User talk:THD3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, THD3, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
[edit] Two awards already!
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Steinway & Sons, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
[edit] Vladimir Horowitz
Thanks for establishing your user account, and for the comments you left at Talk:Vladimir Horowitz. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond. Good luck with your future editing, here at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource. Hamster Sandwich 02:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Veronica Jochum has everything to do with Horowitz. A) Horowitz's most famous attribute was his octaves. B) Virtually no one knows anything about how he achieved them. C) V. J. DID know something. Thus, it is relevant to the extreme. LorenzoPerosi1898 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tchaikovsky
That was very funny, and just as true! Haiduc 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] George Szell Grammar
Hi, thanks for catching my mistake-I rewrote the sentence like this. Please let me know if this is incorrect HornandsoccerTalk 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I am, and I think I started it with my addtion of the flag by his death year. I dunno what to say about it, some people are more than a little obsessed. Tons of Szell recordings, eh? I have Pictures at an Exhibition and Capriccio Espangol, but that's about it. HornandsoccerTalk 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I know what disc that is. I don't have that exact one, but I have the same performances on different compilations. You should hear his Beethoven Symphonies, they are white hot.THD3 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vladimir Horowitz
I reverted your latest edit to Vladimir Horowitz. Your edit makes it sound as if Horowitz was under the influence after 1985. He was not. The medications were started in 1981 and discontinued in 1983.THD3 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- i did the best i could with it. the sentence structure is so horrible, i really had no idea what was trying to be communicated. one of my greatest pet peeves in wiki-world is those lazy, sloppy parenthetical phrases squeezed into the middle or appended to the end of sentence. the use of parentheticals is so abused, and there is rarely ever a reason for them to be used. what then, exactly, is the deal with the meds...and its connection to the tour?--emerson7 | Talk 09:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
great job on that 'very troublesome paragraph!' re images of vh, the ukrainian wiki article has a serviceable image, but i'm not sure how...or whether it is permitted to use trans-wiki images. however, i've seen some absolutely gorgeous fotos that we should be able to commandeer....er acquire, under one of the {pd-old} licenses. my personal favourites are those of his younger years, which should also be easier to verify copywrite. --emerson7 | Talk 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sviatoslav Richter
I am MUSIKVEREIN, and I strongly disagree with your warning on my Talk Page about an alleged POV edit on Sviatoslav Richter. My edit is not POV at all for the following reasons:
1- Richter's technical fallibility in his later years is a widely known fact, and written comments on it are legion. Just a few examples: the Autumn 1997 issue of the British publication International Piano Quarterly (now International Piano), with critic David Fanning's summation of Richter's career; comments on the Piano Wizard website, which specializes in classical piano; critiques on the Amazon review pages, where professional pianists and critics like J. Scott Morrison and Hank Drake discuss some of Richter's late recordings (and their wrong notes, too); famous English critic Bryce Morrison's liner notes to volume 83 of Philips' Great Pianists of the 20th Century series (set II on Richter). And there are many more. So, if my refuted edit is a POV, well, it is the same POV of a large portion of the classical music establishment.
2- The old-age Richter's technical mistakes are so blatant that you don't need to be a score-in-hand musician to spot them: anyone with a reasonably good ear and knowlegde of the relevant piece will automatically do it. His 1994 live Paganini Variations, for instance, has fistfuls of wrong notes in it; his Liszt's Scherzo and March from 1988, also live, contains many technical baubles as well. The main thing here is that saying that Richter's late recordings, however musically sharp they may be, are technically flawed isn't a POV comment at all. On the contrary, it is a well-known and demonstrable fact.
Lastly, I'd like to say that the threatening tone of your message - "or you will be blocked" - was rude and totally uncalled for. If you had any doubts about my edit, you might have contacted me and discussed the matter, rather than simply deleting it repeatedly. I'm a professional music critic myself and I know very well what I am editing. You should show a little more respect. All that said, I would appreciate it to have my suppressed edit reinstated on Sviatoslav Richter's page. MUSIKVEREIN, 13:40h, 2 June, 2007.
-
- I understand your frustration, but the specific comment I was referring to "Naturally, these performances contained many wrong notes - as various of his recordings show - but their power and sweep more than made up for the technical shortfall" would be considered POV. Since it was removed several times, then reinserted by yourself, a moderator may consider that a violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule and block you. The above kind of statement needs to be backed up by a verifiable source.THD3 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. I now understand that Wikipedia requires not only the statement of facts, but also the verifiability thereof. I apologise. MUSIKVEREIN, 10:02, 4 June, 2007.
In the last decade of his life, Richter was old and weak man. But not so old, weak, and drugged like Horowitz was. I'm profoundly disgusted by your "thoughts" here... what for God's Sake you expect from one man in his 80 and with such history behind? Brilliant technique, strength? Why you are so miserable and prejudiced human creatures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.172.3 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Steinway
No problem. Yeah, it's hard to maintain any sort of neutrality, especially when people seem to forget that it's an encyclopedia, not an ad campaign for Steinway. I think the Trivia section will have to be watched so it doesn't simply become a long list of famous owners of Steinways: that's already how Steinway advertises itself, we don't need to do it for them. There's quite a lot of stuff I'd like to remove even now, but I don't really want to start an edit war. Alexrexpvt 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm beginning to think the best way to deal with Steveshelokhonov is to ignore his rants on the talk pages, and edit or revert his changes to the actual articles as warranted.THD3 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you may be right. I did ask about it on the Editor Assistance page. The advice was to make a conscious effort to educate him about NPOV, and if that fails to try dispute resolution. I've posted a fairly lengthy (and hopefully clear) thing about standard practice, and even gave him a link to his own talk page on the main Steinway talk page in case he wasn't sure. I'll ignore it for a few days. If that doesn't work, I might have to try a Witiquette alert or Request for Comment. Not much point removing advertising/POV comments from the main article if they're going to be reposted at length on the talk page. Alexrexpvt 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hi, sorry about the late response. I see you've already added the mediation request: are you going to make the request formally on the mediation page (at the moment it's coming up a blank)? I noticed yet another reversion today. Alexrexpvt 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'll try adding it now and see what happens. Alexrexpvt 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That seems to be it; though I accidentally added it to the request page manually, so there might be a problem there. Waiting to hear back from the chair. Alexrexpvt 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It appears he's been reborn as 2singingbirds. Alexrexpvt 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] POV edits on Richter
THD3, it appears that the author of the POV edits on Sviatoslav Richter you reverted today (by a certain 88.218.172.3) were made by the same 88.218.173.235 who has already received a last warning for insisting on his hyperbolic comments on the pianist. Not only the similarity in the identifying numbers, but also the poor English, the abuse of block letters, the aggressive and disrespectful manner and the overall language (including the same spelling mistake on my Wikipedia name) seem to indicate it's the same person. I think it is about time this user be blocked. MUSIKVEREIN 00:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Now this troll is attacking other members. I'll look into it.THD3 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, THD3. Please let me know if you need any help from me in this process. MUSIKVEREIN 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Now, I understand, why you are so jealous about the late Sviatoslav Richter. You are Horowitz fan... that's all. Please, ban yourself. It is correct English now? you are the proper person to decide this? You know better English, than me? No... you are just one... no comment.<---anonymous
[edit] Improper deletions in "Warren Buffett" -- inquiry prior to mediation
You continually insert a quotation from Warren Buffett where it is inappropriate. They started Wikiquote for a reason. Please recheck the guidelines. Also, you continually delete a citation to the definition of a "plutocracy" which (1) assists the reader with a word many do not know and (2) nicely shows the irony of Buffett's stance relative to his conduct. Your continued censorship of that section is improper and should cease. --Stephen378 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have merely been reverting your improper and biased edits to return the article to its proper form. Based on your edits to Warren Buffett and other articles, it's obvious you have an agenda. If you wish to send a request for mediation, feel free to do so.THD3 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you have not justified the current form as "proper" -- you merely use the word. Not everything Buffett utters is deserving of quotation on this site, especially that one, which is (1) limited to a given year and obscures the general idea with unnecessary detail and (2) rests on a false analogy to primogeniture, which is old English common law, a red herring, and not in our laws of intestate succession! My agenda is getting it right, unlike your reflexive unthinking reversions to the prior form, as any mediator should see.
Stephen378 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
[edit] Maurizio Pollini
Hi, THD3. I'm glad to know of your disposition to rewrite the Pollini article, because you will certainly improve it considerably. By way of suggestions, I think the main problem with the article isn't so much that it is POV-oriented as it is press release-like, rather staid in tone. Reading through becomes an ordeal. We could try and make it more interesting by including some facts about his personal life, e.g. his leftist political beliefs which led him in the past to support the Italian Communist Party (the former PCI, now PDS-Partido Democratico della Sinistra). His opinions on piano playing and on music in general might also be brought to the fore. I look forward to seeing your new treatment of the article ! Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been meaning to get to that. Hopefully, I can find the time soon!THD3 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Farmers
Thanks for your message and contribution. If you look at the history, back in Jan/Feb 2007, "Router" and I went round and round. He runs a gripesite about Farmers and wants to make the Wikipedia article an extension of his complaints. I hope we are not warming up for round 2... Buzzards39 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I Agree!THD3 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Victor Merzhanov and Rachmaninov's Third piano Concerto
Hello, THD3. I know that the recording exists and it is a great one - in fact, I have heard it. I don't know if it was released on Western labels though - quite possible. For now, I can refer you to a couple of links:
[1];
[2];
Thanks,
Bazaryakov 02:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Here we go! Found the CD; it is on a Russian web site, but if you click on the CD image, the contents will open in a window in English.
Bazaryakov 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Abeshouse
I removed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Abeshouse from the Articles for deletion log page because no actual nomination for deletion has been created for that article. If you still want it deleted, you can re-submit the nomination in accordance with the WP:AFD process. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Horowitz Vladimir1930.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Horowitz Vladimir1930.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Back to old issues
Hi, THD3. It seems that we are back to the old Ukrainian/Russian and Richter-as-greatest-pianist routines (the latter very likely perpetrated by the same 88.218-numbered character of yore). I hope they don't last for so long this time... By the way, great upload on the Horowitz page ! This picture of the pianist as a young man is much better than the previous one, which was in fact quite ugly. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] VIN talk page
Thanks for your contributions to the VIN article. The talk page discussion about WMI deletions is still taking place, please feel free to engage Talk:Vehicle_identification_number Corey Salzano (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notification of {{AfD}}
For the deletion of content from Vehicle Identification Codes, and related VIN Codes articles, and the moving and unification at wikbooks: Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIN Codes with your input. Thanks. EvanCarroll (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FDR image
Thanks for pointing out the error when I changed the image caption regarding FDR signing a war declaration. You are quite correct, and mea culpa for not reviewing the talk page at Franklin D. Roosevelt prior to making my edit. I have gone back to the image source and confirmed that the image is indeed FDR signing the declaration of war with Germany, not Japan. And good detective work last spring, for those who participated. I will now make it my project to correct the other 4 Wikipedia articles that use that image, as well as the Commons image file. Thanks again! Ipoellet (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rach 3 performances
Hi, I saw that you were planning to reduce the list of pianists at Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff)#Performances_and_recordings to a notable subset, but you don't seem to have done so yet. Are you able to do anything on this? I've noticed that more names have been added today, and the list is just getting silly. I'd be inclined to remove the 'Many other famous pianists...' paragraph altogether, but I don't want to go wading in there if you've got better ideas of how to improve the section. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I used the meat cleaver, rather than the scalpel approach. THD3 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Good show, THD3. Let's hope no attempts at reinstating that endless list are made. And now with this behind us, I eagerly await your rewriting of the Pollini article ! Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
With my schedule, it will probably take until mid-summer!THD3 (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks THD - nice work AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sviatoslav Richter
i don't know what this guy's problem is....well, maybe i do....anyway, i've reported him for blocking. i may be wrong, but it is my impression that he is also Francorussie (talk · contribs).
- well, at least we now have a short break from this guy. i got him blocked for 48 hours. cheers! --emerson7 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think you've got the wrong guy. Steiner_redlich, an admitted sockpuppet of FrancoRussie, is the one who has been disruptive. Please review the page's history.THD3 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's right, THD3. I suspect this Steiner fellow is also behind user 82.124.131.159: same wording of complaints, same style. I can also contribute with a couple of sources on Richter's sexuality to buttress the point, should that be needed. Steiner Redlich has received warning messages from you, Emerson7 and myself, has even been blocked for 48 hours, but is still at his disruptive game. You have my full support for any action - blocking him, locking the page, etc. - you want to take in connection with this issue. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, then. Let's keep monitoring the page and see how he behaves. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say that Steiner Redlich is beginning to get on my nerves with his "stop abuse on this page" harangue ! MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
THD3, when you have a moment check out the message that the now notorious Steiner Redlich left on my talk page. I'm afraid the man is a hopeless case. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you all the way. As I said before, you have my full support for any action you deem appropriate in this matter. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that, unfortunately. My suggestion is we ask Toddst 1 (who notified Steiner of the 48-hour block) or Grover cleveland, who also seems to be very knowledgeable about these matters and is up to speed with the current situation. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just added my voice to the block request. Let's hope other editors will come on board as well. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting unreliable sources and gossip is a sign of bad education or bad faith. Deliberate quoting of the wrong source amounts to bad faith. Although spreading dubious quotes and gossip is not necessarily considered as vandalism, it must be corrected because it has all the consequences of vandalizing information concerning a personality.<---added by Steiner Redlich. Moved from user page.
- steiner, it is not up to you to determine what is valid and what is not. Wikpedia's verifiability process was followed when the content was initially added to the article. You were repeatedly asked to bring your comments to the Richter discussion page and you failed to do so. If you had bothered to check the discussion page you would have seen that this matter was thoroughly discussed. By refusing to discuss and just adding comments to your edits, you engaged in vandalism. As a result, you were blocked from editing for two days. When the block was lifted, you continued to vandalize the page. Now, the page is locked.THD3 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)