User talk:Mscuthbert/archive04

File:Trevor hoffman si cover.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trevor hoffman si cover.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Egardus
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Egardus article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to not meet the GA Criteria. As such I have put it on hold for one week pending improvement. I am notifying you as the primary editor of the possibility that this article will be delisted from GA if work is not done to bring it up to GA standards. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. My review can be found here. H1nkles (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Music of the Trecento
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Music of the Trecento/GA1. I have de-listed the article. You may challenge this decision at WP:GAR or make improvements and submit for review at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got mail. Antandrus (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Funny, I was trying to write an article on Alfonso dalla Viola this afternoon, but someone hurled a C-class rock through my window, and I've been too busy cleaning up broken glass to finish it.  (More seriously, we still need a lot more on Ferrara and everything that happened there.) Antandrus  (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing is that I keep seeing content reasons why someone might want to delist an article (for instance, the Engardus article doesn't discuss his notation or style which is covered in the referenced Schmidt article and in my diss.), but they never even enter into the discussion. Agreed completely about Ferrara.  Ah for the days when too many Pokemon articles were WP's biggest issues.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, good edit summary. Excellent; that's a lot better now!  Antandrus  (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SSCC AfD
Thanks, Myke. I see you have some issues with what goes on here, but all the same it's nice to find an academic who's not totally opposed to WP on elitist and ideological grounds. Our paths may well cross again. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.


 * Absolutely I think that high-level academic work and WP can completely coexist. I think that Wikipedia was on a path around 2006-7 to quickly become the most important, most trusted reference work ever made, and I'm really saddened that this didn't happen.  I think it (or some fork of it) will still do so, but I think errors in judgment on both sides have greatly slowed how long it will take to get the next level of content (equivalent to specialized encyclopedias or generalized encyclopedias with articles written by top writers) on WP.  Definitely it's been well-publicized how often an expert comes on to WP and immediately breaks all the rules by changing information without caring about WP's norms, argues from authority rather than convincing other editors to support her, etc.  This is wrong behavior and needs to be pointed out.  But what WP editors need to see is that quite often  WP (inadvertently) interfered with the experts' work first, perhaps by lowering the level of her students' work by giving them an "authority" to cite that had out-of-date information.


 * This misconceptions about the different cultures are strongest in the humanities and arts. At least in the sciences, you have more professors who are up on technology and more WP editors who have some strong science background.  It sometimes feels like there's this big beast that wants to become the main source for all arts and humanities information in the world that was created with very little input from artists and humanists.  And any sort of rapid disenfranchisement is bound to create resentment.  For a long time, I think, the editors of WP could say, either "who cares?" or "good!" to this change in power (the "bazaar" model), but I think the plateauing of both quantity and quality of material on WP has to make people in both camps understand how much they need each other. (Certainly WP has made a lot of people in the Ivory Tower realize just how much thirst for knowledge there is everywhere.  So that is an education the professors needed in order to learn to write for a broader audience).


 * I wonder if the best fixes for preserving the essence of the culture of WP are the most radical. Some of the crazy ideas I have: try to integrate WP much more with social networking sites so that people separate their socializing/group activities from their editing (and yet your group of friends who are editors can still interact).  Bring in huge amounts of money from advertising to


 * (1) pay to purchase the rights (into PD or CC-SA-BY) of important photos, media excerpts, texts, etc. that the site is lacking but that no paid encyclopedia would dare do without. (Wikimedia could buy the rights cheaply to so many important non-PD texts and release them into the public domain, greatly increasing the scope of Wikisource)


 * (2) hire paid expert...
 * (a) administrators, interviewed and working as an office job who can run the site with some central direction and the expectation of professionalism. (not that most admins aren't professional at it, but maybe some of the tedium of vandal fighting could be transferred to people who might have better software tools (because of personal screening) to fight them).
 * (b) graphic designers [the site hasn't updated its look in years; it is really looking dated!] and perhaps more programmers [why aren't these boxes Ajax? why do edit conflicts still occur?]
 * (c, and most controversially) writers to write the important articles no one has wanted to (history of dance is still terra incognita) and rewrite from scratch very important articles that are a mess.


 * (I don't think (c) would be too disruptive to WP. I've played in a lot of amateur orchestras where some of the members are paid (instruments that there are never enough of; important soloists; the conductor; the librarian/manager/publicity coordinator) and have never been resentful when I'm the one not being paid.)


 * I think that the Citizendium project, as flawed (and perhaps failed) in as many ways as it is (with different problems of top leadership there than here), may have the model for the next stage of WP, in terms of creating a culture of mutual respect first and rapid growth in the encyclopedia second. I wonder if WP is the MySpace of online encyclopedias, to be supplanted in the future by a more Facebook-like model. Yes, with more top-down control, but also with more maturity and order.  And one where the people in charge (after testing, running beta/focus groups, etc.) occasionally make changes that people hate at first (news feeds; integrated walls) but eventually come to love.  I highly doubt that the current consensus-based system would ever approve the kind of changes that are needed to breath life into any large project.


 * Sigh, I didn't realize it would become "essay time" here. I just really love what this project was and what it can still become for the education of the world, but I began to hate how frustrated it could make me (much much more in a minute than a full day of arguing with administrators over budgets) that I needed to scale it back for my own sake. all the best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Myke, more people need to read this. We need ideas, rather desperately.  I've been talking for a while about how our content quality has a kind of parabolic curve, leveling off somewhat short of "the sum total of human knowledge", and to get that slope to jerk back upward again, towards the standards of excellence in specialist encyclopedias and beyond, we need new ideas, enthusiasm, and expert editors.
 * There will always be those who say "no" to new ideas (paradoxically, they are often the most anarchist and self-identify as progressive -- but they're not, they're conservative). Currently, there are a lot of ideas for reform floating about; something good may come of all this.
 * Franz Kafka said it nicely: "All revolutions eventually evaporate, leaving behind the slime of a new bureaucracy." Antandrus  (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (I love that Kafka quote.) I'd really like it if more people could read this, but I'm not around enough to have a community following, so I'll let it sit here for now, maybe link to it in a few other places.  I wish that WP (as a form of volunteer _work_) would have a few more of the rules of the workplace (where incivility is met, not with a 24 hour block, but pretty fast with permanent bans); not to censor people, but actually to make people freer to speak their minds and revert, knowing that the person that they're debating with will not make it personal.


 * What REALLY I wish would happen is for Antandrus to run for Wikimedia Board of Trustees. There are others who spend more time on Wikipedia, but no one I've met who better keeps the big picture of what WP is about in the forefront of his mind.  I figure with three open slots and the system of voting they've implemented, it may be possible for someone with minority views about where WP should go to get enough #1 votes to be elected.  It'd be rather unlikely in a single open slot election that anyone who even posts on the User page of someone who advocates for advertising could be elected; but I think that with three slots anything could happen.  Can I start the drafting effort? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Myke. I have to admit I've been thinking hard about this, and discussed it with Kat by e-mail.  The time commitment, and necessary tradeoff between doing that rather than contributing content, seems to be the biggest bust; the biggest positive, that it makes me crazy how little Wikipedia values actual expertise amongst its contributors, and that the board just might need someone with a little less youthful idealism about free-free-free and more experience with what it actually means to survive in a capitalist society. Antandrus  (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about the trade-off. It's a bit like having a research lab now -- I don't get to write/program nearly as much as I could just a few months ago because now I'm trying to raise money and get donors so that the people I'm hiring can write and program.  I just have to believe that there's only so much content one person can make, but one person making it so that others can create content better can have a much bigger impact.  I think that you could have just that impact if you were on the board -- you could dig up perhaps 100 people with (nearly) your level of commitment to writing out of the woodwork simply by using the bully pulpit to invite people (simply to ask) in places where people never thought of contributing, or have been turned off to it.  Wikipedia probably educates as many people daily as all the colleges in America combined; this is a force that needs careful supervision.  To me a seat on the WP board should be as coveted and prestigious as the seat on the Board of Overseers at Yale.  I would like to think that in 10 years some of the members of the board will still be community members, but many of the others will be people like Warren Buffet, Drew Faust, and Eric Lander: people who know how to steer incredibly powerful organizations.  I think the step in that direction would be people like you who know just what a fragile position WP is in right now and who sees just how much better Wikimedia could be in fulfilling its mission. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Myke. I dunno -- maybe I'm nuts.  There's something in Sun Tzu about this.  The force of the taggers and boxers, versus the ever-dwindling content contributors, many of whom are weary, burned-out, and irritable, is like a large mass moving downhill, and it feels increasingly foolish to try to stop it.  No one will ever add cites to 1145, 1146, etc.  It's not fun to do so; it's not part of the MMORPG, unless someone more clever than me can figure out a way to make it so; so those who deface articles with "this obviously unreferenced article needs references!  get off your backside and add some!  I was too lazy!" tags will continue to add tags until every article has them.  Some of the "CiterSquad" (Orwellian name there, as they add no cites, only demands for cites) actually is adding further insult by sprinkling little  tags underneath the already massive top banner.
 * Maybe I should just let it go, continue writing in areas I know and understand, and scatter the occasional horseflies with a backhand swat. Take this anarchic, lunatic-ridden place too seriously and you go crazy.  All the best, Antandrus  (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the press needs to be brought in. An article on the peaking of Wikipedia (and the frustration of those who made it) in the NY Times Sunday Magazine might motivate some of the board to step in to save the site.  I also wonder if a content fork of Wikipedia will really be needed in the end.  I wonder if Google -- having hit a zero with Knol -- could be interested...  I hope the editors can still win out.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well ... I do have a friendly contact, looking for stories, interested in Wikipedia, and with a long track record, at a very major newspaper. Maybe it's time to bring in the howitzers.  Cup runneth over. Antandrus  (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review these proposed changes
See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music. Thank you. --Jubilee♫ clipman 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Hope you have a great new year too! --Jubilee♫ clipman 01:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice
WikiProject Contemporary music   Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator. P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

CTM scope review
Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:


 * 1) We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
 * 2) We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:
 * 1) It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
 * 2) If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
 * 3) Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
 * 4) Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes
In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music. Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bartolomeo
Interesting! Thanks! I want to read that article. Early 15th-century Italy and its peculiar (or seeming) lack of native composers interests me and I wish I knew more. Have you found any other composers in your archival digs that may be worthy of articles, or further study? By the way -- somewhat related -- is it true that the term "parody mass" is largely superseded by "imitation mass" in academia? When I was teaching we mainly used the former term. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I wrote this little article on Nicolaus Nucella about three years ago but never got around to finishing it by including a PD transcription, etc.; he's a really interesting composer with no Grove article (because he wasn't discovered before 2000). It could probably be moved to article space (and given a drive-by "C" evaluation by the Nutella Working Group) since it's better than anything else on the net or in print.  I'm just not sure where to link to it from.  Probably the Zachara article, since he's important partly because his name "Nucella" was considered a mistranscription for "Micinella", a composition by Zachara.


 * I'll post the updates to Bartolomeo's life when I'm free to (not my discovery). The main things that need articles are sources -- basically the entire article "Sources, MS" from NG could be added (with images) and be made much better than Grove.  For the most part you've hit just about every major composer I know of!  Jesse Rodin added his new info to the De Orto article (his newer JAMS article could be added as a reference).  Is Ugolino da Orvieto still missing an article?   He's one of the most interesting and most well-known figures not to have one. (Whoops, Vitry's not on the medieval composers list, will add soon...).  Hope you're doing well! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Burkholder Grout Bookcover.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Burkholder Grout Bookcover.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Euphonium majors
Since the middle of the last century, many schools supported the major "instrumental music performance" or just "music: performance" with major and minor instruments within that were not explicit in the diploma or data-systems. So, majoring on Euphonium is somewhat relative. Few schools would offer a degree in Euphonium itself (Maestro Leonard Falcone, after whom the leading american competition for Tuba and Euphonium is named, graduated from the pre-university of Michigan school with a degree in violin for instance), but most today recognize the instrument as a "primary" or "major instrument" for performance majors.--Rwberndt (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd very much like to see a source for the statement that most schools allow it as a primary instrument for majors. None of the schools I have taught at allow it.  I flagged it as controversial and in need of a cite because it goes against my experience.  I wish the instrument would become more often used in compositions, but I couldn't consider voting for adding it as an instrument of specialty at my school -- it would be preparing someone for a job that does not exist. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

4′33″
Hello, I take it then that you have/have access to Taruskin's history of Western Music? Would you then verify that this edit here is not a copyright violation? The tone is setting off alarm bells and in any case the text would need to be altered and cited (and probably trimmed) to be used in the article. But first things first, verifying that it's not a copy-vio. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not a copyvio. I agree that the tone needs some work to make it more encyclopedic -- the author assures me (private email) that he'll be adding more specific references to the article soon.  But I think it definitely improves the article by giving a sense of why Cage would choose to write a silent piece; it's the most important facet of the piece and was very incompletely described for an article of this length.  Maybe give it a few days and then see if it's not improved?  Thanks.  Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I look forward to seeing how it works out. SQGibbon (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Invocation to the king of the demons
...e.g., the one by Zacara, may be needed prior to starting that 6/4 chord article (incredibly, I notice we don't have a 6/4 chord redirect yet), since it will be immediately contentious, and un-fun to work on, for reasons you correctly identify. (I learned the I 6/4 notation, "think of it as a dominant with two appoggiature" pretty much as in Piston.) Thank you for your comment on my nasty little page. I don't watchlist much music theory stuff, but it can get pretty testy (for a chuckle, have a look at some of the edit summaries here). Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Tell you what -- I'll finish these two articles on Trecento music for Cambridge and immediately do four for Wikipedia as penance. I really enjoy editing here when it's a page no one will look at.  :-)  Cheers, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Average Professor Test
I saw your most recent comments on the talk page for WP:PROF, and I likewise do not want to to have an edit war. I think one of the other editors misread or miscounted the responses, and thought that there some degree of consensus for removing the average professor test, and that's why he reversed the edit. My note about incivility had to do with another editor stating that I started in May 2012. In reality, I've editted for a long time as an IP editor, and finally created an account so that I could create articles. Do you know of any examples of the average professor test being utilized at AfD? I think that might help the discussion. NJ Wine (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi NJ Wine -- thanks for the very kind response. One thing that makes me happy either way this turns out is seeing that we all who edit the Notability page tend to have similar responses in AfDs so there isn't a real attempt to change the rules to change the results.  I've just started participating in AfDs again after about a 3-year hiatus, so ground could have shifted, but I'll look through the older AfDs I was in and see where I've seen it used.  I'm happy to have it after the criteria because it makes clear that we're talking only about research professors -- average profs across the US "professor" spectrum would be too low of a bar, but I've never seen it interpreted that way (except for one bad interpretation by me early on when there wasn't a separate page), so I'm not afraid of its use that way.  I'll get back to you on the article talk page soon.  Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. After reading your six examples, my feelings about the average professor test (APT) are a bit different.  I'm not sure that I support the APT, but I'm not as opposed to it anymore.  How would you feel about keeping the test, but perhaps wording it a bit differently.  I dislike the verbiage about the test being not universally accepted and I would prefer if possible that there is a clearer description of who the pool of average professors are.  I was reading one of the old talk archives for the WP:PROF page, and one editor brought up an interesting point that in foreign countries, the role of a professor is more clearly defined, and so this guideline works well with foreign professors.  He expressed concern that because there are so many colleges in the US, the definition of professor/instructor is very braod, and could mean things not intended by this creators of this guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that keeping but rewording slightly could gain broad consensus; let's discuss over on the project page. Thanks for being such a good debate partner on this. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging my concerns. I have replied on the talk page that we should keep the APT, but utilize new verbiage. On a different note, I read your user page, and saw the following: As Wikipedia has become a fuller resource, unfortunately, with some prominent exceptions, many of the most active editors seem more interested in the process of running a social network than in creating a free, accurate encyclopedia, so I don't edit as much as I'd like. It can be a bit frustrating that a carefully researched and written article can be immediately demolished by an arrogant 17-year-old with an out-of-date copy of EB and too much time on his hands. I could not agree more.  I think one of the most frustrating things about Wikipedia is the need to guard articles that you have created.  Unfortunately, what what I've seen, Wikipedia does not offer good solutions to deal with a destructive editor. NJ Wine (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New section on WP:PROF talk page
An editor has reverted all the changes on the WP:PROF page since June 4th. There is discussion about 5 changes made in the last ten days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJ Wine (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will weigh in there.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Nicolaus Ricii de Nucella Campli
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. You'll be a great Admin and thanks for opening the door to future subject-focused admins as well.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
aww, thanks! great timing, right when I'm between presenting academic papers on Italian/Polish connections in the 14th century and corpus research in computational musicology. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's interesting that you are into both medieval music and a computer-based approach to music. Do you find any common denominators between the two? It would seem that European thought was very orderly and structured in the 13th-14th century. Ockham's Sum of Logic is but one example. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this. What do you think about this? I'll watch there for any thoughts. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lulwa Khas, India
I just wanted to let you know that I removed the PROD at Lulwa Khas, India. I ran the text through a translator this morning, and it is a geography-related article, which are given more latitude than other subjects per WP:NGEO. That said, if someone doesn't (properly) translate it, it will end up being deleted anyway. Best wishes. - MrX 19:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good to know.  I just saw the numbers at the end and it looked like a phone number so I thought it was likely an ad.  Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Locrian mode
Hi Myke. I'm interested to understand better what you meant in your recent edit summary at the article Locrian mode, when you said "The 1880 grove articles really should not be used since the 2001 ed debunks them". I cannot find anything debunking Rockstro's articles in the New Grove articles "Mode" or "Locrian", so I must be looking in the wrong place. Rockstro claims to be reporting the content of several 19th-century chant books, in particular the Mechlin Gradual and Antiphonal of 1848, but also the Rheims-Cambrai and Pustet-Ratisbon Office books. I do not have access to these publications to verify whether Rockstro is correct or not, but I would be happy to accept New Grove's opinion if only I could find it. It seems to me that it would be more interesting (and entertaining) to keep Rockstro's version of things, and follow it with the rebuttal from later scholars.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jerome -- thanks for writing. I'm traveling right now, so I can't research what specifically I thought was contradicted (I think dates) but I'll get back soon.  But you've already convinced me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have long been intrigued by the origin of this term "Locrian", which is now so well-established that it is frequently used anachronistically by authors who are apparently unaware of the fact. For example, that famous untitled piece by Cornyshe in the Henry VIII Book, which would surely have been described by contemporary musicians as transposed mode 4 (Hypophrygian). Reading Rockstro and other 19th-century sources, one finds a lot of vague hand-waving about "medieval terminology", which in cases like this can only be supposing a "long middle ages" extending to about 1850. I imagine that, when an impressionable young choirboy is told by his master that the names of modes are and always have been "Dorian", "Lydian", "Locrian", etc., these words acquire an "authentically medieval flavor", even if the ink is not yet dry on these freshly minted antiques. He then grows up and becomes an acknowledged expert, and the terminology is enshrined in books and articles, having never been questioned. What I would like to know in the present instance is: did Rockstro acquire the terms "Locrian" and "Hypolocrian" from the Mechlin or Reims-Cambrai sources he cites, or did he only find the description and numbering of these rejected modes there. I think it very unlikely that "Locrian" occurs in the Pustet-Ratisbon books because, in his once widely used chant textbook Magister Choralis (published by Pustet), F. X. Haberl correctly employs Glarean's "Hyperaeolian" and "Hyperphrygian" for what we now call Locrian and Hypolocrian. On the other hand, Rockstro may have coined the words himself, knowing that "Locrian" was sometimes used by Ancient Greek theorists to describe an octave species of (today) uncertain character. The mere fact that it appeared in the 1880 Grove would have been enough to establish its credentials as "genuinely medieval". I can find no direct evidence that the term was ever used before this (the OED cites Rockstro as the earliest use in English) but, as I said, I do not have access to Rheims-Cambrai or Mechlin. I look forward to the results of your investigations after you return home.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
And some blurry flowers in the background, hinting at snow-free spring. Wishing you all the best.

– SJ + 03:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) 


 * Thank you SJ! Wishing the best to you as well! See you on WP and maybe in real life? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Uncletomwood! I do think that educating users with different backgrounds about why we're even considering deleting something that is so self-evidently important to them, is an important role experienced WP'ers can do. I was bitten the first couple of times I changed things that I knew were wrong but for which I had no source at hand and was deleting something sourced (but way out of date) and I remember the gentle hand that several experienced editors used to guide me into improving.  Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sant Omer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Omer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)