the duplications -- I had a problem getting the title right! The correct one is the most recently created and modified one: I have much more information to add in the next few days derived from the books by Donald Mitchell, Jonathan Carr, and Peter Franklin. Regards, Pf.
Thank you. The redirects will follow shortly. Please can you quickly reference the article by mentioning the sources even if you are going to add to it shortly. I'll add a stub tag to show everyone that it is a work in progress. Cheers --Spartaz 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirects now in place. I'm not sure whether the title is correct under the manual of style. Please let me know if you need me to change the redirects round. I also saw that you had referenced the article - that was quick! Thanks. --Spartaz 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pfistermeister. I think you would like to join the discussion on Talk:Alma_Problem.--Atavi 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summaries

Re: this and other edit summaries. Please try to use civil language, even (or especially) when reverting vandalism, so as to avoid feeding the trolls. That way we leave the childish behaviour to the vandals, and maintain the appearance that wikipedia is the product of thoughtful adults. --Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Stein

I set up a article deletion template for Edwin Stein and used your reason in the discussion page for the reason why the article should be deleted. I just wanted to let you know. -Tickkid

[edit] Your edit summaries

I see you have already been contacted several times about incivil edit summaries. Calling editors' contributions "excruciatingly maladroit," "iliterate" [sic], and "inept" are in violation of WP:CIVIL. Continued incivility of this sort can lead to blocking. There's no need to disparage other editors like that. Everyone can make a mistake, so please assume good faith and adjust your tone accordingly. Thanks. Jokestress 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha! I'd think you'd have learned to spell "illiterate" by now, since it seems to be a favourite word. Bobanny 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Marowitz

Just a request. The people who do new articles patrol are deluged by articles about people whose notability is not asserted. You could help by fleshing out your articles a bit before submitting them. In this case, there was no option but to nominate this article for speedy deletion - there are quite literally millions of authors and playwrights in the world. What can you do to demonstrate that this particular person is notable? Dennitalk 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Des Knaben wunderhorn

Hello,

You stated that I deleted informantion from this article. What are you refering to? I only added information and tried to make the article clearer. It is very confusing and I'm afraid non-Mahler scholars will have no idea what Lieder aus Des Knaben Wunderhorn is. I had to read it three times to understand what you thought it was (and know the work). If you could define what it is before presenting the entire history of the work that would really help. As it stands now, there is too much emphasis on history and not enough on definition. DrG 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rockets Redglare

I am NOT vandalistically deleting information on this page. What you are posting is COMPLETELY unsubstantiated and damaging information about Rockets. I’m here to defend my former boyfriend and to prevent any further erroneous information to be posted. If you continue to post this libelous information, I will be compelled to contact the proper authorities at Wikipedia.

Thank You for your understanding, Black-E

[edit] Rockets Redglare

"Restoring purely factual and neutral statement yet again..."

Yet again these ARE NOT factual comments! Purely a lame theory concocted by a person who did not know Rockets personally, as I did!

  • What I say is indeed factual, from start to finish. There is a source which says what I say it says; end of story. That's what an encyclopaedia is for. You have a personal agenda here, and your actions are unencyclopaedic. Kindly treat the page in an appropriate manner. Pfistermeister 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Again, this is an UNFOUNDED statement, purely a theory put forth by an author living in England at the time of the event - looking to further sensationalize and 'wrap-up' the tragic murder. There were no police report or investigations into Rockets being the killer. Perhaps you should investigate HIS sources to 'prove' this theory.

  • Please learn what an encyclopedia is for, and how to contribute to it. You are going about this the wring way. Pfistermeister 23:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Prisoner--"reshot opening" of "Living in Harmony"

I do not know why it took me so long to notice the presence of an ambiguity in the "Living in Harmony" Trivia note in the article on the TV series The Prisoner, especially given the extent of my own work on the item, but I now have, and traced its inclusion to you. This reads, "...the episode's re-shot opening sequence was considered 'too confusing' for American viewers." If by this you meant to refer to the fact that the episode opens with new footage in place of what is usually seen, which is certainly the most probable interpretation, I would like to revise it to indicate that the real alleged problem here is that the episode title comes up where one would expect the programme's, and that does not show except via McGoohan's acting credit in the end graphics. It is not at all clear to the uninitiated viewers just what this really is until it is almost over. However, I will not assume that you didn't have something else in mind, and hereby ask if that is the case. It was certainly a notable point. Ted Watson (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musical analysis

Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks "comment on content, not on the contributor". Hyacinth (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Method: "a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art". Analysis: "separation of a whole into its component parts". Thus an method of analysis would be a systematic mode of inquiry employed proper to music in which a the parts and relations of a whole is described. Hyacinth (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This gibberish has nothing to do with me. Pfistermeister (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Liverpool

Hi, you correctly added Mark Doran to the alumni list, but this links to an Australian sportsman which I doubt you meant. I think you meant the musicologist, who does not yet have a Wiki page. On a cursory examination, there's no reason why he shouldn't have a page, but I don't have time to do it myself. I'll leave it with you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona sampson

You might want to move your new page to Fiona Sampson (properly capitalised). Many thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Fiona sampson

A tag has been placed on Fiona sampson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of High Culture
For fine editing of musical articles, I award you the Barnstar of High Culture! 70.186.172.75 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please remember to remain civil in your edits at Hamlet (1996 film) and Talk:Hamlet (1996 film). Personal attacks are not allowed. Please also remember that edit summaries are designed to summarize your edit and not to make personal attacks, value judgments on other contributors, or otherwise introduce disruption. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR with regard to Hamlet (1996 film)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hamlet (1996 film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page courteously to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AndyJones (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Übermensch

I accidently neglected to include an edit summary on a change I made to your edit regarding Übermensch. While "slammed" may be too colloquial, I don't think that "criticized" captures the vehemence with which Kaufmann objected to the translation of Übermensch as "superman." I've changed the verb to "lambasted." RJC Talk Contribs 15:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosho (The Prisoner)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Kosho (The Prisoner), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doherty

As explained every single time, the quote was completely inappropriate. Not because it doubts Jesus' historicity - in fact, it doesn't even do this! It is because it is a completely off-topic ad hominem attack. Maybe you don't know what this means, as you have yet to respond to that explanation - an ad hominem attack is a technique used in debate which is extremely useless and provides nothing to the argument, in that it attacks the opponent, instead of the opponent's argument. For example, if I was arguing whether we should be increasing or cutting taxes, and my opponent just responded with "Well, you're just a gay, what do you know?"

Do you see how that would be baseless demonization, and completely unethical? It's not on topic at all, and just distracts from the real question at hand. Not only is Doherty's accusation false (we rely on the quotes of several atheists in the article, and besides, few people who get into the career of doubting the Bible's word and trying to check it themselves are going to be devout Christians), but it is off-topic. We might as well be including his grocery list, or letter to his mother - after all, they are written by a man famous for his involvement with the myth, are they not?

Finally, as mentioned by Akhilleus, the referencing for the quote is poor form, and highly useless.


On another note - your rant was removed from the talk page, as it also was a set of personal and ad hominem attacks that did not contribute to discussion, and are against wikipedia guidelines. In the future, I encourage you to discuss the actual matter at hand, the hypothesis, rather than attack other editors for disagreeing with you. Otherwise, we will regrettably be forced to again remove antagonistic comments.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychoanalysis

I know you're trying to clean up these articles - but you've removed my favourite sentence on Wikipedia!

"Freud's psychodynamic theory is psychodynamic, but the psychodynamic theories of Jung aren't psychodynamic. So the two terms aren't synonymous" Is there really no place for this gem? Fainites barley 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)