User:Noetica/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive for July to November 2007:

Contents

[edit] Not editing for a while

I have withdrawn from editing for a while. I am disappointed that editors do not work more harmoniously and efficiently here to coordinate articles. I find ill-managed and petty disagreements, where there should be constructive cooperation from all sides. I have no intention of wasting any more time and effort, in such an environment. I have enjoyed a few recent collaborations, though, and I may come back later. Best wishes to all. – Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Nice to see you around. Am I forgiven? TONY (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't silly; it's a critical point. I hope that Wahoo's example can be used instead—it's an example of what we all agree is a second-inversion chord. After that, there'll be the matter of the disgraceful behaviour of those people in conspiring to have me banned and accusing me of having a sock puppet, so we're not out of the woods yet. What were they thinking of? They can hardly expect me to get on with them after that. Tony (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sordini

Hello Noetica, take a look at the Moonlight Sonata talk page -- it appears that Beethoven really did say "sordino". Opus33 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] words as words vs quotes

Please see the refired proposal to at MOS talk to get around the problem you perceived. Unfortunately, your changes for consistency are against the rule on Words as words. Tony (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not sure of the scope here. I made a lot of changes for consistency. Which do you mean? I did look through unarchived discussion, but saw nothing definitive or settled that had a direct bearing on my edits for consistency. In the end, no one seems to have bothered to make use of italics and quotations systematic, exemplary, and friendly to the reader on this flagship page. I don't mind how or by whom this is done: just let it be done! So I did it – subject to rational revision, as always.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you like quotations wholy in italics? They're harder to read, and MOS already says not to do it. "An entire quotation is not italicized solely because it is a quotation."
I agree that double quotes everywhere is hardly attractive, and would prefer single quotes. But WP has a long-standing policy of using double quotes for quotes, and using single quotes would retain this difficult boundary between nouns / noun phrases, and larger grammatical units (single vs double quotes, instead of the current italics vs double quotes).
Are you re-introducing "For example" everywhere? Why is this better than the simple, unmarked parentheses after a point is made (or the colon, sometimes)? In the context of MOS, the less wordy options are preferable; otherwise, "for example" will occur hundreds of times, and it becomes wearing.
Can you hold off on further changes in these respects until something is decided?
I agree with your last change to the US thing. Tony (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the curly vs straight quotes, can you raise this at talk? I have no objection if MOS is changed to straight quotes (can be done in one action by pasting into Word). Tony (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, please continue on my talk. BTW, I'm keen that MOS adopt the quotation mark system to avoid the awkwardness of examples such as Old Man Winter; and I'm fine about making them straight, but can you say something about this publicly? Tony (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] last

Yes, the final item in the section under which that edit summary appeared: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles_and_first_sentences.

It was all in a mess until yesterday: I've rationised the little extra that is present in WP:MOSHEAD, with a view to deleting that submanual. One of the main changes is that the wording, except for one point, applies to both article titles 'and section headings. Here is the related talk section.

Here is what was there in MOS before, at the top.

Please review the new version if you have time. Tony (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nine–10 boundary

Hi – It was changed from ten–11 a while ago, at MOSNUM and repeated here at MOS. I think the rationale was the (1) it's a simple one- versus two-digit boundary, and (2) many styleguides prescribe it. It's not something I care a great deal about, so if you feel strongly, please propose a change (at MOSNUM first, perhaps?). Tony (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Silliest problem for people to be fixedly pedantic about, really. (Nothing against you!) Another consideration is how accurate we are purporting to be in specifying ten. Not very, right? The figure version has a spurious air of precision. Leave it to me. I'll argue the case if anyone makes trouble. Meanwhile, I've accepted your recent editorial comments on identity, and fixed things. Hope you like it. Always a tricky one.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Haven't looked. Will stay on the job (it's important to me, as you know), but work is oh so frantic at the moment, and will continue to be so until 19 Oct. Can't get used to posting conversing on a single userpage. So I'll put your page on Watch. What would be good is a section with my name on it for the time being, so I don't bother following up other sections when they appear on my watchlist. Tony (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, mark and use this new page from now on. But I'm still not back, and you are still not fully forgiven until the six-four thing is settled, with amity on all sides. And I too am busy with several deadlines, so there are even more limits on what I can cooperate with than usual. For now.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoS changes

Noetica, I've manually reverted one of your Manual of Style changes because your changes do not communicate the necessary information. The problem that we need to solve is this one: Post-transition transsexual people have can have their pre-transition lives described using either their "birth" or their "internal" genders. Different style manuals contradict each other. Basically every one of the bio pages has a fight about which one is the "correct" way. The MoS recommendations were too vague and were cited by all sides as supporting their personal preferences.

After a series of discussions, we have added a single sentence to clarify the normal preference -- not because it's necessarily the Gospel truth, but because the fights on all the individual pages was amounting to an enormous waste of editing time and energy. Your changes completely removed the necessary information. Before you make any further changes in the Identity section, please read at least the end of the discussions, which is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Self-identification. We have a consensus on the exact wording there, and I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to be informed about that discussion before unilaterally (or perhaps accidentally) nullifying the decision. Thanks, 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[Answered at WhatamIdoing's talkpage.]

[edit] MoS clash

Per request, bringing my issues here. Yes, I do feel your edit summaries have been "arrogant" (your word), and more to the point WP:OWNish and seemingly intended to intimidate other editors. Their import appears to be "don't dare revert me, or I will edit war with you or get nasty with you on the talk page". I realize I can be abrasive myself, but I don't go out of my way to be so. I was polite (I think) both times I criticized your edit summaries today, and only did so because I believed that a pattern was in evidence and was a hindrance to consensus building and normal editing. I also feel that your edits have been incautious and not thought through enough in some cases. While I agree that the ellipsis section needed editing, much of what you put in there wasn't logically parseable, and some of it was just plain incorrect. Thinking back, your edits of substance appear to get partially reverted or edited into unrecognizability more than anyone else's in recent memory (by contrast, PMAnderson's often simply get reverted, period, because they only reflect his position, and often seem to be WP:BRD actions, so their reversion is expected, perhaps even intended.) Further, I understand being a solid debater, but there's a difference between defending one's arguments well and taking everything personally. Your unwillingness to let sleeping dogs lie, in repeatedly bashing editors in one dispute for their perceived errors in other ones in the past, is a debate (if it can be called that) tactic more suited to Usenet than Wikipedia. I don't have anything against you personally, but some of your behaviors at WP:MOS and WT:MOS have been very grating (not just to me). I do not go so far as to say disruptive, but close enough for discomfort. I manged to tick people off in my early forays into the MOS, so my horse is not very high. MOS is resistant to rapid or radical changes, because every change in it has the potential to impact many thousands of articles. WP:BOLD is great every now and then (I'm surprised how little of what I did to the section on capitalization of gods/religions/etc. was undone or changed), but really doesn't work there much of the time. Not recognizing that last part and getting upset at being reverted (or pre-emptively antagonistic about possible reversion) will not make anything go more smoothly (I learned that the hard way myself, at WT:MOSNUM back around January, I think. Anyway, while this is critical, it is intended constructively, and isn't some declaration of enemyhood or any such nonsense, just a request to tone it down a notch. I will endeavor to do likewise. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another way of putting this is that I find that your actual actions do not mesh with your statements in your #Not editing for a while comments up top. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: If any of it is relating in some way to my own edit summaries being brusque ("Shorten longwinded example", etc.), they're just short and to the point; I don't try to make them flowery, but I don't treat my own edits any different - if I shorten something of mine because it was full of blather, I'll say so, in those terms. I don't see any rationale for sugar-coating everything to the saccharine point, and brusqueness isn't an attack. All that said, I don't think any MOS regular suffers foolish edits lightly, and we all pretty mercilessly revert anything that doesn't work. Happens to me and Tony too (both of us have been editing the MOS long and hard enough that we are more apt than most to not do something boneheaded in there, but we still do boneheaded things in there, inevitably). It's nothing personal, and isn't an attack. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish:

Thank you for bringing your issues here. Here are some particular replies to things you say above:

One editor's boldness and directness is another editor's arrogance. I find many of your edit summaries and your high-handed and often patronising dismissal of lesser mortals arrogant; you obviously consider them bold and direct, as I see from what you say above.
  • Their import appears to be "don't dare revert me, or I will edit war with you or get nasty with you on the talk page".
My record will show that I very rarely edit-war. I nearly always discuss, at length. And in the course of discussion I will be polite to the polite, and rude to the rude. I do quickly revert edits that I judge patently ill-founded or ill-considered. So do you. So what?
  • I realize I can be abrasive myself, ...
Yep!
  • ... but I don't go out of my way to be so. I was polite (I think) both times I criticized your edit summaries today, and only did so because I believed that a pattern was in evidence and was a hindrance to consensus building and normal editing. I also feel that your edits have been incautious and not thought through enough in some cases.
To the extent that you understood them, right? Quite frankly, anyone who fails to grasp the universal consensus concerning how brackets and sentence endings work is not much of a critic of these things. Sure some points I put forward needed clarifying; I would have been amazed if they didn't! And I joined in the clarifying myself. But it's impossible to do these things in a way that pleases everyone. There are a couple of things I put in because I knew the point could be missed by an over-zealous pedant who might take them over-literally, and not apply them with discretion.
  • While I agree that the ellipsis section needed editing, much of what you put in there wasn't logically parseable, and some of it was just plain incorrect.
Whistling in the dark. Parse "wasn't logically parseable" like this: "wasn't understood by SMcCandlish". Such self-centredness! And what, pray tell, was "incorrect" in "some of it"? Which of it? How? By whose lights? (Let me guess... CMOS?)
  • Thinking back, your edits of substance appear to get partially reverted or edited into unrecognizability more than anyone else's in recent memory (by contrast, PMAnderson's often simply get reverted, period, because they only reflect his position, and often seem to be WP:BRD actions, so their reversion is expected, perhaps even intended.)
A fatuous and unsubstantiated claim.
  • Further, I understand being a solid debater, but there's a difference between defending one's arguments well and taking everything personally.
Don't get me wrong (again). I don't take this so personally as you do. Mainly, I'm irritated because you have wasted a lot of my time. As for defending my arguments, I have no trouble doing that by reason alone – setting aside mere appeals to authority and like fallacies.
  • Your unwillingness to let sleeping dogs lie, in repeatedly bashing editors in one dispute for their perceived errors in other ones in the past, is a debate (if it can be called that) tactic more suited to Usenet than Wikipedia.
My unwillingness? It is you who persist in obvious error, against the world at large. Every style guide that addresses "that" issue disagrees with you, and so do all publishers. But rather than admit your error, as I suggested, you rattle on about my simply having a margin over you in the debate. That's what I get, for making the effort to show you something you could learn from! And I never have "bashed" you. You're too sensitive.
  • I don't have anything against you personally, but some of your behaviors at WP:MOS and WT:MOS have been very grating (not just to me). I do not go so far as to say disruptive, but close enough for discomfort.
Rubbish. You are too enmeshed, too flustered perhaps, to come to a clear judgement about all this. Simply put, you have been challenged in way that discomfits you, and you're not quite sure how to respond, except with denial, blame-shifting, and projection.
  • I manged to tick people off in my early forays into the MOS, so my horse is not very high.
That's better. Focus on that fact. So have I, ticked people off. I don't care. I am helpful and polite (some would say painfully so!) to anyone who is civilised enough to accept such an approach. But I grow impatient after a while with arrogant editors who seek too rapidly and too inexpertly to "correct" others.
  • Anyway, while this is critical, it is intended constructively, and isn't some declaration of enemyhood or any such nonsense, just a request to tone it down a notch. I will endeavor to do likewise.
Tell you what: how about if you go and do likewise first, and I'll manage my own behaviour my own way, in my own good time. Deal?
  • Another way of putting this is that I find that your actual actions do not mesh with your statements in your #Not editing for a while comments up top.
That is mainly about a ridiculous and disruptive dispute that I chose not to be involved in. Tony knows very well what it's about. He has behaved very poorly, in my opinion: and he knows that is my opinion. I am still unsure that I will stick around, if that dispute is not settled soon.
  • If any of it is relating in some way to my own edit summaries being brusque ("Shorten longwinded example", etc.), they're just short and to the point; ...
O sure! They're OK... aren't they?
  • All that said, I don't think any MOS regular suffers foolish edits lightly, and we all pretty mercilessly revert anything that doesn't work.
Why are you telling me such things? I was here in early 2005. Then, after a one-year break, I've been here since early 2006. The fact that you haven't seen me around doesn't mean I wasn't around, you know.
  • Happens to me and Tony too (both of us have been editing the MOS long and hard enough that we are more apt than most to not do something boneheaded in there, but we still do boneheaded things in there, inevitably). It's nothing personal, and isn't an attack.
You both do boneheaded things. Tony is a fine editor, and I have learned things from him. He, in turn, has learned from dialogue that he and I have had concerning our own joint efforts at MOS. He has said so, publicly. I may well learn from this interaction with you, and from some of your work at MOS and its talk page. But spare me your lecturing, young SMcCandlish. I am not impressed, and am ahead of you on a couple of fronts, I fear. Of course, I don't expect you to see that, any more than I will concede the converse about you.

Now, is that all? I have other things to do.

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 12:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


"One editor's boldness and directness is another editor's arrogance." You labelled your own edit summaries arrogant, remember. Regardless, you are missing my point. It's one thing to be arrogant, annoying or abrasive, and another to repeatedly try to dissuade other editors from editing your material by implied threat of battlegrounding, which you've done twice in one day.
"My record will show that I very rarely edit-war." That hasn't been my experience, and your follow-on comments seem to contradict this. You do go to discussion, but only after reverting. You rarely seem to give actual reasons for your reverts, but just explain them as disagreement. Just a minor point; lots of editors do this, and it's not my real focus here. Demands not to be edited/reverted are part of the focus though. And yes I do categorically distinguish them from ones that are simply bruque or, I think you said, dismissive.
"To the extent that you understood them, right?" If I can't understand them, the average editor won't either. The rest of that passage is now your third dead-horse beating of the fact that I lost one argument to you over one nitpick. I got over it, why can't you? It blows my mind that you cannot seem to grasp that every time you dredge that up you are engaging in one of the most basic logic fallacies that has a name. If you cannot address an argument on its discrete merits, then don't try to address it. This is the second of the major points I've been trying to get across to you that just doesn't seem to register, no matter how many times I try.
"There are a couple of things I put in because I knew the point could be missed by an over-zealous pedant who might take them over-literally, and not apply them with discretion." WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS tend to militate against going there. That said, I do look forward to the more detailed explanation I think you indicated was coming at WT:MOS, so hopefully we'll all just agree.
"A fatuous and unsubstantiated claim": Your use of fatuous here could be interpreted as recursive, since it is no less subjective or concrete than the perception it labelled.
"I'm irritated because you have wasted a lot of my time." And I am because you seem to misinterpret WP:BOLD as "do whatever I like, I don't care what anyone else thinks". The time waste thing, I could probably say something like that as well, except that I don't actually consider consensus-building to be a time waste on WP, even when it is rancorous. It just usually all works out better in the end. I'm not afraid of arguments or hurt feelings in an environment where progress is almost inevitable and sometimes requires such tensions.
"As for defending my arguments, I have no trouble doing that by reason alone – setting aside mere appeals to authority and like fallacies": So why aren't you doing that? You engage in fallacious arguments constantly (especially ad hominem, and the particularly silly "I was right once about something, so I am always right" type of stuff), and appeal to authority more than any other lately-active MOS editor. Most other editors there who mention sources (CMOS, etc., at MOS itself, various SI, NIST, and IOC materials over at MOSNUM, and so on) do so in the context of establishing that it is reasonable for WP:MOS to say this vs. that (i.e., they use it as a source, a check that we aren't just making something up, not an authority); you by contrast have a marked tendency to (also and sometimes solely) use them with the intent to prove someone else wrong to win an argument (i.e. fallaciously appealing to authority in an area where the entire concept of authority is laughably questionable to begin with).
"It is you who persist in obvious error, against the world at large. Every style guide that addresses "that" issue disagrees with you..." - This is precisely what I mean. This has nothing, at all, period to do with anything other than that moribund topic. It has no bearing on ellipses or italicization or anything else, but you fallaciously insist again and again, day after day, now going on week after week, that it does.
"–'I manged to tick people off in my early forays into the MOS, so my horse is not very high.' That's better. Focus on that fact." Sure. Being the one that brought that up (twice in the same thread, I'm pretty sure), I have focused on that fact. I'm rarely willing to be even constructively critical without being self-critical.
"So have I, ticked people off. I don't care." That is obviously a major part of the problem. Most editors, including me, actually do care when we irritate others and try to find some common ground (which sometimes also entails expression our own irritation, so that each side knows where the other stands; thus this thread). You don't seem willing to do that. Even your request to bring this to user talk seems disingenuous, since you just want to dismiss this as a waste of your time.
"Simply put, you have been challenged in way that discomfits you, and you're not quite sure how to respond, except with denial, blame-shifting, and projection." Self-referential again? I don't deny anything; I lost an argument to you. If I get bored enough I may try to dig up evidence for my side of it simply because I think it exists, but I really don't care that much. I'm a bit irked at CMOS editors for recommending something that doesn't make sense, but I can hardly blame you for agreeing with them and several other sources, and in the grand scheme of things a difference of ".)." and ".)" is of no consequence to me. I've even adopted ".)." here as conscientiously as I can because I refuse to be hypocritical about working on a guideline and not following it.
"Tell you what: how about if you go and do likewise first, and I'll manage my own behaviour my own way, in my own good time. Deal?" There is no compromise if one side won't compromise. On the upside, I get tired of grudges pretty quickly and simply tend to forget them, so it's likely that I will do likewise first, simply by accident. I'm not inclined to, because you are coming off as intransigent, even incalcitrant, about this. But the end result will probably slowly become more positive just through entropy. Heh.
"That is mainly about a ridiculous and disruptive dispute": I imagined so, but that wasn't the point. What you say you were fed up with about Wikipedia/other editors is how you seem to be acting to me. Since we're throwing around pschology jargon, this can be perceived as transferrence.
"Why are you telling me such things?" Because you are not acting as if aware of them, and demanding in edit summaries that your edits be left alone as if you are Nobel Prizewinner or are editing on the authority of WP:OFFICE.
"You both do boneheaded things." Yep; I freely said it first. I think you essentially conceded something about your own edits sometimes, so at least we both know that the other isn't a megalomaniac.
"any more than I will concede the converse about you": That was already clear. I don't think we know enough about each other do so anyway. At least we now know what is irking us about each other. Some information is better than no information, even if it uncomfortable to get to. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing's for sure: we both talk a lot. I'm going to stop in a moment, now that feelings are sufficiently vented. I strongly disagree with your analysis at several points – to the extent that it can properly be called "analysis", rather than wild surmises and allegations about, for example, my "demanding" not to have my contributions edited! But there is obviously no point labouring things. Thanks once more for bringing the dispute here instead of clogging the MOS talk page, which is already overflowing. I don't know how much useful collaboration we can do, since I find your style as repellent as you find mine. And I judge you as self-deceiving as you judge me! Enjoy your editing at Wikipedia. Let's learn and move on.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 20:00, 19 October 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 11:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of my contribution at User:Oxfordtravels

First off, it wasn't a "contribution", it was placing a message on the wrong place. Messages for editors go on their Talk page, period/full stop, otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up. And if you had already placed a message on their talk page, then there's no point putting one on the User page, is there? As for your alleged clues:

  • Clue 3: That is no bona fide user, but a cynical spammer, wasting the time of editors like me who edit pages disrupted by that spammer's sole activity: a commercial activity.
So? Whether someone is a "bona fide user", a cynical spammer, a happy dancer, or sad Rockies fan makes absolutely no difference as to where messages for them go, since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up if you don't place messages for editors go on their Talk page.
  • Clue 4: If it were a genuine user, the page could be re-blanked by that genuine user.
Whether someone is a "genuine user", a cynical spammer, a happy dancer, or a sad Rockies fan makes absolutely no difference about blanking or not blanking the page, especially since whoever it is (be they "genuine user", cynical spammer, happy dancer, or sad Rockies fan) isn't even going to know about, since (once again) messages for editors go on their Talk page, period/full stop, otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up.
  • Clue 5: If there were never occasions when editing another's userpage was appropriate, the system would not allow us to do so.
And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a pair of rollerskates. What Clue 5 has to do with messages for editors going on their Talk page (otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up) is fairly mysterious. There is SOME connection, right?
  • Clue 6: Patronising and sarcasm do not win friends.
What makes you think that's my goal?
  • Clue 7: I don't want to be your friend anyway.
Which explains why you think that being patronizing and sarcastic is a-okay for you. Got it. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" gambit. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, it wasn't a "contribution",...
It was.
  • ...it was placing a message on the wrong place.
By your lights, perhaps.
  • Messages for editors go on their Talk page, period/full stop, otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up.
Yes. I put a message there also. But why the "period/full stop"? My duplicating the message on the userpage itself did nothing to cancel the lighting up of that message you speak of.
  • And if you had already placed a message on their talk page, then there's no point putting one on the User page, is there?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My considered judgement was that in this case there was a point. Apparently not in your view, but then... how is your judgement relevant, in the present case?
  • Clue 3: That is no bona fide user, but a cynical spammer, wasting the time of editors like me who edit pages disrupted by that spammer's sole activity: a commercial activity.
So? Whether someone is a "bona fide user", a cynical spammer, a happy dancer, or sad Rockies fan makes absolutely no difference as to where messages for them go, since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up if you don't place messages for editors go on their Talk page.
I disagree. Editors have the capacity edit in userpages; sometimes, in extreme cases, a worthwhile end may be served by doing just that. I judged this to be such a case. Who knows? Perhaps my doing so encouraged others to root out the spamming by this user (user in the worst sense!).
  • Clue 4: If it were a genuine user, the page could be re-blanked by that genuine user.
Whether someone is a "genuine user", a cynical spammer, a happy dancer, or a sad Rockies fan makes absolutely no difference about blanking or not blanking the page, especially since whoever it is (be they "genuine user", cynical spammer, happy dancer, or sad Rockies fan) isn't even going to know about, since (once again) messages for editors go on their Talk page, period/full stop, otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up.
It makes no difference? Again I disagree with your absolutist, exceptionless deliverances. Again, I have explained above.
  • Clue 5: If there were never occasions when editing another's userpage was appropriate, the system would not allow us to do so.
And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a pair of rollerskates. What Clue 5 has to do with messages for editors going on their Talk page (otherwise they don't see it since the "New messages" banner doesn't light up) is fairly mysterious. There is SOME connection, right?
The opening gesture here is superficially effective, but only at the crassest rhetorical level. Since probably no one is focusing on this except you and me, that is a waste of time. I can see through it. The analogy to grandmas, wheels and rollerskates is inept. If you want to waste even more time attempting to persuade me otherwise, go ahead. The connection you ask for is this: You say messages should go on users' talkpages. I agree, and I agree with the reason you give. But nothing you say so far convinces me that messages should not also go elsewhere, where an editor judges that the general good is served by putting it elsewhere as well. That the system enables our editing userpages also is evidence that in some cases this may be useful. For what other purpose might the system enable our doing that?
  • Clue 6: Patronising and sarcasm do not win friends.
What makes you think that's my goal?
Nothing. This was a way of saying that patronising and sarcasm are not in accord with the civility that we expect at Wikipedia, between editors who are working in good faith to maintain its standards. I had thought that would be obvious.
  • Clue 7: I don't want to be your friend anyway.
Which explains why you think that being patronizing and sarcastic is a-okay for you. Got it. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" gambit.
Being patronising and sarcastic is sometimes useful, in response to such behaviour in others. Not always. In the present case, I thought it very likely that you could take it with equanimity, and that it would do no harm. What was your excuse?
But in the end, we have simply foxed with each other, and we are unlikely to persuade each other of anything of value. This is not a waste of time, or in any way damaging, if we both enjoy it. Did you enjoy it? I did! But I've had enough now. Have you? I suggest we stop, and get back to our own beds.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chopin prelude

I haven't had a chance to look at the Chopin prelude you mentioned, and I'm looking forward to doing so. BUT Chopin isn't very representative of common-practice music. Some nocturnes end up in different keys than they started in, unusual chords are introduced, etc. I wouldn't put a Chopin example up front in any music theory article. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love it!

Thanks for sending the example along. It's the Fdouble sharp that is so brilliant! We hear the 6-4 and know that the C♯ and E need to resolve down, but then that Fdouble sharp comes in. Suddenly we're not sure if the D♯ and B♯ are the resolution tones or continue a pattern of lower-neighbors to the tones of the 6-4! And there are all kinds of little details that keep the ambiguity going: is the 9th measure from the end REALLY the V7 chord, or is the B♯ still more of a lower-neighbor to the C♯ than a leading tone? I.e., will the 8th measure from the end be a further prolongation of the 6-4 or the real resolution to I. It's the latter, but he makes us wait an extra eighth note before we can be sure!

Of course, we need go no further than many classical cadenzas to see I64s put on pause for a minute or two before returning from a lunch break to resolve those damn notes!

One really great notational, not harmonic, detail in the Chopin: 7th measure from the end, beat three. I don't think I've ever seen this before: the dotted quarter note simultaneously shares graphical elements with TWO other rhythms: its head with an eighth note and its stem with a double-dotted quarter note. There are similar graphical oddities on page 2 (eighth, double-dotted quarter, and half all together) but somehow they don't seem so strange as this measure. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Chopin did stuff like that fairly frequently, I think. The first prelude[1] comes readily to mind (try and notate that with a computer notation program ;) ). - Rainwarrior 05:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've chuckled at the notational oddities in that prelude since a long time ago! It's really incredible how by allowing just the smallest of rounding errors, he's able to simplify the notation dramatically. :) (MSC)
I think there's a lot in Chopin that calls for careful study, because of his masterly harmony and voice leading. Wahoo, I'm curious about your remark. Surely if Chopin does something – especially with such assurance – that by itself places squarely in the canon of Western musical practice! (Are my predilections showing?) Rainwarrior, I've dragged out the old opus 28 number 1, and will look through it again. Myke, I share your view in general terms, but I'll have to consider more closely what you say about the role of Fdouble sharp. More later, perhaps. (Thanks for the reminder about how to mark up the double sharp.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If Chopin's usages are idiosyncratic and at odds with other composers', then it isn't common practice. Neither are idiosyncrasies by Bach or other composers. No reason not to mention them, but our first priority should be usages which span a wide spectrum of composers. We wouldn't use Gesualdo as an example of typical Renaissance practice. N.B. I'm not referring to this example, but just Chopin in general. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It all depends on what we're talking about. In terms of the first example of a given music theory concept, you're right, Chopin is rarely the best choice. But he is enough a part of the common practice period (and important enough) that I think his use of a given device is worth writing about in the article on the device. To take the Gesualdo example, I wouldn't put his music near the beginning of an article on Renaissance counterpoint. But at the same time, I don't think the article would be complete if it didn't delve into his (or other similar composers') music. Cheers. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If the ways of Chopin were idiosyncratic, bizarre, aesthetically inept, or wildly at odds with other practice, we might set them aside; but part of what makes Chopin great is that they are not. His practice is in accord with the deepest currents of the tradition that he embellishes with such glitter and charm, and his consummately skilled and unusual management of surface detail is the best evidence for this. We might indeed start with similar reservations about Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and others in the Pantheon, but then the same consideration should immediately secure their place in it for us. You might choose Palestrina as the best exemplar of Renaissance counterpoint. His practice was of course held up as a norm by generations, and the principles supposed to underlie his work are even now instilled in students of composition. Yet Palestrina himself might fail an exam based on those principles, if he were not schooled first by the modern Priests of Propriety. We too easily accept over-simplifications as eternal verity. The world of music is more complex than our simple catechism would have it, just as the world we inhabit is, most regrettably but no less ineluctably, riddled with mysteries and apparently irresoluble complexities. Faced with such a world, the best response is to be analytical but pluralist, rather than fundamentalist but schismatic. For those who like anagrams: be more Vedantist than Adventist! Simplify where simplifying works and is well founded; for the rest, be ecumenical until theory advances beyond its present incapacity.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
But setting aside such overwrought and noetic prose: What really interests me is this: I asked for analyses on the assumption that the underlying harmony was dominant and on the competing assumption that it was tonic (the core of the recent dispute). No one seems to have considered that. It's very interesting! Play through the three measures in question – just the right hand notes after the big chord at the start, but accompanied by four full root-position dominant (major) chords in each measure with the left hand, and then the same but with root-position tonic chords. (Or better, break the chords, and play four single notes ascending in each measure, starting with the root.) Then do it all again. In both cases you'll hear clashes at the minor ninth and major seventh – no big deal in itself, of course. But with which chord does Chopin's right-hand part work, and sound naturally accompanied? In particular, I asked about the B and the A, towards the beginning. Listen to them. Now switch from listening to theory: how are we to explain Chopin's choice of B and A, rather than B# and A#? Repeat the process of listening, with the chords, substituting B# and A#. Discuss.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Entertaining though this exercise is, I don't think it's much on point. We couldn't use this as an example in an article on Inversion, and just the fact that the sonority is itself ornamented doesn't make it a legitimate chord. I could probably find you an example of a 4-3 suspension in which the 4 is itself ornamented somehow, but that doesn't make the 5/4 sonority a chord. This kind of thing is the fundamental thesis of Heinrich Schenker's work. Much as it pains me to be on Tony's side, I don't think this example is very helpful. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Takemitsu

Hi Noetica, thanks for your copyedits! I'm having trouble finding the time to do everything needed for FA status - so the help is much appreciated. Matt.kaner 13:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates as leads

I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage and tell me what you think? - Peregrine Fisher 07:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rei militaris

How are you, buddy. Sometimes you need a break, but that is all part of the process of learning to interface and negotiate even with nasty wrong people. For the rei militari thing, the "error" is not ours - that's the name used on the site. As far as I can perceive, in history a certain small percentage use epitoma rei militari. I suppose you might take it as the dative of specification or some such thing. What sort of an epitoma? Well, a military one (dative case). But that isn't what the majority say. They say rei militaris, probably the objective genitive, the object of the epitomizing. Anyway I got no objection to "correcting" the source's title. I don't think the source will care, but if he does, we can change it back.Dave 16:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Dave: I don't know which page you mean. I remember making some edits involving De re militari a while ago, "correcting" something as I thought. Please point to the page that you have in mind. I may not have had all my wits about me at the time, and have sanctioned some sort of a composite like De re militaris. I'm speculating. Looking forward to your clarification. [Posted at User_talk:Botteville.]
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No problemo. In the article for Castra, which is nearly entirely my baby, check the history tab, several entries down, find yourself, click on "last", compare what I had with what you changed it to. Then go to the article, find that location, which is a link, click on the link. "De re militaris" of course would be wrong - did I say that? who knows. The question in my mind anyway and I thought it was perhaps in yours is should it be epitoma rei militaris (the genitive) or epitoma rei militari (dative). The ablative would be de re militari as militaris is an i-stem. It goes res, rei, rei, rem, re, res, rerum, rebus res rebus - good Lord how it comes flooding back. Not for nothing do we repeat that stuff over and over commuting to college or sitting on the toilet. Sometimes I still do it just for the fun of it. But you know, I still don't think in it. It is still synthetic for me. So, I cannot claim to be an expert and neither probably can most people in the field.Dave 23:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
O, that article. No, just as we should prefer the bungle theory to the conspiracy theory, we should prefer it also to the more-subtle-knowledge-of-Latin-than-ours theory. Look at this page, which is the gateway to the one you cite. There it has one of the two correct forms: Epitoma rei militaris, with two correct genitives. It is clearly just an oversight, probably conditioned by the existence of that alternative form De rei militari with datives, that accounts for the inconsistency. I'm sure of this, having researched and fixed the same thing in the writing of an excellent Latinist's work outside of Wikipedia at about the same time. That's what prompted me to search for the same error hereabouts. The owner of that errant site should be alerted. Since you cite it, will you do that?
Good to chat. See you around the articles.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I sent them some email. Meanwhile here is some useful Latin I got from a placque on someone's wall: non carborundum illegitimis. I get around quite a lot but very slow as the slower one goes the better one does. At least that is true for me. Bonne chance.Dave 10:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodent

Yep, it's like sudden relief after a dozen years of bad constipation. I spent all afternoon handing out Greens how-to-votes. Let's hope the make-up of the Senate isn't too awful. And Maxine, well, that's just wonderful. Hoping for decent ABC funding and that finally the government will get off their backs editorially. Tony (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)