User talk:Mscuthbert/archive03

Archive 3: 2008

Sudden interest in Renaissance composers
Hi Myke -- have you noticed the sudden flood of editors in Renaissance music articles? See the last couple days at Johannes Ockeghem, Clemens non Papa, Jacob Obrecht, Nicolas Gombert, Adrian Willaert, Sweelinck (and there may be more -- that's just what came up on my rather non-thorough watchlist). They're all good, but they'll require a bit of cleanup. Do you think it's someone's class? When they're anon IPs they are surprisingly non-specific, i.e. Tennessee, New Jersey, ... If it's a class project I'm hesitant to jump in and start fixing right away. (It's not your class, is it? :) )  Hope all is well with you! Antandrus  (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! I noticed Ockeghem (and left a welcome note on the author's talk page), but missed some of the rest (I regularly trim my watch list to the point where a quick daily WP check takes less than half an hour, so I think some of these disappeared, heh).  It's definitely a coordinated effort, mostly to source statements.  They don't seem to have access to Grove 2001, since almost everything comes from Grove 1980 and the 1988 Grove reprint.  It looks like it might be a grad level project, but one with a more significant technical side than I have my students do (they've learned cite-id, etc. that I barely know how to do).  The geographical spread is interesting -- an online masters in music education degree perhaps?  There are lots of those now.


 * I've been on the job market (again!) most of the fall, so it hasn't been a fun period of editing articles. But besides that I think things are stable and good.  I think I'll retire the WP project of Music 1900-1960: that period is done well enough that it's getting too hard for undergraduate non-majors to contribute to.  But I think 1960-present is still ripe for additions, as are certain composers, genres, terms, etc., in early music, so I'll switch to that.  Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Even more interesting stuff. Apparently Josquin was a violent man!  What do you think?  I've left a note on the contributor's talk page.  Love to AGF, but ... warning light.  And what did Slonimsky edit that had 31 volumes?  (see the reference)  Antandrus  (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * hmmm.... I've never heard of this violent confrontation. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I can't find anything about it in the 2nd New Grove article on Isaac.  And I suppose if you bought 6 copies of Baker's biographical dictionary you'd have over 31 volumes.  I'd suggest a revert.  It's also difficult to characterize anything written by Slonimsky (d. 1995) as "recent research."  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

cheers
Thanks. All that dragging the kids though the snow to daycare in the bike trailer might not be keeping me in shape, but at least it's having some small positive impact on my wikipediage. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
. Looks good! I'm presuming that the disappearance of the "visiting" portion is a good thing. :) Good to see you around!  Antandrus  (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It took most of the last two months to get rid of the little designation, but I hope it's worth it!  Back to the salt mines though.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:BeachMassExampleA.jpg
This was tagged with sheet music, a fair use tag - this implies that it is still copyrighted. If it is indeed from before 1923 it should have instead had pd-US. If you provide a list of these images, I can undelete them. —Random832 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! They're [[Image:BeachMassExampleA.jpg]], [[Image:BeachMassExampleB.jpg]], and [[Image:BeachMassExampleC.jpg]].  The Mass was premiered and published in the 1890s (I think 1892 and 1895 respectively) and Beach died in 1944, so the tag should be pd-US + pd-Life+50, but not pd-Life+70 -- I don't know exactly how to do these tags, so any help would be appreciated.  Thanks!  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment in "Josquin" on so-called "constant updating" baloney in New Grove Online
True that (or more better, True Dat). Shlishke (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

John Adams (composer)
Hi,

I heartily agree with your move of John Coolidge Adams, but cant find the talkpage discussion. If there was any controversy, I should probably read it before doing a similar move of Ann Marie Callaway. best, Sparafucil (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I support the move. The discussion is under the "Infobox" discussion on the John Adams (composer) talk page.  Basically people agreed that we shouldn't be using names in the title that are unfamiliar to most readers.  I don't know if there's a large-scale agreement about this throughout Wikipedia, but there were no objections on the JA article.  Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoax?
Hi Myke! Can you check any sources you might have to see if Edouard Chantal was a real person? I smell a hoax (the bit about moving with the lover to Switzerland ... her writings being the only source ... the keys of the pieces ... dunno though). There was a Chantelouse who was a clavecinist of the early 17th century, covered in Gillespie's big book on keyboard music, but I can't find any other names that even come close. Oh, and I can't think of a single example of a French toccata from that time ... they called their pieces "unmeasured preludes" or something similar. Thanks, and I hope the semester is going well! Antandrus (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a hoax. Nothing found in JSTOR or Grove.  The referenced book doesn't exist in Harvard's catalog, nor does its author have an entry.  The religious works seem sketchy: a Mass in B-minor from this period?  A "God's Mass" (what would that mean?).  The lover's writings would make a good romance novel plot, but agree unlikely.  Suggest delete.
 * Semester just started today -- let the chanting begin! Also the Helicopter String Quartets... Hope you're well! Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!


A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Harmonium (John Adams)
Thanks for the note. I could still work on filling it out when I have a chance. DJRafe (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Josquin on main page
Greetings! Are you going to be around between Mar 2 00:00 and Mar 3 00:00? Look what's going to be on the main page. Surprised me (are these listed somewhere?) Hope all is well with you! I've been taking a break from writing about Renaissance composers for a couple weeks now. There will be more though. :) Cheers! Antandrus  (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, great! Whoever did the writing of the blurb did a pretty good job isolating the important bits from the article.  I passed it on to a bunch of Josquin experts, who were all pretty tickled.  Best, Myke. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

notability for academics
Someone made a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO and there is an ongoing discussion of this proposal at the talk page for WP:PROF. Since you have participated in earlier discussions regarding WP:PROF, I hope that you will contribute to the current one as well. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

New reply
Hi. Please see my reply to your message at User talk:Jeff G./Fair use sandbox. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Mi Myke, (what do people in the real world write, Mike, or Myke?)

I love your "come play with me" for the sandbox. You've probably already given this a lot of thought already: is there a way for you to end the horizontal graphs differently for those composers living and those dead? The way I read the graphic, they're all passed away on the dates listed.

BTW, have you looked in on eye music recently? I'd appreciate your input...

Best regards, --Shlishke (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is notable Mathematician
Abdulalim A. Shabazz - you told me to write

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB
Hi, Myke, have approved you for use of this tool. Enjoy! -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hant X.
Shlishke (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB
I saw you just got AWB-vetted. I also have it, but I've switched to a Mac and havn't decided or figured out to get the dual windows/mac thingie going. Any plans you have in particular for the awesome power? I just started learning how to use it when I stopped particularly caring after my specific project (a global cap normalization) was finished.

Do you have any plans for it/you at the moment? Anything worth double teaming on, sequentially?

---Shlishke (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders
Just to follow up, a closing date is being discussed here. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if you might have time to help us summarize a section of the discussion? Best --Kleinzach (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion
You write:  "Should we bring in administrators who were unaffiliated with the discussion to help sort out consensus (a la AfD)? ' . I would certainly support that if you proposed it in a new section on the main page and I think other people who took part in the discussion before 23 April would do so as well. I don't think what is happening at the moment will lead anywhere. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked  "Should the addition of this box [example right] ''be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" '' (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Template:Infobox classical composer
This was recreated and I've put this up for deletion (and blocking) see Templates_for_deletion. Thanks --Kleinzach (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA
 Hello Mscuthbert, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you!  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ferneyhough Etudes Transcendantales measure 1.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Ferneyhough Etudes Transcendantales measure 1.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Have a good break and a fantastic summer, and I hope you get some writing done! We'll miss you here. I'll probably be here, unless the cup finally runneth over. There's so much more to write though. Hope you see you at an AMS gathering sometime. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually, what I've done is just deleted my watchlist down to about 6 items (among them, your user page), deleted AWB, and figure that should be enough to keep me out of trouble.  And maybe I'll be able to write more (in real life, and for WP), instead of playing the AfD, RfA, DYK, Infobox, etc., game.  Please come to Nashville in November if you can, or let me know if you're in Boston.  (And the maybe is meant to be ambiguous: maybe I can actually stay away a whole summer or more.  Quite possibly not...)  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision suggestion
I am trying to "test the waters" to see if there is enough interest in revising WP:PROF to better reflect the arguments that are actually used in practice in academic-related AfDs. I've put a note about it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) with a somewhat more detailed explanation. There is also a link there to a possible draft of a revised version of WP:PROF, which is located in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Since you have participated in academic-related AfDs in the past, I'd like to hear your input about this idea, both in general and in terms of specifics. If you have some comments, please post them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). You are also welcome to edit User:Nsk92/Sandbox3 in the meantime. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision draft - revisited
I am trying to restart the process of revising WP:PROF and have posted further comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Please take another look there and see if you have further comments. Of course, you are welcome to edit the draft itself too:User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you take another look at the awards section in the draft? I tried to change it to reflect your concern, but I am not sure if the revision is sufficiently satisfactory. I left a longer explanation at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision draft - move to proceed with the replacement
I would like to try to give another try and make a motion to proceed with the preplacement of the WP:PROF guideline by the revised version. I made a post to the talk page of WP:PROF to that effect and I'd appreciate if you comment there, one way or the other. I also responed there to your previous posts regarding some of the concerns that you raised (and I made some additional edits to the draft as a result). Hopefully it will change your mind, but even if not, please chime in and express your opinion. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic books
Hey Myke, thought I ought to say that your last post to Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎ was once of the most interesting things I've read on wikipedia for quite a few weeks. I'm not sure what to make of the lag time to reviewing books, or how to handle evidence of notability in the humanities, but I'm glad to have learned more. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)