User talk:DavidRF/archive 4

ELGAR'S ENIGMA VARIATIONS

Dear DavidRF, Could you please help me. Someone again and again tried to delete and mess up information about my theory on Elgar's Enigma Variations which I put in this article. Several times he also deleted the reference to my book, which was published in 2007. Again and again I restored the article, see Discussion page! Please stop this guy! Thank you in advance!81.205.147.164 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic

Thanks for your comments and I will take this into account in future--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Images on the right

Re this edit: The manual of style says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." Care to rethink that edit? Eubulides (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I had forgotten about that other guideline. Eubulides (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

rudy york

Hi. Where is the source for that statement (as to 50)? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Don Giovanni

Thanks for trying to help with this. Please see Talk:Don_Giovanni#New_section:The_Music_of_Don_Giovanni. Best. --Kleinzach 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 10 (Mozart)

Yes the key in C major but it modulates to G major so after the modulation the subdominant is C, not F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Orlandini (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Ok as you want but in my opinion even if the sonata is called "Sonata in C", C is the tonic in the frist part of the main theme, then it modulates to G, but G has not really the function of dominant there, rather G is more the new tonic, and so when the recap do CGC instead of CGG as the first two times, at that moment the last part in C has more a subdominant character, you see? Anyway do as you want :) Happy new year! Alberto Orlandini (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

Afghan

A quick note that I have reverted this; unfortunately as an encyclopaedia we have to assume we will be around for many years and not all our readers are American. For example, since I was born "the Afghan war" has always meant the Anglo-Afghan War to me. I'm sure to millions of other people, "the Afghan war" means the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and of course to today's generation of Americans, it means the 2001 invasion. To title a template simply "War correspondents killed in the Afghan war" tells me those are the names of people killed a hundred years ago, tells a Muslim that they're the names of people killed 30 years ago and tells an American they're the names of people killed in the past ten years. THat was why I changed "War in Afghanistan" to "American-led invasion of Afghanistan", exactly parallel to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which has also had renaming issues in the past though). You could use "2001" instead of "American", but that would look a little silly if we referred to the "1867 invasion of Afghanistan" and the "1979 invasion of Afghanistan" articles as well. I'm of the opinion we're best to reference it based on the two armies involved; in this case, the United States and Afghanistan. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Query alert

Hello David,

I'd appreciate your taking a look at the query at the talk page for Symphony No. 31 (Mozart).

Thanks very much, Opus33 (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven 5th piano concerto

I agree. DuncanDugan (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Do you think a protective link should be set-up on the page? Its getting annoying. Every couple of weeks or so, someone vandalizes the page. I think it needs a level of security so only established users can edit. It has enough daily traffic and is a fairly noteworthy subject to justify doing it. RT6543 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NEW MESSAGE After a few attempts with some administrators, I was unable to secure semi-protection for the page. They felt vandalism every few days does not warrant protection. They said basically the vandalism would have to be generally disruptive in nature, making it difficult to revert to a correct version of the page for the protection to be inserted. But on another subject, if I can ask, I noticed on the Dow Discussion Page; there are like 40 sections. Many of the topics have been resolved or are just not relevant to the subject matter. Additionally some topics revolve around discussions that are not pertinent time-wise; like the Dow Components Chronological piece. Is the right course of action to delete those sections too make the page more slim? In its current format, the page reads a bit too long with outdated questioned paragraphs. RT6543 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DavidRF. You have new messages at Belovedfreak's talk page.
Message added 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BelovedFreak 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Template Bach cantatas

Do you think I could do that, change the template? How? - I'll finish moving and then check here. Did I say how tremendously helpful the template is for accessing them one by one? It is!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart Request

Dave, could you make an .svg chart for the May 6, 2010 Flash Crash article? I think a chart of just that week in the DJIA would add a lot to the look and meaning of the page. I saw your charts on other pages and thought they were good. Thanks --NortyNort (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the data. I spent some time looking for the data or some free image of the chart but came up with nothing.--NortyNort (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DavidRF. You have new messages at Jubileeclipman's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Haydn and the Duke of York

Since there's no reasoning with your friend, perhaps you could find something in the small preapproved list of references (Brown, Landon) about the legend of Haydn dedicating a symphony to the Duke of York. Incarnatus (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything. I don't see the value in this particular tidbit. What's the point in debunking an apocryphal legend that nobody remembers?DavidRF (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a legend? Didn't Haydn dedicate one of the London symphonies to that guy? James470 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I had to check edit histories to try and figure out what was going on here. As far as I could tell, the issue is pertaining to the following sentence added and then reverted to the lede of Symphony No. 86 (Haydn): "There was a rumor once that the work was dedicated to the Duke of York.". I didn't add it and I didn't revert it. I hadn't heard of it, he called it a legend and the sentence is phrased in such a way as to imply that its apocryphal. Is this the wrong article? Are we talking about one of the London ones? Why are we discussing this on my talk page?DavidRF (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was mistaken. It was one of the Paris symphonies, which makes it kind of weird for it to be dedicated to British nobility. It's something I heard a long time ago and the details got mixed up in my mind. As for why it's being discussed on your talk page, it seems to be because people are under the impression that the article owner will listen to you but not to them. (I know, Wikipedia is not supposed to have article ownership—it happens just the same). James470 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Googling around yesterday, I found a possible mention about how the military parts of the Military Symphony may have been based on the Duke of York's band playing in St. James Park and Vauxhall Gardens. I'd have to dig a bit more to get something worth mentioning.

As for the "owner", I get the impression he doesn't like some of these throwaway trivia lines from some listening guides, especially when they deal with outdated scholarship (e.g. "at one time people thought <insert trivia bit here>, but they don't any more"). Some of these bits are more interesting than others and I might not personally revert them but a lot of the time I don't care enough either way to get involved. I suppose if I can find something truly interesting then I might expand the bit to include more clarification and context. Maybe that's what they were hoping for bringing it to me, but they could really do that themselves.

Someone should expand the article on #86 though. It deserves more than it currently has.DavidRF (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

With some trepidation I added a couple of things to a few Haydn symphony articles almost a year ago. What I wrote still stands probably because you and Oboecrack got to it first. Given what has happened just now, I think he would just have reverted what I wrote if he had gotten to it first. At some point all the strategizing just distracts from the research.

If anything pops up about that symphony in connection to contemporary sacred music I might add it if I'm not too put off by the game. James470 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone "should expand the article on #86 though." Isn't that what Flutedude tried to do? Besides the apocryphal tale "nobody" remembers (guess James counts for nothing), Flutedude also added a line about the minuet (which was unmentioned besides its being an Allegretto in 3/4). It wasn't much: he dipped his toe in the water and a shark bit him. Incarnatus (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're "James" point is invalid. We were both confused because you didn't say which symphony it was. The Duke of York has potential London implications, not Paris. I don't have enough to overrule this particular revert, I'm sorry.DavidRF (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm. On the one hand, Incarnatus makes a good point about the minuet being practically unmentioned before and after Flutedude's edit. As it turns out, it is precisely in connexion to the minuet that the Duke of York is mentioned. (I looked up Talking about Symphonies in the library today).

But on the other hand, Symphony nr. 86 gets an entire chapter in the Hopkins book and significant portions in Bernard Harrison's book. Plus more than the minimum number of expected paragraphs in Brown, Heartz, Hodgson, Landon, etc. With this symphony being so well covered in respectable sources, I don't think it should such a big priority in unrespectable sources like Wikipedia. James470 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is all this discussion from editors who weren't involved in either the edit or the revert happening on *my* talk page? How am I supposed to respond to this stuff?DavidRF (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you how to respond: DELETE THE WHOLE THREAD. Wikipedia is nothing more than a public restroom wall, and the most satisfying thing you can do is remove whatever has accumulated, regardless of quality.

But if you're not ready to accept the harsh truth about Wikipedia, your response should be TO WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT THE MINUTE OF #86, anything, even if it's false. Who knows, it might stick, coming from you.

Well, I've got my first orchestral rehearsal in months to go to in a couple of hours. The conductor, he knows a million times more about Haydn symphonies than has ever been deleted off Wikipedia (and that's no faint praise). Flutedude (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had known I could just script your response like Flutedude did, I would've had you say

I, David, acknowledge the Haydn symphony articles are pretty crappy, because we are more concerned with enforcing our favorite format than with summing up the knowledge on this music.

Not that the Haydn mass articles are any better. They're crappy, too, for very different reasons. Incarnatus (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)