User talk:TheScotch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello TheScotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that 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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Chavatshimshon 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Guide to reading this page

I respond (when I do) on this page to remarks, comments, or questions left here. If you don't see a response here, it's because I haven't responded.

Since most users don't seem to follow this practice, some of the material here represents the end of a discussion begun elsewhere, which explains why I haven't responded to it. In other cases I may not have responded because I've been too lazy, haven't got around to it yet, think a response is not appropriate (this will apply to abusive comments, but not exclusively), don't have an answer, or haven't noticed yet that a comment has been left here. (This list of possible reasons is not intended to be exhaustive.) TheScotch (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom election

I'm sorry but I had to remove your votes on the ArbCom elections. You registered at 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC). In order to vote your account must be registered before 1 October 2006. Regards. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trumpet talk page

On reflection, that was all rather spiteful and stupid of me, and probably caused more by depression than by a serious concern about the encylopaedia, and I apologize and withdraw. ExJJK 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of drum solos

An editor has nominated List of drum solos, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of drum solos and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Kaye

This edit summary is most unhelpful and likely disruptive. Please see WP:Vandalism and please try not to write misleading edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Gwen Gale 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ILike2BeAnonymous

I thought you might be interested that ILike2BeAnonymous is up to vandalism and uncivility again on the Richmond, California article, he called the editor that added the content that I added stupid and is very agressive and abrasive in his edit summaries using the word crap frequently aswell as calling my revertions of his vandalism, vandalism.Cholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notation

I'm of the opinion we don't need duplicate content in the drum kit article. It's not necessary - what was used to replace it, a paragraph with a brief explanation and a link to the main article, should be sufficient. Yes, percussion notation needs expanding and does only contain drum kit specific notation at the moment, but after all, we don't duplicate content on normal musical notation in every article regarding tuned musical instruments, do we. Liverpool Scouse 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um...the drumkit notation section was once part of the "Musical notation" article. Editors of this "Musical notation" article (not including me) actually did decide to consign topics within music notation to separate articles, thus ousting the drumkit notation section.
It happens, however, that drumkit notation is unique in very many respects. If you can play the piano and read music notated for the piano, you can also read music notated for the violin (whether or not you can also play the violin). The same thing doesn't apply to the drumkit--although it does apply to much pitched percussion.
I strongly suspect that someone looking for information about drumkit notation will likely turn first to the drumkit article. I propose we begin by expanding the percussion notation section until it really appropriately covers the material. After we've done this we can consider removing the (what will then be) redundant drumkit notation information, replacing it with a clear link to the drumkit article.TheScotch 01:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair points, sounds like a decent plan for progression of both articles in hindsight. Liverpool Scouse 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Kaye - Thanks

Howdy TheScotch, I'm more than happy to hand over the re-wording of that section to you! I really don't know this person, had never heard of her even, lol. I was just asked to watch over the article as there was an ongoing edit war over that section, and I stepped in just to try to help verify the dispute exists, and perhaps neutralize the edit warring by anonymous editors. I agree with all of your suggestions, they improve the section, so thanks for being bold and stepping in! I'm more than happy to turn that over to you and J.S.! Thanks so much! Ariel♥Gold 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing others' talk page posts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NB: By making that "this" ⇒ "his" edit, you actually introduced an error. Please leave other people's talk posts alone. Everyone loves copyeditors in articles, but being one on posts other than your own on talk pages can get you blocked from editing (I've witnessed that happen myself). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea to what this is in reference. TheScotch 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, well, see the history at the talk page referred to. You altered someone else's post (may've been mine; I no longer recall.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to ignore the so-called Manual of Style; most of us do. A handful of editors wish to use it a platform to "reform" the English language, which will not succeed. If it really annoys you, change it; but read WP:CONSENSUS first. What have you done on the Greek modes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

About the alteration of "someone else's post": After digging laborously I discovered that I'd inadvertantly removed a single letter of a long missive while posting my reply. I don't know how I managed to do it (especially since I have no recollection of it at all), but if I had noticed I'd done it I certainly would have fixed it. I have to say I'm sceptical about whether anyone could have ingenuously thought this deliberate. TheScotch 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I am starting an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1. I know that you had been involved in the related incidents, and was letting you know in case you would like to add to it. - Rainwarrior 11:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ringo Starr & Piano

I don't believe our focus is on how well Ringo plays the instrument, but that he does play it. The fact is, he has credits on "a Day in the Life", "Don't Pass Me By" and tow of his solo albums. He is sen playing on the 2003 DVD of the All-Starr band. There is a reference at http://liverpoolcityportal.co.uk/beatles/beatles_composers.html I have reverted the word "piano".

Vytal 07:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated, the reversion in question is based entirely on the argument you proffered, which mentions only A Day in the Life. This "playing" of the piano is clearly not notable or significant in any way, and wikipedia is not a giant trashbin for trivia. Please try not to clutter articles. TheScotch 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue note

7/4 *is* an interval on *a* just-intonation scale. Just not on the Western classical just-intonation scale, which I will call the "standard scale" to differentiate it from the "blues scale".

The blues scale is, in ratios: 1, 7/6, 4/3, 7/5, 3/2, 7/4, 2. The blue notes are 7/6, 7/5, and 7/4, the others being normal diatonic notes.

This corresponds roughly to the following notes on the standard C scale: C Eb F Gb G Bb C. While the unison, fourth, fifth, and octave (C, F, G, C) match exactly the notes on the just-intonation standard scale, the other notes are only roughly approximated by the standard scale. In particular, the blues seventh varies by as much as a third of a semitone from the standard minor seventh, which is a fairly large variation. I feel it is important to make that clear.

In its current form the article suggests that a standard minor seventh, aka Bb, is actually a blue note, when this is far from the case.

Even if you disagree that the blues scale is canonically defined, there is *still* a need to point out that blue notes are only roughly approximated by flat notes on the diatonic scale (Eb, Gb, and Bb). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitpeasoup (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, the "Blue note" article as it currently reads is a mess, but it does say that blues notes are flattened thirds, fifths, and sevenths, which if the "diatonic scale" in question is the C major scale do correspond to Eb, Gb, Bb. It is a matter of unjustifiable speculation to assign specific frequencies to blues notes--and also rather contrary to their musical raison d'etre as expressive deviation.
Historically there is only one just scale. Other supposed "just scales" and supposed "just intervals" are the invention of the microtonal fringe. Moreover, there is nothing "standard" about a just scale. Conceptionally and historically the diatonic scale is Pythagorean. The paradigm of the Pythagorean diatonic scale was essentially unchallenged for approximately two millennia. The just scale was proposed in the Renaissance as a modification of the Pythagorean scale to accommodate as many 5:4 major thirds and 6:5 minor thirds as possible. Even so, it is internally inconsistant: it includes one 32:27 Pythagorean minor third and a 40:27 "wolf" (very flat) fifth.
Violin-family instrumentalists normally play C#'s sharper than Db's--which is what happens in the Pythagorean scale, not the just scale--except when they are accommodating instruments (such as the piano) or music (such as serial music) that require equally tempered tuning, which is also different from just intonation. TheScotch 07:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have at least one expert source that says "The harmonic seventh interval in just intonation is known popularly as the blues seven, or flatted seven." (http://www.deepmedia.org/ellenfullman/mw85/fullman_article.pdf) The harmonic seventh, as you may know, is exactly 7/4. This is approximately a good third of a semitone away from Bb whether you are talking about equal temperament, just notation or Pythagorean tuning. --Splitpeasoup 08:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was sometimes used as a sort of blues note by jazz trumpet players (less often by trombone players)--for obvious reasons--, but there is otherwise no justification for this speculative supposition. (When you cite a source, don't give me a URL; say what the source is--and don't find "sources" by cruising the net; know what you're talking about.)TheScotch 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syd Barrett's sense of humour

Comment left here. Your comments welcome. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The definition of obtuse

I wasn't calling anyone stupid. A definition of "obtuse" is "difficult to comprehend". http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/obtuse

You need to calm down. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a proper definition. This is confusing obtuse with obscure (or possibly abstruse: see below) and doing great damage to the English language. TheScotch (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

From the Heinemann English Dictionary, p.4: "Do not confuse abstruse with obtuse: abstruse means 'difficult to understand' (an abstruse academic debate), whereas obtuse means 'slow to understand' (an obtuse student).

(Also: http://jaiarjun.blogspot.com/2006/05/picking-nits.html)

Note, please, that Merriam-Webster purports to be purely "descriptive" (and seems to me to be getting more aggressively anti-"prescriptive" all the time). This means that it lists all the ways it discovers a word to be used and makes no judgement about whether the usage is proper. It follows that Merriam-Webster cannot be used as a source with which to cite proper usage. TheScotch (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuning and temperament

Just so you know. I agree with your latest edit - there's no need for frequencies at that point in the bass guitar article. Dinobass (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cary Grant

Was a homo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.215.223 (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not remove sourced content from articles without clear consensus to do so. Wikipedia is not censored so removing content that you find objectionable is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Benjiboi 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus had already been achieved. Since the material is clearly irrelevant, so is the circumstance that it is putatively "sourced". TheScotch (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Monstrosity" perhaps...

...but are you really happy with "Purportedly the instrument" ? Cheers,--NapoliRoma (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I personally don't give a shit if you want to undo my archiving, but check out the [[WP:ARCHIVE}archiving policy]] for talk pages that become too long. Is there something particularly controversial on the French Horn page that I missed which would justify not archiving? Actually, I don't even care enough to want to know the answer. But do familiarise yourself with the policy of you have not done so already. Ciao Eusebeus (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pitch frequencies are POV?!?!?

I agree with the first part of your recent edit summary on the double bass article ("Specific frequencies (whether cps or Hz.) are irrelevant and illogical here--as well as POV."); stating these frequencies is irrelevant and illogical, and I'm glad you removed them. But how in the world do you get from there to "POV"? Whose point of view is being violated here? Those who don't want to know what the frequencies are? Please explain. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that a point of view is being "violated"; I only contend a point of view is being espoused. A point of view is being espoused because which tuning systems are desirable is a highly controversial matter and has been since the Renaissance (when, for example, Burtius called Ramos a "prevaricator and a bastard" for promulgating just tuning--in contradistinction to Pythagorean). Sufficient evidence that the controversy continues to this day can be found in two recent pop expositions that take contrary positions about this: How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care) by Ross W. Duffin and Temperament: How Music Became a Battleground for the Great Minds of Western Civilization by Stuart Isacoff. TheScotch (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Shout! The True Story of the Beatles

It is a book (with the correct title per the header) - sometimes putting in detail like that can help I guess - by Philip Norman. It has some interesting ideas on why the band got so big so quickly, and why they were quickly accepted by the establishment, but the best part of it is the account of the pre-band life of the members, and Brian Epstein, and how they got into music.

My wife is left handed and about the only thing that didn't go kaput when I taught her guitar (a case of the blind useless leading the blind useless) was that I didn't need to keep swapping round when showing her chord shapes/fingering. However, I now know that there is at least one person more useless at spanking the plank than me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughan Williams' 9th

Unfortunately the penalty for having attended the 1st performance is that I am now over 70! But, as a 20 year old, who had very much fallen under the spell of all his other works that I had heard up to then, I remember being rather puzzled and even disappointed at this first hearing. Although it was memorable to see the old boy taking applause from his seat. It was only later, having listened to several recorded versions, that I came to fully appreciate its greatness - or at least its greatness among his symphonies. It haunts me more than any of the others, although if pushed I would rate his Pastoral, 5th and 6th somewhat higher (but there doesn't have to be a competition)! Thanks for improving the article - I didn't feel competent to do so, but felt that earlier versions didn't do anything like justice to this work. Best wishes, John Hamilton (OldFaw) (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


For reasons mentioned above (as well as its intrinsic merits), I have a special regard for this Ninth and was very unhappy about the article as it was earlier. Thanks for a good job of "washing its face" (as RVW used to describe the tidying-up of his scores)! John Hamilton (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A.I. talk

Hi. I'm sure you are aware that the talk page is for talking about the article and NOT the subject of the article. It is certainly not there for people to speculate on various meanings and interpretations and, as such, these comments should be stifled at birth. Greetings TINYMARK 10:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but it seems to me that some of the discussion you deleted does directly relate to the article and that some more of it still relates to the article but less directly. As I understand wikipedia policy, editors are cautioned to remove the comments of others in discussion pages only under extreme circumstances, and here I interpret this to mean that you should assume good faith even for the parts of the discussion that don't seem to relate to the article either directly or indirectly.
If you want to discourage this sort of thing, you might leave a note about it on the discussion page of this article. Alternatively, you could leave a note about it on the discussion pages of the editors you feel have not behaved appropriately here. Eventually the discussion in question can be archived, but I don't think we've reached that stage yet. TheScotch (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quite right

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&curid=2356700&diff=202836526&oldid=202666410

And doesn't it wind me up when people call things "acronyms" when they can't be pronounced. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's because they think the term sounds impressive, and the problem with the practice is that it ultimately makes it (the term) essentially useless (because we don't really need another mere synonym for abbreviation) and the language less capable of precise expression. Thanks for the note. TheScotch (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Sea Symphony

Hello,

sorry about the discussion page, I should have checked it. But the two symphonies have exactly the same title (I have the CD with H.H. 7th in front of me, I can confirm the title is "A Sea Symphony"). A disambiguation page is therefore needed, I think. A "move" loop would perhaps allow to create that page without losing the related discussions?

Regards, --Mahlerite (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just goes to show I should never trust Wikipedia articles. I still don't see, though, that a disambiguation page is needed or will be needed until someone attempts to write an article for the Hanson piece. Were you about to write such an article? I'm not familiar with the "move loop". TheScotch (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not going to write an article about HH. 7th, but experience shows that a red link is the first step - somebody will "bluish" it.
About the "move loop" I mean something like 1) move "A.S.S." to a temporary name; 2) create the dismbiguation page "A.S.S."; 3) move the temporary page to "A.S.S. (V.W.). In this way, the discussion page should be kept. --Mahlerite (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you want such an article, the best way to get it is to write it yourself. If no one's written one so far, the chances that anyone will write one soon is slim. You might try arguing the need for such an article (if you think one is necessary) at the Howard Hanson article discussion page. After someone declares his intention to write one we can worry about how to disambiguate. TheScotch (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the H.H. discussion page. I still think that the general title should be used for the disambiguation page, because somebody arriving there should get as first info that there are two works with the same title, even if one is definitely more famous than the other. Regards. --Mahlerite (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have created a stub. Better than nothing. If now we could get the disambiguation page working properly... Regards, --Mahlerite (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked two sources for the title of the Hanson symphony. The first didn't list it among Hanson's works at all. The second, Grove, lists it thus "Sym. no.7 ‘The Sea’ (Whitman), chorus, orch, 1977". Grove lists Vaughan Williams piece as "A Sea Symphony (no.1) (W. Whitman), S, Bar, SATB, orch, 1903–9, last rev. 1923".

I think there may be some confusion about the quotation marks. The double quotations above are mine; the title of Vaughan Williams's piece does not include them. The single quotation marks are Grove's; the title of Hanson's piece does seem to include them. I can't tell if the quotation marks you've put around the title of Hanson's piece are supposed to be yours or his. If they're his, the two pieces do not have the same title.

They could still be confused, of course, and whether that possible confusion should warrant a disambiguation page, I'm not sure. (They seem to be based on the same literary work.) TheScotch (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[[1]]
[[2]]
I have another CD on Citadel, which gives again this title (I can send you a scanned image, if you tell me an email address where I can write). All of them are wrong? --Mahlerite (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. I thought to check the score, but the university music library here doesn't seem to have a copy. I might be able to get it through an inter-university loan, but that would take some time. The first source I mentioned above, by the way, is the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, and I'm guessing it doesn't list this piece because it was too recent then. The piece is from 1977, and my edition of the dictionary was published in 1980.

Anyway, your first link clearly includes Symphony No. 7 as part of the title and clearly puts the sea symphony bit in quotation marks. As I've pointed out the Vaughan Williams piece title does not include quotation marks, nor, of course, does it include the phrase Symphony No. 7. Your second link also begins with Symphony No. 7 and makes the sea symphony bit a subtitle. So far no source anyone's cited gives the same title for the Hanson piece and the Vaughan Williams piece. TheScotch (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Herring

My final comment in the AFD for Islamophila was overtaken by the close process. FYI it was:

If I have an axe to grind here, it is as an expert on English usage. I have had dealings with red herrings for many years, both literally and literarily. I recall having to explain the phrase to a bemused Flemish colleague who much enjoyed using it thereafter. As the saying goes, great minds think alike.

No big deal - just don't like to leave that thread hanging. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Byrne

Hello there. "References in popular culture" seems more accurate than "trivia" - the section is entirely composed of references made to Byrne by other cultural sources, rather than being a general list of trivial facts about him. We need to get rid of the section, but giving it a clearer name will save future editors the effort of combing through it to see whether any of the trivia about Byrne can be combined into the biography sections (and, obviously, future readers from wasting time reading it).

Also, please try to assume good faith before calling other users' edits "dishonest". Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a specific kind of trivia, it's still trivia, and needs to be labeled trivia. To label it something else, especially a widely used (in Wikipedia) euphemism for trivia, is dishonest writing--however one cares to attempt to rationalize, camouflage, or sugar-coat it. The particular entries in such a section can speak for themselves.
This is all water under the bridge now, of course. You went on to deal with the section boldly, effectively, and well. Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo on fridge

Ha ha!!! Those images aren't mine; they've come up again and again when the discussion repeats itself again and again. See the archives and you'll see what I mean. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double Bass History

Hi, Apologies, no offense meant...I thought my commentary was okay but if it came across as rude it wasn't intended... Patrick59 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It didn't come across to me as rude. I just didn't understand why you seemed to be dragging me into an argument about which I take no position and have no stake. That's as far as the "history" of this particular instrument goes. I do take a position about the history of instruments in general, which is that, as I said, "in some cases derivation is clear; in other cases derivation is obscure" and we have to trust the published and peer-reviewed professionals about which are which--and not throw out the baby with the bath water. TheScotch (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] motif/motive

You would be correct to point out that "motive" was not a misspelling of "motif" in Symphony_No._4_(Vaughan_Williams). However, a survey of general sources on music theory does not support your statement that motive is much more commonly used in general music theory, and supports the view that "motif" is entirely valid. I believe the word "motif" is understood much more widely among non-specialists than the word "motive" (based on usage in general media). Wikipedia policy says that articles are to be made accessible to general readers rather than specialists, where possible, in the encyclopedic spirit. In consequence, the word "motif" is a better choice than "motive" in the interests of clarity to a general readership, since it has no disadvantages which outweigh this advantage. I have added a wikilink to further clarify. Elroch (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, using motif would be misinforming the "general readership". If you're afraid they won't understand motive simply explain it to them. Motif is proper in certain visual arts such as architecture, not in music. (It's telling, by the way, that you thought motive was a misspelling: This means you're in no position to make a judgment about this.) TheScotch (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the context in question is part of a "Trivia" section not long for this world, and this particular entry's veracity has been challenged, which makes its prospects for integration into the main article even more dubious. If you can't help with integrating worthy entries and deleting the others, you should stay out of this section altogether. TheScotch (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four times

You've just reverted four times within a 24-hour-period. I ask that you kindly undo your last edit, or I will be forced to take action about this. It's not proper to just go ahead and make contentious edits, as you did, without first discussing and generating consensus. Thank you and best, Badagnani (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Count again: I reverted your triple reversion three times only. YOU were the one refusing to discuss the matter--after I asked you to three times. (I left quite extensive evidence on the talk page--and I did it in record time, I think.) Your behavior here has been inexcusable. If you "take action", I'm sure this will be apparent to any reasonable administrator. TheScotch (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett tribute Floyd dispute

As per your criteria, it's germane to put forward an argument why you say this is irrelevant. Syd's band, Syd's tribute, Syd's bandmates refusing to share the stage in Syd's band at Syd's tribute. Looks relevant through Syd-centricity to me, hence I added it.MartinSFSA (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure I follow you. Your (unnecessarily scatological, I thought) edit summary suggested to me you contend their refusal to share the stage had to do with the long-running enmity between Roger Waters and David Gilmour, which has nothing that I can see to do with Syd Barrett. Since Roger Waters and David Gilmour are no longer co-members of any group and do not normally perform together, I see no particular reason to have expected them to in this particular case. (I’m not sure what you mean by “as per [my] criteria” either; ‘’my’’ edit summary comprised a single word: ‘’irrelevant’’.) TheScotch (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
How can the fact that his former band members can't even share the stage at his memorial concert be irrelevant? They're members of a group we can call "friends who have been band members", so the lack of stage sharing at the big finale means something: they can reunite for Live 8 but not for Syd. Everyone else did the finale. I don't say why they didn't in the text; it's just blindingly obvious speculation.MartinSFSA (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can't explain your reversion without reference to the summary, it is indeed irrelevant.MartinSFSA (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are very rude as well as incoherent. TheScotch (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You say you reverted my addition because of your opinion of the summary. However your own summary of the reversion does seem to have confused me. If you want to argue the merits of the text, fine, I believe you have a lot to offer. MartinSFSA (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double bass

Sorry, I can't make sense of the comment you left on my discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I was being overly sensitive and over-reacting. Sorry. (I think I'll just remove it.) TheScotch (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herman's Hermits

'Fraid I can't help. Liked 'em when I was a kid, and have contributed to the article what I can as a real-life copyeditor, but I'm info-bankrupt! DavidOaks (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Cor anglais

Calling someone else's comments "complete and utter nonsense" and stating that you're "extremely disappointed with the responses so far" are an excellent way to insult your fellow editors and shut down what might have been a productive discussion. I have no idea why you find this topic so deserving of heated argument, but I will tell you that I was taken aback by your response to what I intended as thoughtful comments. Your response was also counterproductive to your objective, since consensus is rarely achieved through disparaging what others have to say. Please try to assume good faith and maintain civility. Even if you think the rest of us are blithering idiots, give us a little credit for trying, okay? My last post attempted to clarify something a third editor had written, corrected a mistaken assertion you'd made about a reference work, and provided information on the way two other reference works handle the terminology question. By most reasonable objectives that was a worthwhile post, even if it disappointed you.

If you're still willing to listen to me at all, let me take another shot at explaining what Rachel and I were trying to say. Consider the phrase "English horn player". Now try dividing it up two different ways. In the first case:

English horn. player.

makes sense and means what we intend it to, i.e., someone who plays the English horn. But look:

English. horn player.

suddenly, we're confronted by a horn player who is English. An unlikely misunderstanding, I'll grant you, but not impossible—simply analogous to the phrase "American horn player", referring to an American who plays a horn (any kind of horn, even if it's not a horn). So the phrase "English horn player" is indeed ambiguous, not because of any confusion over what an English horn is but because the adjective "English" could be modifying either "horn" alone or "horn player". Such admittedly far-fetched confusion simply would not be possible with the phrase "cor anglais player", since that can only be parsed one way and make any sense at all.

Peace,
Rivertorch (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your threats

I kindly request that you refrain from threatening other editors in your edit summaries, as you did in this edit. That would be greatly appreciated by the entire WP community. Badagnani (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you or anyone else. You have been blocked before because you persist in edit-warring about tiny little things, and if you continue to persist in edit-warring about tiny little things you will no doubt be blocked again. (I think, by the way, you should leave it to your readers to decide whether they think your "request"s are "kindly".) TheScotch (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You did continue and you were blocked again--as predicted. TheScotch (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCartney

Agree with keeping it simple in the lead, but Macca was a founding member of The Fabs. In truth, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Sutcliffe and Best were the founding members. Only Lennon came from The Quarrymen. BTW, ever thought of joining The Beatles project?--andreasegde (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider it a great stretch, tantamount to historical revisionism, to say Lennon "came from" the Quarrymen. The Quarrymen went through various members and various names and eventually became the Beatles and eventually came to include McCartney, Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Lennon never left the Quarrymen until long after it had become a successful recording group, and the group agreed to disband immediately after he announced his departure. It's a matter of insignificant happenstance that Harrison and McCartney happened to be there when Lennon first decided to call it the Beatles. The only "only" about this is that Lennon is the only original member who hung on till the end. He founded the group, and he dissolved the group. McCartney went along for some of the ride. TheScotch (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The Quarrymen were Lennon, Pete Shotton and half of Merseyside who ever played skiffle. The band that became the Beatles were Lennon, McCartney, Sutcliffe, Harrison and Best, who were also known as Johnny and the Moondogs (sans Best) and the Silver Beetles. These earlier bands played songs written by Lennon and/or McCartney. It should be noted that the name Beatles was down to Macca's influence as he was and is a great fan of Buddy Holly and the Crickets. Thus, Macca was a founding member of the band that is known as the Beatles.
Notwithstanding the above, the sentence describing McCartney as a co-founder is long established and therefore has consensus. If you wish to change the consensus you are welcome to do so on the article talkpage. Reverting to your preferred version, without consensus, may be considered vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Scotch" - hmmm, any relation to "The Scotch of St. James" club?--andreasegde (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC) BTW, "Lennon never left the Quarrymen until long after it had become a successful recording group", is really untrue, as The Quarrymen never released a record. Never mind, a fan is still a fan. I wish you the best.--andreasegde (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I have blocked you from editing for 31 hours, a standard vandalism block, for disruption. I shall bring this block and discussion to the attention of WP:AN, as I may be considered to be an involved party. You may wish to comment there when your block expires, or should you succesfully appeal this block. I would strongly urge you not to repeat the edit for which you have been blocked until this matter is resolved (in your favour). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sanity_check regarding my request for review of my actions above. Should you wish to participate before the block expires/is lifted you can leave your comments here and someone (me, if no-one else is available) will copy them to the AN thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked based on the admin noticeboard discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

It appears that the overwhelming consensus of the discussion on the noticeboard was that I was wrong to have blocked you, and I therefore apologise for my actions in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RVW

So long as it's an accurate summary of the source, it does not matter if it's a direct quote or not - we should not be directly lifting material from elsewhere, we are encouraged to precis. David Underdown (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you have failed here to address--or even mention--the matter I brought up (that the "material" in question is entirely subjective). I have to consider the above an evasion rather than an argument, rebuttal, or good faith reply. If you're concerned about "directly lifting" you can 1) remove the passage altogether, 2) quote directly but make the quote significantly shorter than the current passage, or 3) mention the source directly in the text (i.e., "According to X, Vaughan Williams's style is such and such"). As it stands now the article is effectively saying Vaughan Williams's style is factually thus and the footnoted source is proof, in otherwords, as it now stands the article is lying through its teeth. TheScotch (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just don't seem to see the matter of sourcing the same way you do, yes it's subjective, bu tthe footnote says it comes from the ODNB, and is not merely the unsupported meanderings of an editor. Perhaps we should take this to the article talk page, or the Composers project, and get some wider input. David Underdown (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)