User talk:Magicpiano/Archive 1

Thanks
for copyediting the "Humoresques". I'm Czech, trying to improve english wiki (with a poor knowledge of "movie-English")... I know it's not perfect, but I'm trying to add informations and I really appreciate everyone, who really read the articles. Thanks again and welcome to Wikipedia!Vejvančický (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Magicpiano! I see you're willing to help me! Great. Here is a list of articles needing the spell-checking and syntax-checking (I hope the factual part is OK): Capriccio (Janáček), Josef Berg, Jan Klusák, Karel Šejna, František Jílek, Zdeněk Košler, Emil František Burian ...long forgotten Czech composers and their compositions... A lot of work, I hope you're not scared:))) If you'll have some question, address it on my (or yours) talkpage and I'll try to explain it. I like the communication and cooperation (even though the topics may seem boring:)) (P.S. I was in Prague few weeks ago with my little niece on a pleasure trip, but it was rather sad experience... Beautiful city changed to synthetic coulisses, strange for me...), however, thanks for your time and help and, please, be patient with my "breakneck phrasing":)Vejvančický (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your helpful hints, I´ve started to work on it... I´m trying to add complete info on my sources, but I understand, i´ts also important to cite in the unified style, it makes the encyclopedia more representative. I´ll change it in accordance with the common style. Thanks also for your copyedits, I hope, I´ll learn from my mistakes. Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats
Hi. I see you are changing date formats. Actually we have a policy on this, see Dates. As you will see, both 14 February and February 14 are regarded as correct and we don't change one to the other. Best regards. -- Klein zach  13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. By the way, you're most welcome to join the Opera Project. It's by far the most dynamic of the classical music projects and the most likely one to start going into assessments. -- Klein zach  22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts Route 16
Hello. I reverted/repaired some of your edits to the infobox for Massachusetts Route 16. Some of the changes I reverted are not junctions, they are name changes to the route. If anything, the Route 28 junction could say "Route 28 / Fellsway" but we don't use street names in junctions with state roads in infoboxes. The information you added would be more suited to a junction list, where a note saying "Mystic Valley Parkway becomes Revere Beach Parkway" might be used. Please respond if you have any questions. Sswonk (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, what you did in the infobox looks fine (need a copyedit in the text you added tho'). The whole area is tricky, with street names and route numbers joining and splitting (never mind that I also found the WP:MASH guidelines to add to the fun).  I'm glad I don't need to give directions much... Magicpiano (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the copyedit you mentioned needed? The article is a mess, and I am planning on improving it as a project soon. For one, the route description is in reverse: it should always be west to east, per the guideline. Giving directions in eastern Mass is easy, just say "turn at the Dunkin' Donuts" several times and wait for the cell phone call. Sswonk (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My edit from this morning fixed the copyedit (first sentence in the Mystic Valley section), as well as other things, like separating from 2/3 after Fresh Pond. And I gave you some grist for the rewrite-the-other-way mill :).  Magicpiano (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
Unconstructive? I don't understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.24.65 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said in my note on your talk page, please feel free to raise the question on the article talk page. I'm not interested in discussing it here (or your talk page). Magicpiano (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done please see the article talk page.

Assessments?
I wonder if you are still interested in assessments as you were on the Classical Music project in August? I'm not thinking of Classical Music itself, but the smaller and more easily managed Composers Project. If you have some time for this, I can explain more. Best. -- Klein zach  00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, say more. In fact after, the CD selection business, I looked at some composer pages.  (I'm currently working on eliminating Britannica-1911 stuff from Franz Schubert, thinking I'll try to get it to GA.) Magicpiano (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now made the basic proposal on the Composers Project. Best. -- Klein zach  01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And now I've proposed a points scale there. -- Klein zach  11:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And now we've got to the volunteering stage there. -- Klein zach  12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Congress and those formerly known as the Canadians
I noticed your changes to the article Letters to the inhabitants of Canada. I am happy that you found an online source for the English version of the third letter.

Regarding the effect of the letters on Canadians (or rather Quebecers), and generally speaking the extent of the participation of the inhabitants to the conflict, I wanted to share some sources with you because treating the subject will be delicate...


 * Trudel, Marcel (2006). La tentation américaine. 1774-1783. La Révolution américaine et le Canada : textes commentés, Sillery: Septentrion, 176 p. (ISBN 2-89448-484-4) (online excerpt)

I did not read it. I don't care so much for his commentary, but the texts contained in his book are most interesting. The table of content can be read in the online except. I might buy it soon.


 * Monette, Pierre (2007). Rendez-vous manqué avec la révolution américaine. Les adresses aux habitants de la province de Québec diffusées à l'occasion de l'invasion américaine de 1775-1776, Montréal: Québec Amérique, 550 p. (ISBN 978-2-7644-0547-5)

That one I have, is very very good, and contains much more than what I cited in Letters to the inhabitants of Canada.

Over two centuries after the events, the French-language sources do not quite say the same thing as the English language ones, and relating them is still likely to stir useless controversies in my country. The indisputable fact is that Canadians were on both sides. The Congress's propaganda was largely successful, the Canadians either remained neutral as they were asked, and some were even rallied by the Americans, despite the British government's success at gaining the support of the Catholic clergy and the Canadian nobility, whose ability to control the masses was overestimated, and also despite the fact that Carleton censored the only newspaper printed in the country. Some Canadians, mainly in the Quebec district, were quite angry and hostile at the Americans, mainly for one obvious reason: they were bringing back the war. It must be remembered that Quebec City had been destroyed by a three-month siege only 16 years before. People were getting used to the peace. After the Americans were defeated at Quebec, the British army took back control over the districts of Trois-Rivières and Montreal, where the partisans of the Congress had the choice either to flee or else be persecuted. History was written by the victor: The two sides of the story were not passed down to us by historians with equal treatment, sometimes by partiality or incompetence, sometimes simply because there does not exist a lot of well-preserved documentary sources relating the POV of the pro-"rebels". Worst than that, the reading of the reality of that time is distorted by the fact that English speakers were proportionally more numerous to be able to read and write and therefore there exists more accounts of the events written in English than in French, even though French speakers formed a much larger portion of the whole population. This last observation I can quote from Monet's book even though we can all figure it out by ourselves here with even basic understanding of the country.

Already when Ethan Allen was trying to take Longue-Pointe on Sept. 24, 1775, the majority of his men were Canadians. If we are to believe his memoir, 80 out of 110 were Canadians. Against them were 30 or so British regulars + some 200 Canadian militiamen. Canadians vs. Canadians.

On November 13, Montgomery entered Montreal without a gun shot. On the same day a party of some 40 notables welcomed him with an address written by Valentin Jautard (Montreal Archives have the wrong date). This document is a clear reference to the influence of the 1774 letter from the Congress on a part of the literate class of Canadians in the district of Montreal. This fact was hidden from us for a very long time.

The inhabitants of the town of Trois-Rivières did not wait for Montgomery to reach them to surrender. They sent sent two delegates over with a reclamation signed by 21 notables and asking him not to destroy the town.

There are numerous accounts of the good help and support or just the neutrality coming from the inhabitants. , The best sources for this are the official writings of the officers in the British army and government. (I have quoted the relevant passages extensively in Quebec Act.)

I hope all this may help you improve the articles (Letters to the inhabitants of Canada and Invasion of Canada (1775) primarily.)

Regards,

--Mathieugp (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I noticed that you've also worked on those articles.  I'm well aware that historians from the different factions say different things -- some of the sources I'm looking at have a distinct British bias, while most of the others are more clearly American.  Where my work is going to fall down is (at least to some extent) the French perspective, at least partly because my French is bad, but also (of course) by access to French sources (whether in translation or not).
 * One thing is clear, and which you are right on, is that the nature of the support provided by the French (both the habitants and the seigneurs) was somewhat conflicted. Clearly Carleton was able to raise some forces (both at Montreal/St. John and Quebec).  Equally clearly, the Americans also did (ultimately raising two regiments that saw some significant action).  What isn't clear to me (yet) is how much of the support (on either side) was categorized:
 * English/Scots/Irish immigrant to Canada (without going through "American" colonies)
 * "American" colonials who moved north after the French and Indian War
 * French-speaking habitants and/or seigneurs
 * I'm somewhat confused by the effects on the sentiments of the relative stripes of Quebec society of Quebec Act over time, as well as the activities of the likes of John Brown to stir up trouble, and have been trying to avoid that, hoping that clarity will come as I work further through sources. (Are the reasons for some class' reaction economic? religious? political/civil? )  American sources seem to indicate that the habitants generally refused to follow their seigneurs' call to arms -- I assume yours do as well?  (It appears to me that this is because the habitants didn't think the seigneurs had the authority to order them, but how much were they disposed either against the British, or for the Americans, and why?)
 * Obviously, if you have sources and commentary that pertain to this, please feel free to edit. If I include any points that appear contentious (or tread on sensitive ground), please feel free to call me out on them on the appropriate talk page.  I'd rather the articles be right than biased.
 * As far as the letters are concerned, most sources I've seen (including some that are British in bias) only talk in any detail at all about the reaction to the first one, with the following ones only mentioned as having been drafted and/or sent, with little commentary. Perhaps your French sources provide some answers?
 * Best,  Magic ♪piano 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the French-language sources from Quebec do say that the habitants refused to get drafted, initially. As it became doubtful that the Americans were going to win, it is reported more rallied on the British side. I would have to double-check though, since I am not familiar with the primary sources myself. It is also reported by some historians that the British used rather crude manners to force the participation of the Canadians.
 * Monet's book is precisely covering everything that is known at present about the influence of the writings of the American revolution (and to a lesser extent the French enlightenment) had on us. It contains the addresses of the Boston Committee of correspondence (by Samuel Adams), two by the New York Provincial Congress (Robert Benson and Peter Van Brugh Livingston), Generals Philip Schuyler and George Washington, as well as counter-propaganda by the Catholic Bishop (Jean-Olivier Briand) and anonymous British and Canadians writing in the bilingual Quebec Gazette. The book follows the activity of John Brown, Ethan Allen and Thomas Walker, etc, and reports on their correspondence. I will put it all on Wikisource as soon as I have time. -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One source you may also find interesting is Victor Coffin's 1896 book. This is a scholarly look at Quebec, details of the Quebec Act and its reception, and the Revolutionary War activities.  He doesn't cover the various communications in detail, but he seems to cover the evolving response to both the Act and the invasion reasonably well. I haven't decided yet what, if any significant, bias he has.  Magic ♪piano 14:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it does not appear to be online. It is however part of the bibliography in Monet. I found an online copy of Samuel Adam's Committee of Correspondence of Boston to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec and one of its replies. -Mathieugp (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally got through updating Invasion of Canada (1775) through the fall of Montreal. The primary reference I'm using to check things (Smith, vol 1) gets into some detail on the confusing and seemingly contradictory reactions to events in the invasion, and calls to arms.  He does discuss how some British leaders and seigneurs explicitly threaten people who resist coming to arms, but he seems to think that, for the most part, those threats went empty.  For the most part, it seems like much of the populace wasn't interested in fighting, many acceded to the demands of the nearest "men with guns", at least until somebody started shooting at (or besieging) them, at which point they fled.  (I also explicitly added reference to Canadian forces in the infobox.) We'll see how things go when I get into the counteroffensive. (He mentions Montgomery's relatively friendly reception in Montreal, too.)  Magic ♪piano 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Volume 1 of Our struggle for the fourteenth colony: Canada, and the American revolution is online through Internet Archive. I'll be able to read what you are reading. I translated the mandement of the Bishop of Quebec, Jean-Olivier Briand here. Regarding the interpretation that the people were not interested in fighting until the nearest "men with guns" were beside them, I find it surprisingly close to the explanation Louis-Joseph Papineau gave of the behaviour of the noblesse: "To take up arms once again reminded them of the beautiful days of their youth. They had enjoyed the plenitude of an adventurous life of expeditions and camps. It had been followed by fifteen years of lethargic numbness. The nearest and first side ready to draft them was sure to have them." And Carleton got to them before Lafayette. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In case Monett doesn't have it, there is a French version of Schuyler's manifesto of September 5 1775 here.  Magic ♪piano 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one, but it is a new French translation from the original English. In which volume of William Kingsford's The History of Canada is it? The Internet Archive has volumes 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 and Google Books has volume 1 only. -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's volume 5 of Kingsford (I think it covers the 1775 invasion up through battle of Quebec). Google Books seems to be somewhat strange about the Kingsford volumes -- different searches turn up different volumes.  I'd actually like to find volume 6, since it has the 1776 Carleton counteroffensive in it.  These Kingsford volumes are all from Google Books (full view):
 * Volume 1 (discovery to 1682)
 * Volume 5 (1763 to 1775, early American revolution)
 * Volume 8 (1801 to 1815, war of 1812)
 * Volume 10 (1836 to 1841, Upper Canada from 1820)
 * While collecting these links, I also turned up this piece from the 1940s discussing early histories of Canada, and their relative merits. Opinion of Kingsford was not particularly favorable.  Magic ♪piano 13:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is strange: I can still only view the contents of volume 1. This link gives all volumes Google Books has of Kingsford's The History of Canada, with duplicate entries. Only volume 1 can be read online (twice). Do you not see the same? -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All of those are available to me in full view. It may be geopolitical -- whoever scanned them may only have authorized US view, even though these are presumably out of copyright worldwide (Kingsford died in 1898, which makes that fairly certain).  You may want to see if you can see them through a US-based web proxy.  Alternatively, I could grab the PDFs for you.  (The PDFs are not as useful as Google Books, since they have page images and are not text-searchable.) Let me know, I can put them on my website for you to pull.  Magic ♪piano 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer. I will gladly take PDF copies of all you can get. I find it surprising that you can download them and not me, but as you say it might be that for some reason of policy my location outside the USA prevents me from accessing the full contents. Or maybe there is just a delay in the propagation to all Google's servers. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copy & pasted Washington's address and tried to transcribe Schuyler's from a manuscript, but was not able to decipher every word. Maybe you will be able to? I also started a Bibliographie de la Révolution américaine au Québec. On an entirely different subject, I just noticed that you are a fan of La Bottine Souriante! Moi aussi! I saw them perform live once, a few years ago. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mais oui, j'aime La Bottine. J'aime beaucoups de la musique traditionnel de Quebec.  It's a pity they don't play down here more often (I've seen them twice in about 10 years) -- I've heard their shows up in Quebec are quite good.
 * I've uploaded five of the Kingsford volumes here. I don't have enough disk space on the host to hold them all (they're about 12Mb each).  Let me know when you've pulled them, and I'll take them down and put the other five up.
 * I probably won't have a chance to look at those addresses until Monday or Tuesday.  Magic ♪piano 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I have downloaded the 5 volumes. There are two bands nowadays that include ex-members of LBS: Les Charbonniers de l'enfer and Le Bébert Orchestra. I recommend them both! - Mathieugp (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded 5-9 of Kingsford to the same place. I think I saw Les Charbonniers a few years ago at Mémoires et Racines.  Interesting show... My other favorites are Le Vent du Nord and their ex-member Benoit Bourque, whom I've been keeping track of for at least 6-7 years (when he was in the band Matapat).  Magic ♪piano 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I made edits to the Schuyler address, including a Google Book url containing a printed English copy. It makes more sense now. :)  Magic ♪piano 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! You found an actual printed copy. That's good. I notice again that you grabbed it from a book I cannot download from here (but it was also at Internet Archive and I was able to download it from there). There is another source I was able to find but not consult online:
 * Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the State of New York, 1775-1776-1777, volume 2, p. 40
 * Maybe you can? -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not seen it in Google Books, and this link leads me to believe it may not be digitized yet. On another note, you might try requesting to Google Books that they open up public domain books to you (FAQ answer). [[User:Magicpiano| Magic]♪piano 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have downloaded the 5 remaining volumes of William Kingsford's History of Canada. Merci encore! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask you another favour? If you have time, could you lookup "Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada" and "The Case of Peter Du Calvet" in Google Books to see if maybe you cannot get a preview of the first and the full text of the second from where you are? I thank you in advance. -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, I those do not appear to be any more visible to me.
 * Too bad. Merci quand même Piano magique. :-)

Trying just in case: Are you able to see the full contents of these in Google Books?


 * Author: Antoine Gérin-Lajoie. Book: Dix ans au Canada de 1840 à 1850 (I can get this one from the BAnQ, unfortunately it was digitized as an image-based PDF document if you know what I mean.)
 * Author: Ludovic Brunet. Book: La Province du Canada: histoire politique de 1840 à 1867

Merci!

-- Mathieugp (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Brunet is accessible
 * as is Gérin-Lajoie
 * Shall I put the pdfs on your ftp site?  Magic ♪piano 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thx! -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Joyeux Noel! --  Magic ♪piano 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Toi aussi! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Regiment
While you indicate that we have a ways to go with this article, you deserve a lot of credit for straightening out the references and getting the article as far as it is. This has been a desperate need for a long time. Thanks a lot. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In-depth review....
is done. Cheers! — Ed   17   (talk)  — 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice box at the top of this by the way...it looks familiar. :P Thanks for the credit! :D — Ed   17  ( Talk /  Contribs )  15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unassessed Composers articles
As the subject of the unassessed articles has come up, I thought I might share some thoughts about this. At the moment there are about 2,800 of them. There are also about 1,000 stub class articles automatically assessed by bot because they have stub tags - this was done in June by Shepbot - so it's reasonable to assume that most of the unassessed articles are in fact 'Start' class.

There was similar situation on the Opera Project. We used a bot to automatically mark all the unassessed articles as 'Start' class. The rationale behind this was that the articles would be at least 'Start' grade and could be uprated (and occasionally downrated) by hand on a case by case basis. Given the large numbers involved I thought this was practicable, however a number of poeple disagreed with it. The move became controversial - though not to the extent that anybody ever tried to reverse it!

I think we might do something similar on the Composers Project, however I'd prefer to put it off until the B-class rating has been seen to be a success. Does that all seem reasonable? -- Klein zach  10:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As another sample, I spent another half-hour or so on unassessed articles. Out of 16 looked at (this time I looked at the letter C), 1 was stub, 2 were B (Weber and Orff had no Composer assessment), the rest were Start.  These results are in line with the batch I did the other day, so it seems like a reasonable assumption. (My goal is to get 3-4 B reviews in per day, BTW.)  Magic ♪piano 14:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess that means you are in agreement with what I wrote. Has Smerus been doing any ratings? He offered on the project talk page. I wonder whether it might be worth talking to him? He's a very good editor. -- Klein zach  05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm with you on the Start class default. Presumably unassessed article with stub templates have already been marked Stub?


 * Yes, unless the stub templates were post-June. -- Klein zach  15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Smerus hasn't to my knowledge reviewed anything, but then his message on the project talk implied he's fairly busy. I left a message on his talk page, since I'd especially prefer some extra eyes on the A-class recommendations.  Magic ♪piano 14:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How do the A-class recommendations work? Are you nominating any articles for GA or FA? -- Klein zach  15:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A-class is just the project-level assessment. A-class to me implies that the article is factually complete (relative to that project's interest), which can be a bold assertion.  Of the articles I've reviewed so far, the ones that I think are arguably A-class I've noted in the review, and on the tracking page (as "recommend promotion to A").  Rather than immediately changing the rating, I'd feel better if another reviewer also looked at those.  (I think I commented to Antandrus in the Adrien Basin business that A-class review might be best served as being a formal project review process, but that might require a higher level of participation.)


 * That seems sensible. Perhaps we can refer the potential As as a priority to Smerus or another editor who is willing to have a look? -- Klein zach  23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as FA/GA, most articles (even the A-class ones) lack sufficient inline citations to pass GA review (see for example Mozart, which fell from FA in part over this change in policy), so I haven't been normally recommending it. My opinion: if an article is not 90% or so cited (or only a few paragraphs uncited), it shouldn't be nominated for GA.  The last 10% can be either argued or done as part of the GA review process.  I've noted one potential GA candidate so far (see the tracking page).  I don't have experience with the FA process -- I'm considering whether one of the American Revolutionary War articles I've been working on might be an appropriate vehicle to test that process, although I'd rather push one of those through a WP:MILHIST A-class review first.  Magic ♪piano 16:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, nominating for GA/FA is an encouragement to the contributors to do that extra bit of work to get it up to standard. I'm also more familiar with GA than FA so perhaps we should focus on GA. -- Klein zach  23:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I decided to spend some time today scanning the unassessed articles for "names", and then examining those articles to see if they were "close to B"; if they were, I labelled them B, so that I'd do a detailed review later. From this comes forward a suggestion, to run before you send a bot to mark the unassessed to Start:
 * run a bot to identify all unassessed Composer articles that have a B rating from another project. I'm guessing this list is relatively small; I'm willing to go through it.  (Alternatively they could just be tagged as B; they should still be get some eyes, so we'd need to know which they were.) Is this doable?  Magic ♪piano 02:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. I could ask for the bot to mark any unassessed Composers articles that are marked B by other projects to be marked B for Composers. Can you confirm that is what you want? -- Klein zach  23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, yes.  Magic ♪piano 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've made a request. -- Klein zach  02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We've now gone ahead with the full run as the sample seemed OK. We may end up with a lot of Bs, but I see no problem with that - it indicates the healthy nature of the Composers Project!
 * ShepStep made a comment which I said I would pass on: " Since I'm not a member of the project, I really don't like to butt in where others are at work. But I would recommend that any of the project's members that assess an article as "A" nominate it for a GA, as A's are presumed to be better than the average GA and should pass easily." I don't really have an opinion on this - I'll leave it up to you. -- Klein zach  02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, a lot of Bs is a good sign, even if it means more work for the reviewer... The class is now up to 328, and the bot got at least to Z.  As far as GA nominations, most As will probably be appropriate.  I don't think Sergei Rachmaninoff was; its content was complete (Smerus largely objected on POV grounds), but it needed some more inline cites, which can be a pain to do if you don't have access to the right resources when you do the GAN.  The shorter ones on the Renaissance composers are less problematic that way, and I may try to shepherd one of those through GAN, just to see what kind of issues the reviewers throw up.  (I'd at least make sure Antandrus is around to deal with issues needing his expertise.) --  Magic ♪piano 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Mozart family Grand Tour
For your information, this article is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Journals of the Continental Congress
(Moved from above.)

On marginally related matter, while I was searching Google Books, I turned up full views of the Journals of the Continental Congress. There are something like 20 volumes (I actually looked in the hard-copy index at the Boston Public Library -- it's 5 volumes or so by itself). The 1774 volume contains the proceedings of the First CC, including printing of the first Quebec letter. Other volumes that you might find useful at some point, as they may bear on subjects related to the 1775 invasion: --  Magic ♪piano 13:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1775 May-September
 * 1775 September-December
 * 1776 January-June
 * 1776 June-October
 * Do you see them all in full text? I would really appreciate if you could send the 1775-1776 volumes over to me "across the border" as you did last time. Or, I can send you an e-mail with login information to my own site if you prefer. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have full view on these. If you have an FTP site or similar with more disk space, then yes, email me some credentials (I believe I've enabled email here).   Magic ♪piano 16:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got the login details, merci. Uploads later today.  Magic ♪piano 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uploaded 4 files. Enjoy!  Magic ♪piano 04:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got them. Thanks! -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me at the humanities help desk?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Question_about_the_title_of_a_Song_I_played_in_FMEA_all-state_symphonic_band

You're the only person I will ask, I'm not here to spam 5 names, not even 2. I am desperate though to find an answer, and if you know a single person I could ask who knows TONS of classical music and would instantly remember a melody as memorable as the opening sequence for in the hall of the mountain king that's how significant and prominent my melody sequence is to the song which it belongs.

I was an all-star tuba player back in 1998 and am dying to remember the orchestra piece given its opening melody line. Thanks and I am a lover of music and I play piano at least 4 hours every week and have written 4 songs on piano. You're not just helping somoene who has no appreciation for music, so please if you could take 2 minutes and read the thread and can tell me who to politely ask, that has a very large collection of good music who can read notes and might with certainty tell me the title of the song I'm looking for.

Thanks so much if you'll help out this IP stranger. I was a team player and took up tuba when i always wanted to be a sax player because my band teacher heard me play and said i belong on the big bulky instrument which brings me just more sentimental memories.

If you are't interestd, I won't bother you again, and sorry for taking up your time and you can delete this post. 65.41.148.101 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on your description of it on JackOfOz's talk page, I don't think I can help, sorry.  Magic ♪piano 12:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Arne
Thanks for the comments on the Arne article. I don't know if you bothered to look at the article history but this is what it was just a week ago. Its been my labor of love this week. lol The article is going to be featured at DYK on the mainpage probably sometime tommorow. Thanks for the notes they will be super helpful in improving the article. I'm working on a compositions list and I can go back and add more cites. I'm not sure what to do to improve the lead though. Any suggestions?Nrswanson (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the article history, you've been quite busy :).  I'll have a go at the lead, maybe later today.  Magic ♪piano 15:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Forts
Hi! I noticed some edits to the Mumbai forts. The August 2008 MoS update recommends not linking demonyms such as Indian, British, Portuguese and so on. See: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 2 =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was unaware of that (I see it a lot because I often work in older articles). Feel free to undo.
 * By the way, I have a comment on Mahim Fort, which I was thinking of leaving on its talk page, but if you're here: In the lead you mention that the origins of the fort are uncertain, and then in the first paragraph of the body, begin with an attack on the already-existing fort. It would (in my eyes) improve the article if you opened the body with some mention of the strategic nature of the location, including specific mention that it is unknown who constructed the first fort, and when a fort was first known to be standing there.
 * I don't known how much my copyedits will help your GA nominations, but there were things there that a reviewer would likely pick at. Cheers!  Magic ♪piano 14:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Background of 1775 invasion
I replied you in my own talk page.

I have added a review of Lanctôt's in my own talk page.

I hate to abuse Wikipedia, but
I'm wondering if you recognize the background music to this video. Lully? Charpentière? It's been driving me nuts. Albrecht (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Georges Bizet, L'Arlesienne Suite #1. You're welcome.  Magic ♪piano 16:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much indeed! Albrecht (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Yorktown
Hi. I see you did a lot of work on the Siege of Boston and on the Battles of Lexington and Concord. I have been working a little bit on the Siege of Yorktown lately, and I was wondering if you would be able to assist me. It really isn't a good article for the importance and size of the battle. -Kieran4 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific in the sort of help you're looking for? I glanced through the article; it seems to me (unfamiliar with the details of the siege) to be at least fairly complete.  It does need copyediting, especially for typos.  I can do copyediting; substantial factual research in that part of the war is not something I'm really ready for. (Copyediting that article will probably take me 2-3 "sessions", about 1/day.)  Magic ♪piano 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I copyedited the first part. One thing that is missing (or appears to be): in that section, there appear to be references to various battles.  If these battles have separate pages, they should be linked.  (I did so with the Battle of the Chesapeake at the end of the Prelude.)  I don't know which they might be; that's a fact expert's job.


 * Other things:
 * the lead should be 2-3 paragraphs. Since this is a campaign article (having its own infobox), the lead should summarize the whole campaign.  (See how I wrote the leads for Boston campaign and Invasion of Canada (1775).)
 * I tagged the (empty) Aftermath; it should either say something (even stubby things to start), or be removed.
 * I rearranged the footer elements to be in line with WP:LAYOUT.
 * --  Magic ♪piano 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for responding. I will continue to work on the article. I was looking for fact searching help, but since you appear unable to do it now, any help you could provide would be appreciated. I am pretty busy, so I was looking for to see if there was someone else who could help assist me. Thanks for the tips.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've finished the copyediting. I would be inclined to help, but my brain is stuck in 1774-1776 right now.  Magic ♪piano 14:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if anyone understands what you mean it is me. thanks for helping.-Kieran4 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Thanks for looking over this article and leaving an assessment page. That page has helped tremendously in making fourther amendments to the article. If you have a chance, could you take another look to make sure I'm following what you suggested and what other fixes might be appropriate? Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get to it in the next day or two.  Magic ♪piano 21:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)