User talk:Prof.rick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page! If you need help with anything, especially regarding music, feel free to leave a message. I'll do my best to assist.

Contents

[edit] Sympathetic Vibratory Physics

Thank you, Keenan, for placing my reference to Dale Pond ("Sympathetic Vibratory Physics") into an appropriate location and format. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, and therefore appreciate your support...in editing, reference to Wikipedia policies, etc.

We are both obviously rather knowledgeable on the subject at hand, and in the hopes of providing the most accurate and valuable information possible, I am encouraging our mutual effort and co-operation.

Incidentally, I have found many items in Wikipedia regarding intervals, tuning systems, etc. which require some editing. (I particularly have a problem with "just" intervals being classified as "mean".) -Prof.rick

Keenan: I was half-thru these editings when Wikipedia encountered "technical problems". They are therefore obviously incomplete, and have not given sufficient credit to your excellent contributions. I will try again, to complete this editing. I have edited-out "References" and included them within the text. (By the way, you cited Hammond organ tuning, 196/185 ratio, but the "source" you cited provides little substantiation. Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this matter regarding Hammond organs, is to eliminate the entire section. -Prof.rick

[edit] Editing

OK, Keenan. I am placing this note both here and on the discussion page, to be sure you find it. I hope you find the revisions to be reasonable, particularly the new references to the 3mu and prime-number harmonics. However, I am not finished editing. The earlier part of the section needs some revamping, and I can probably find better references. -Prof.rickProf.rick

== Re: Semitones

[edit] Re: 196/185 and Hammond

[1] Look at the interval between F# and G. For some reason, I thought it appeared more than once, but anyway the only claim I made was that 196/185 "appears in" the tuning of the Hammond organ, which is directly supported by the source. The hundredth-of-a-semitone claim wasn't about the Hammond organ per se, but simply a statement of mathematical fact: 1200&nbps;log2(196/185) = 99.994... In the strictest possible interpretation of WP:NOR, that would need a reference to back it up too, for example Google Calculator, so if that's what you're complaining about, then okay, my bad. —Keenan Pepper 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Editing

Let's both just agree to follow all the policies, simply by editing Wikipedia, and that's it. —Keenan Pepper 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hammond?

Incidentally, are you familiar with the modern composer, Elliot Sharp? His works are certainly "on the fringe". (Woops! Excuse the quotation marks...I know you despise them!) His work is a hair-raising! But just as much, I enjoy early composition, such as organum.

I've never heard of Elliot Sharp, but I'm listening to some Ben Johnston right now.

[edit] Elliot Sharp

I'll go down to Allen Music Library tomorrow and see if they have anything on him. Why don't you start an article? He's not Elliot Marsh Sharp, is he? —Keenan Pepper 03:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not Elliot Marsh Sharp, of the "City Sleepers". MY MISTAKE...his named should have been spelled, Elliott Sharp (with a double "t"). Under this title, you can find several worthwhile articles on Google. I would enjoy starting an article on Elliott Sharp for Wikipedia, but one already exists! You might find both the information provided on Google and Wikipedia interesting, to supplement whatever you find on the Allen Library. But I hope you have the chance to HEAR some Sharp! Regards, Prof.rick 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The music library had a few of his pieces. He reminds me of Johnny Reinhard (whose article I should work on). I like Kronos Quartet's performance of Digital. —Keenan Pepper 18:45, 2 September 2006


[edit] Semitones

Response to comments at User talk:Rainwarrior#Semitones.

I don't think the augmented 8th has a properly defined inversion, as inversion at an octave doesn't really apply outside the range of an octave. An ascending augmented octave should invert at the octave to a diminished descending unison, but this is more or less trivial information. I don't think we need to talk about it in the article.

I am only partly moved at the moment. Well, technically I'm here in a different country living and working, but all my stuff is still on its way, and getting everything together (legal paperwork, driver's license, etc) is going to take some time yet, so I still think I'm "moving" at the moment, but thanks for asking. - Rainwarrior 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sohmer

Sohmer & Co. looks good. I have removed the cleanup tag, and made a few tweaks. It could use metric equivalents for the sizes. Rich Farmbrough, 23:24 4 February 2007 (GMT).


I saw your last note, which is great. Unfortunately not everyone is nice (though some don't realise it) and people can get quite passionate about what they are doing. I just realised I hadn't mentioned the other possibility that he is just merely a troll trying to get a rise out of you. I believe the response of keeping calm is the same either way, if they are trolling and can't get the response they are looking for they'll quite likely move on, on the other hand if it is someone genuninely trying to help, just going about it the wrong way you maybe able to get some reasonable input to better the article. --pgk 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half diminished scale

Hi. I cam across the article Half diminished scale which isn't written very coherently. I am not at all familiar with music theory and don't know if this is really referring to an Octatonic scale which already has an article in which case it should be redirected. I was hoping that you would be able to assist. Regards. -- Whpq 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Whpq,
In reference to your question, first, let's clarify two terms: a diminished scale is one of alternating Tones and Semitones. (See Octatonic Scale). Second, a "half-diminished" chord is, in effect a minor seventh chord, flat 5 (e.g., C, Eb, Gb, Bb). Notice the intervals of this chord: min 3, min 3, min 3, and maj 3. This chord occurs naturally in the Locrian Mode (picture white keys only on a piano, with B treated as the "tone centre"). The resultant Tonic 7th chord is B, D, F. A. You will will find that the intervals of this chord correspond to "half-diminished" chord described above.
The octatonic scales may begin Tone-Semitone (what jazz musicians call the "whole-half" scale), or Semitone-Tone ("half-whole" scale). An octatonic (diminished) scale, built on B, and beginning Semitone-Tone ("half-whole") contains the notes B, D, F and A:
B(Cb), C, D, D#(Eb), F, F#(Gb), G#,(Ab), A, (B)(Cb).
In the half-diminished scale of B, since the the intervals are alternately evenly spaced, a half-diminished chord may also be built not only on the Tonic, B, but on every second note of the scale, resulting in these other half-diminished chords:
(D, F, Ab, C); (F, Ab, Cb, Eb); (G#, B, D, F#).
Because this diminished scale permits a Tonic "half-diminished" chord, it is therefore sometimes called the "half-diminished" scale. It can be built upon ANY of the twelve semitones of the octave.
Consequently, any "half-whole" diminished scaled may be called a "half-diminished" scale.


It is a "general rule" of the diminished scales, that whatever kinds of chords can be build on one particular note of the scale can be also be built on alternate notes of the scale, the roots of which together form a diminished seventh chord. Since any octatonic scale consists of the culmination of two diminished seventh chords, two sets of "chord types" are available in any diminished scale.
Hope this has answered your question! Thank you for using wikipedia.
Regards, Prof.rick 08:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: A copy of this response has also be placed on your talk page.

I will also look into the "Half-Diminished Scales" article, first checking its accuracy and clarity. If warranted, I will try to establish a "Redirect" to "Octanonic Scales." Prof.rick 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and looking into the article. Regards. -- Whpq 10:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Musical scale and Diatonic and chromatic

[Posted also at Talk:Musical scale:]

Yes indeed, Prof.rick. Thanks for you interest in the new article. I noted a sentence that you wrote youself, at Talk:Semitone/Archive_2:

What does "diatonic" mean? Which kind of diatonic scale? Major? Natural minor? Harmonic minor? Melodic minor?

According to certain purists, the query you pose on behalf of the hapless student has only one answer, and it is obvious: only the natural minor (equivalent to the descending form of the melodic) and the major are diatonic. Such purists often use the term muddily themselves, though. According to other sources, working from a fine and solidly established tradition that informs much pedagogy, all of the forms you list are diatonic. The different usages needed to be clarified, and that's what we seek to do at Diatonic and chromatic. It is causing a good measure of controversy at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic, though. I hope to see you chipping in there, from the point of view of an experienced teacher.

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[Posted also at Talk:Musical scale:]

Fine, Prof. I look forward to dialogue and collaboration on these matters. All the best with the performance. What will you play? – Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for your recent long note at my page. That sounds like a great program for your performance. The Beethoven is small and lyrical, so it won't tower over proceedings like a Waldstein or a Hammerklavier! And there is no need to justify inclusion of Liszt or Chopin. What will you play of theirs? I'm a great fan of Chopin, and I especially love the études, which are immensely diverse and musical. Alas, I cannot play them. And Liszt: yes, of course he prefigures a lot that was to come. Do you know Leslie Howard, an Australian living in London? A friend of mine from years ago. He's recorded all of the known piano works of Liszt. Sheesh!

When is your concert?

As for your observations about equal temperament, it is not surprising to me if a modern piano tuned any other way should be unsettling to any listener. It might be different if your students were to hear a cappella singers presenting a piece one way and then another; or strings, say.

I do think that equal temperament should simply be assumed more often in presenting music theory to students. Certainly in the early stages, and for most purposes anyway, let's face it. Things get awfully complex when you start wheeling in the Pythagorean comma and the diatonic lichanos hypaton, when the student really only wants to know what the hell an augmented second is! All of that has its place, of course. But it invades too many articles at Wikipedia that should be inviting and elementary.

I'll think through what you wrote about the intervals. There is so much to say, and so much confusion to dispel. I have more material for Diatonic and chromatic, but I am running short of time to integrate it. (And, of course, to fend off obstructionism.)

Anyway, back to work. More later, yes?

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again, Noetica. Thanks for your response. First, the performance is on Thursday. The Chopin begins with the "Harp" Etude, followed by the Berceuse, the Barcarolle, and the Fantaisie in F minor. The Liszt includes La Campanella (from the Paganini Etudes), just two of the transcriptions of "6 Polish Songs" by Chopin, (The Maiden's Wish and Spring), then the Rhapsody. I thought the very quiet and meditative "Spring" would provide a powerful contrast to the 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody. (Glad to hear you are a great fan of Chopin...he he has ALWAYS been at the top of my list!) I had considered a group of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes, but concluded they would detract from the impact of the Rhapsody.
I like your comments regarding E.T., and also feel it should be "assumed" more often in many Wikipedia articles. (I'm also experimenting with two "well-temperaments" of my own, but let's leave that one for now.) As you stated, the implications of the Pythagorean comma are a little much for the average student to handle. (An awarness of it is desirable, but we needn't attempt to cover every known historic effort to deal with it.)
Yes, Leslie Howard is truly amazing! I don't know how any mortal could possibly master such an overwhelming volume of fiendishly difficult repertoire. Hope to chip in at "Diatonic and Chromatic" after the performance. Hopefully the obstructionism is minimal! Best, Prof.rick 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rick, all the best for Thursday. I have a work deadline for Thursday myself, do I can't chat as I'd like to, now. I have used much more than my self-allocation of Wikitime on improving Diatonic and chromatic, and dealing with recalcitrance at its talk page. So I'll resume dialogue with you later, and hear how your performance went, I hope. I'll leave you with just this thought: Why do we hardly ever hear Chopin's "other" prelude these days – the Opus 45? It is rapturous!

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again, Noetica

Have you heard of "mirror images" in music?

In brief, mirror images of modes can most easily be seen on the white keys of a piano. (For example, Dorian in D would be a mirror image of itself.) Therefore, if what I previously stated about the Locrian mode is true, the converse is true of it's mirror image, the Lydian mode. In this mode, the intervals upward from the "root note" include all of the major intervals, as well as the augmented 4th and the perfect 5th. From any member-note to the upper "root note" includes all minor intervals, the diminished 5th and the perfect 4th. (Again, all "diatonic" intervals are covered.)

The Dorian mode is the only mode which is it's own "mirror image". The other 6 modes are paired in mirror images as follows: Ionian/Phyrgian; Lydian/Locrian; Mixolydian/Aeolian.

This MAY be of value to students of theory, since the final sharp of a key signature is the "root-note" of the Locrian, while the final flat of a key signature is the "root-note" of the Lydian. (By these, all diatonic intervals can be easily determined.)

The concert seems to be "pretty much in shape". Despite the risks of live performance, I feel ready, and look forward to the performance. (But, as always, I will later consider what I might have done differently!) Regarding the Chopin Etudes, don't feel badly! Rubinstein and Horowitz agreed that good pianists can play only a few of them. (Pianists who attempt to play/record them all cannot possibly do justice to them all!) And regarding the Waldstein, I DON'T want to sound arrogant, but I am VERY PROUD of my interpretation and technical polish of this work! However, when Beethoven first sent it to his publisher, it was returned, with the obvious complaint, it was "too long". Still, Beethoven insisted that it be published "as is". I decided, years ago, to NEVER include it in a concert...partly due to it's lengthiness, and also because an exact technical execution, for me, inevitably triggers tendinitis and/or inflamed nerves. (Remember, Beethoven was a "sloppy" pianist, and non-exacting as his scores would suggest.) It is one piece of repertoire I have been forced to strike from my list! The Hammerclavier, on the other hand, I find less physically injurious, but simply TOO LONG for most concert programs.

I will spend the next few days on "mental preparation", and will become rather isolated. Hope to speak again after the performance, and begin contributing to your particularly excellent work at Wikipedia. Best, Prof.rick 07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rick. How did your performance go?
Myself, I did not quite meet the deadline of Thursday that I had set for some work. Life's complicated (as you are aware, I'm sure!). I'll study and reply to the various lines of thought that you have laid out here. Diatonic and chromatic is my main Wiki interest at the moment, and it's shaping up well, I think. There are still several sections to add, and a couple that we already have in place need adjustment.
Have you ever looked at Diatonic function, by the way? If Musical scale needs palliative care, this one needs a sharp stick through the heart at full moon. I started to edit when I found a couple of small infelicities there, and stopped when I realised that it might look as if I was endorsing the article as a whole, by associating my name with it at all. Look at just this paragraph, as a paragon of poor expression and factual error:

===Functions in the minor mode===

In the US the minor mode or scale is considered a variant of the major, while in German theory it is often considered, per Riemann, the inversion of the major. In the late eighteenth-early nineteenth centuries a large amount of symmetrical chords and relations were known as "dualistic" harmony. The root of a major chord is its bass note in first inversion or normal form at the bottom of a third and fifth, but, symmetrically, the root of a major chord is the US fifth of a first inversion minor chord, and the US root is the "fifth". The plus and degree symbols, + and o are used to denote that the lower tone of the fifth is the root, as in major, +d, or the higher, as in minor, od. Thus, if the major tonic parallel is the tonic, with the fifth raised a whole tone, then the minor tonic is the tonic with the US root/German fifth lowered a whole tone. (Gjerdingen, 1990)

[*Shudder*]
Most of the problems here speak for themselves. I will point out, though, that the link Normal form leads to a disambiguation page where there is nothing connected with music at all.
The danger is, of course, that one would spend too much time correcting such things. I do, in fact. I have to reform, and become more detached from certain Wiki obsessions I seem to have developed.
(If you reply here, I'll see that you have. No need to notify me at my page.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Rick, thanks for your note at my talk page. I respect your request not to "process" your note until I have time to give it some thought. In fact, I want to look over all that you have said so far, think it through, and make a reasoned reply in due course. But for now let me touch on just four themes:
  • Congratulations on a successful performance! I always admire you people who can do that. I have only done such things as a matter of dire necessity, not being an accomplished instrumentalist.
  • I'm glad you agree about Diatonic function. Let's give it a wide berth, yes? But unfortunately some of its content, along with that of Diatonic set theory and a few related articles, will have to be covered in some way at Diatonic and chromatic. Thanks for your compliments about that page, by the way.
  • Yes, there has been much negativity from those holding doggedly and dogmatically to certain opinions, at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic. I understand your reluctance to enter the fray.
  • The harmonic minor is for some, including you it appears, a "mere abstraction". Without taking sides in any definitive way at this stage, I should point out that all scales might usefully be considered abstractions from real music as it is really composed, really performed, and really enjoyed. However that may be, the harmonic minor does quite robustly occur in the Viennese classics (later ones, at least). Beethoven's piano sonatas, especially the early ones, yield examples. And just this afternoon I spent an hour surveying 300 pages of Schubert piano sonatas. I'm sure I missed many occurrences; but I found about ten without much trouble. These were from the earliest to the latest in the series. I should say, though, that all were descending scale passages. (Interesting in itself, I thought.) Soon I'll look through all of Schubert's works for piano and strings (a quintet, a quartet, and three trios). I can give you some instances to look at, if you like. By the way, one authority I consulted could find only one augmented second in all of Bach's chorale harmonisations. That surprised me a bit; but the same authority writes that the choruses and arias of the cantatas are peppered with that "forbidden" interval. (Remember that the chorale harmonisations are done with the untrained congregation in mind.)
Enough for now. As I say, I'll analyse your observations when I really do have time, and I'll get back to you then.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rick. Just dropped in to say I still do intend to analyse your suggestions and respond to them. I have been too preoccupied with other things (work, travel) to look closely at such things for a while. With Wikipedia I've only been doing routine maintenance. User:TheScotch is apparently offended at something about Diatonic and chromatic, and is summarily deleting links to it. I think he feels that he had some sort of ownership rights at certain pages (like Tetrachord, and especially Pentatonic scale, where he felt I had been "advertising" D&C in the talk page, and that this was improper). Well, all I can say is this: these pages and some of these editors need all the help they can get: but you can't legislate for insight or clear expression, can you? All a bit unpleasant. I have been trenchant (sometimes venomously, perhaps) in my responses to editors who simply cannot see how poor their own editing is. But that is usually, in the end, a mistake. (Not always!) All very dismal encounters. Makes me want to write more outside of Wikipedia, so I suppose that's a good outcome, at least.
More later.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half diminished scale

Hello Keenan, and despite our disagreements in the past, I am urging your help (if the true interests and goals of Wikipedia are our mutual goal). Please check out an article entitled "half diminished scale". It might help to start with the page's history, and it's pathetic presentation. (It used to carry a tag, of "needing wikification".) I tried to salvage it, and the tag was removed.) Still I feel it is a pointless article, since it is most rare that practicing musicians describe this particular scale as "half diminished" (see Talk Page). I am asking you to post this as an "Article for Possible Deletion". (I would do so myself, but being a mere editor and not an Administrator, I am reluctant to do so.) Thanks for your help! Prof.rick 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very busy in real life right now so I don't have time to help out. The article looks pretty bad, but I don't see any reason to put it on AFD. You may be confused about the specific purpose of AFD. See WP:DP#Reasons for deletion and WP:DP#Alternatives to deletion. Why don't you fix it instead? Feel free to completely rewrite it or replace it with a redirect or disambiguation page. Be bold! —Keenan Pepper 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Second Hungarian Rhapsody (Franz Liszt).ogg and Image:Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2.ogg

I have marked both of those files for deletion as duplicates of Image:Franz Liszt - Second Hungarian Rhapsody.ogg at Wikimedia Commons. It is best to have one version of a file on the Wikimedia Commons so all Wikimedia projects can access it from the same filename and in the same location. Most of the Al Goldstein collection was mass-uploaded to the Commons last August - see commons:Category:Pandora Music. That is how I found the file - I have been recently trying to find music from the Al Goldstein collection to add to Wikipedia articles. Graham87 13:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source code

Have you got the MIDI, Lilypond, ABC or similar source code for Image:Chopin Prelude No. 7.JPG? This would enable one to recreate the image. --80.63.213.182 11:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't. If necessary I can create an "original edition" with my music-printing program. Which article did you want it for?Prof.rick 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood. I created the JPG version which appears on the "Music Notation" page (my editing), and turned it to the public domain. My music program cannot create the score in the forms you suggested, but anyone who has the means is welcome to copy my edition, using a more suitable format. Prof.rick 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hold on again! My format is .mmm if that is any help. (I believe I printed it, then scanned the print in .jpg.) Would .mmm be of any use? Prof.rick 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonata on the 94th Psalm

Hello. I've just written this article on the sonata by Julius Reubke. Do you have this piece of music in your repertoire? I wonder if you would consider making a recording that we could put on the page? It would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia and make the article complete. Thanks for considering. I have also contacted a few others who listed that they were a professional organist, so if someone notifies me that they are able to do it, I will let you know. Thanks. Clavecin 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this sonata is not in my repertoire. I'll check with a few organist-colleagues, and let you know if I have any success. Prof.rick 08:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Prof.rick_with_Best_Friend.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Prof.rick_with_Best_Friend.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means, delete the image (with my thanks!). Prof.rick 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ORGAN

Are you aware of the above WikiProject? If so, are you a member? If not, please join!--Vox Humana 8' 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving your user page into the article namespace

Please don't do that. If you wish to change your username, please see WP:CHANGE. --Closedmouth 07:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just put the template {{db-userreq}} at the top of your user page. The speedy deletion category usually has a big backlog, so be patient --Closedmouth 11:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICQ

As we should have an article on ICQ, I have not deleted this page. Please explain on the talk page what needs to be done so the advertising problems you see can be addressed. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kusma, As you requested, I have noted my reasons for requesting speedy deletion of the ICQ article on the article's talk page. I look forward to hearing you response! (PLEASE, check the External Links and References in particular.) [A duplicate of this message is on your talk page.] Thanks, Prof.rick 11:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICQ

Hi Rick, I've restored the spam tag to ICQ as you suggested. I didn't spend a lot of time checking out the rest of the article for spam, as the External Links seemed to be the worst of it. I'll take a look at the rest when I get some free time. It's a mess right now, that's for certain. Keep up the good work on it. Thanks, MorrisRob 04:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rudeness / phi in music

Dear prof.rick, I am sorry for the rudeness of the user called lyon-dick or something regarding your edit on the phi semitone. I would like to help, if you feel the info is really worthwhile.

The semitone ratio 1,059 is approximately:

(\phi ^3) \over 4,

am I right?

This happens also to be equal to {\phi \over 2} + { 1 \over 4}. Can you provide any hint on whether there is some deeper meaning to this, in terms of harmonics or something? I mean... phi^3 is rather far away from simplicity.

I remember reading that the C-G# interval (8 semitones) was praised for being equal to phi; however this deviates 2%. We need to be careful not to jump to conclusions on the base of coincidences...

thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, thx

I did not notice the mistake! (In stead, I tried to do minus 4 in stead of divide by 4 when I first calculated your result :)

Anyway, the correct calculation using φ3 / 25, undoubtably gives a interesting result. My point is: is it relevant to music, when phi is 8,33 semitone, and not very useful in there; would the phi semitone be useful in understaning harmony in music? We could use some scientific literature here. In the meantime, I will include the result in:

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now reverted the link to mathematical coincidences after reverting all the recent WP:OR there. Sorry, it's hard not to be a bit rude when dealing with such blatant violation of policy. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, such coincidences are a dime a dozen. Given two real numbers x and y, find exponents m and n such that xm = yn by solving mlogx = nlogy for integers m and n to whatever degree of precision you want by expanding the continued fraction of \frac{m}{n} = \frac{\log y}{\log x} to whatever convergent is as close as you want. For example, with x being the semitone and y being phi, \frac{m}{n} = \frac{\log \varphi}{\log 2^{1/12}} = 8.33090296 which has a close convergent at 25/3. So what? Works with any other numbers you pick, too. It's certainly far short of a coincidence. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

{{helpme}}

User:Dicklyon continues to revert a contribution I made to the Mathematical Coincidence page. (The section is Music: Phi and the semitone.) He has made no statements on the Article's Talk Page. If he feels a need to dispute my contribution, wouldn't it be more appropriate to post a message on the talk page of the Article, and invite other opinions, rather than simply reverting without discussion?

Is it possible to "lock" my contribution for a given period, to allow discussion (if it is considered debatable)?

Your help would be sincerely appreciated!

Thank you, Prof.rick (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you've got your chronology wrong. I tried talking with you immediately above, and then again on the article talk page 7 minutes before you said I hadn't still haven't responded. Dicklyon (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you can't. Everyone has the right to edit your contributions mercilessly Pumpmeup 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] three-revert-rule warning

You are in danger of violating WP:3RR. You have undone my edit three times in a row, each time with no edit summary and with no response to my attempts to talk even though you invited me to and even though I've posted my explanation here and on talk:golden ratio before. Dicklyon (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Dicklyon, you reverted 3 times, first! (Otherwise why would I "undo" 3 times?) I do NOT want a Wiki-war! All I am asking is that you avoid further reverting of my contribution, and, if you like, post a notice, asking for opinions of other Wikipedians. Does this sound fair to you? Prof.rick (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

{{helpme}}

Although my contribution to Mathematical Coincidence (specifically, Music: Phi and the semitone) has been reverted by User:Dicklyon 3 times, I seem to have received no help. The only comment I received is that anyone can edit mercilessly! What happened to the 3-revert rule? Please, HELP! Prof.rick (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the 3-revert rule states that 3 is the maximum, so it isn't technically breached until the 4th revert. Second, a revert is an edit that changes the article back to a previous state, so you have to be careful when counting; I haven't looked at the situation, but it's very easy to miscount. Third, the wiki isn't psychic; administrators are unlikely to notice a 3RR breach unless you tell them. Most importantly, though, if an edit war goes anywhere near breaking 3RR, both sides are doing something wrong; a truce and discussion should happen a long time before then. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Especially, try to get into a constructive conversation with the other side; this is usually preferable to a second revert, let alone a fourth. ais523 (talk)

[edit] Replied on my talk page

Thanks for engaging. I have reponded to your recent note, on my talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] helpme

{{helpme}} I have done considerable editing on the Article, "Etude Op. 25 No. 1 (Chopin)". When I go to the page, the old version shows. However, if I click "Article" a second time, the revised version shows. (All changes have been saved.) Does anyone understand this technical glitch, and is able to correct it? Thanks, Prof.rick (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand these glitches either, but sometimes they can be solved by purging your cache. Algebraist 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Algebraist's suggestion should be what's causing the problem - your browser is just being stubborn and lazy and showing the old version without going to look for a new one. I'll remove the helpme now, but if you're still having trouble, please feel free to put it back up. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm, that's odd. In that case, it may have been the server's problem. If you get that again, try adding "?action=purge" to the end of the article's URL in your address bar - that should force the server to go find the new version and display it. Glad it's working, anyway! Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Development of Diatonic and chromatic

Rick, thanks very much for your encouraging verdict on my favourite article, at my talkpage. It has taken a lot of work, and there is still some more to be done. The hardest thing has been to deal with a couple of rather noisy detractors who, I fear, have little insight or analytical ability to bring to the table – to say nothing of goodwill! But there have been really solid editors involved as well, and great collaboration.

I'm occupied with other things for a little while, but I look forward to resuming a conversation with you soon. Good to see you're active at WP!

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


PS This, for example:

Better markup for the hard space, using ,,

Summary

The hard space is an important but neglected element in good Wikipedia editing. It stops an unwanted line break, so it is also called no-break space, or non-breaking space. An example (one sort from very many): no line break should occur in "17 sq ft". At present there are two ways to achieve this: first, with the raw HTML   code (17 sq ft); second, with the {{nowrap}} template ({{nowrap|17 sq ft}}). These options are hard to remember, hard to input, and hard to interpret on the screen. Some cases are far more complex.

The solution? Introduce simple new Wikipedia markup, similar to the existing markup for italic (''italic text'') and bold ('''bold text'''). Although these are converted by the system into HTML code (<i>italic text</i> and <b>bold text</b> respectively), the text always appears in the edit box with the markup '' or '''.

The proposal simply adapts this useful and accepted idea, to include the hard space. Extensive discussion among interested editors, followed by a poll, shows that ,, (two ordinary commas) is the best markup. When it is implemented, one could type 17,,sq,,ft in the edit box, which would be converted internally to 17&nbsp;sq&nbsp;ft, so that the reader of the article always sees an unbroken "17 sq ft". Editing, we would always still see 17,,sq,,ft. This innovation is easy for experienced editors and welcoming to Wikipedia newcomers, since it is the same style as markup for bold and italics.

Analysis shows that comma-based markup could be extended for other formatting and punctuation; but that is beyond the present simple proposal.

[Last revision: 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC). See and discuss the full proposal here.]