# User talk:Hyacinth

Active discussions
1. Hello, you've reached User:Hyacinth, Mikhail Abraham.
Note: I currently do have reasonable access to computers. However, I may be away from Wikipedia.

## template:user x and template:user x/doc

You are the author of these two templates. What is the distinction between them? Do we need two templates? {{user pt-2}}, for example, uses {{user x}} but appears to work if I change it to use {{user x/doc}} which is used by the majority of language user templates. There are only a handful of these template that use {{user x}}; ok to switch them to {{user x/doc}}?

Trappist the monk (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that you changed both of {{user x}} and {{user x/doc}} but I don't think that those changes produce correct results. For example, compare:
{{user pt-2}} – this looks mor-or-less as I assume it should
{{user st-2}} – no documentation about the user st-2 template itself
{{user fr}} – also no doc
and, those changes blew-away the changes that I made yesterday to {{user x/doc}}. Yesterday I changed the parameters supplied to {{languages}} in {{user x/doc}} to use Module:ISO 639 name. There is a similar call to {{languages}} in {{user x}}; similar but not identical. Why?
Trappist the monk (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
And now I see that you have reverted yourself which puts us back to where we were when I first asked about these templates. So what happens now? Do you intend to fix the issues that I described? If not, will you do me the courtesy of answering the questions that I have asked so that I might fix the templates myself?
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
If you think the two pages are redundant then why don't you get rid of one? If you want me to do something besides deliver your newspaper on time, you should have asked, "Please do __," and not asked why without presenting a problem. If you want an answer within a certain time period you should set a deadline, present an urgent problem rather than a theoretical curiosity, and, my grandma taught me that you should say please. Even if you're right, even if you're friends, even if you're enemies, and even if you're the boss. Hyacinth (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I have not asked anything from you except answers to my questions so that I could understand why you created two templates that more-or-less do the same work. With that knowledge, I can know what to do about {{user x}}. What I got from you was changes to the two templates that were then reverted when I pointed out that the changes did not work. The changes and the reverts were accompanied by silence from you. Now, after I asked you about intentions, you chastise me for being uncivil. Thanks, but that isn't helpful so I'll noodle it out on my own.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If you wanted me to "noodle it" you could have asked me to, rather than objecting to my "noodling". Is "noodling" an "al dente" reference? Hyacinth (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
All that I wanted from you was answers to my questions. You elected to act instead of answer. Of course I objected to your actions because those actions produced incorrect results.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
If you want me to tell you my intentions then it might help if you first shared your intentions. That way your question may be more clarified, and I may be able to give you a better answer faster (I'm not talking about courtesy, I'm talking about results). Hyacinth (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that my intentions were made clear by the last question of my first post here: There are only a handful of these template that use {{user x}}; ok to switch them to {{user x/doc}}? I know now that it is ok to switch those few templates to {{user x/doc}} because that has been done.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for saying thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If you want to see the differences between the two templates code then click "Edit" and (select all: Ctrl-A, then) copy the code of {{User x}}, go to {{User x/doc}}, click "Edit", select all (Ctrl-A) and paste, then click "Show changes" (or the other way around).
If you had looked you would see that I initially created {{User x}} 13:44, March 17, 2014‎ as a redirect to {{User x/doc}}, which I did not create until 22:25, March 17, 2014‎. This means that my original intention was not to have duplicate templates. Presumably I was confused by or concerned with the ambiguity of a template used to create template documentation, and that users may have mixed {{User x/doc}} and {{User x}} up.
If you look at {{user pt-2}} with {{User x}} there is something missing compared to {{User x/doc}}.
{{User x}} reads:
• This template will automatically add your page to the following categories:
rather than {{User x/doc}}, which reads:
• This template will automatically add your page to the following categories:
It appears that {{User x/doc}} should be copied to {{User x}} and all templates using {{User x/doc}} should use {{User x}}. Then {{User x/doc}} may serve as the documentation for {{User x}} (unless {{User x}} was redirected to {{User x/doc}} and the documentation can be placed at {{User x/doc/doc}} Hyacinth (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)). Hyacinth (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, what's the problem? Hyacinth (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that {{user x}} exists and is for the most part unused and contains code that more-or-less duplicates the code in {{user x/doc}}, probably nothing any longer. It would seem to me that the correct path forward is to move {{user x/doc}} to {{user x doc}} because that is the function performed by the template; {{user x doc/doc}} becomes the documentation page for {{user x doc}}. The language user templates are all modified to use {{user x doc}}. {{user x}} and {{user x/doc}} can be deleted or re-purposed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks. User:The Earwig alerted me to this discussion. I recently synched Template:User x/doc to Template:User x. I am now proposing to run a bot to change the parameter in the relevant transclusions of Template:Documentation from Template:User x/doc to Template:User x. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsherrAWBBOT 2. After all transclusions have been changed, I will move the "noinclude" contents from the base page to the doc subpage, and add {{Documentation}} in their place. I invite your comments here or there. Thanks very much. --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

## Maple Leaf Rag Fix Needed

Hello, Hyacinth. It's great that you wrote up an excerpt of Maple Leaf Rag, but please correct the time signature when you have a chance. It should be 2/4 (2 quarter note beats per measure), not 4/2 (4 half note beats per measure).

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for asking. Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:A Hard Day's Night melody.png

Thanks for uploading File:A Hard Day's Night melody.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

## Nomination of Equivalence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Equivalence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equivalence until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

## A Dobos torte for you!

 has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

14:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

## A suggestion when you are notified of a proposed deletion

I don't understand what you're saying. I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#Girls' toys and games. Are you giving me a suggestion (a way to help save articles from deletion?) or asking for a suggestion from me? Hyacinth (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I am an active member of the rescue squad. It helps to have the help of others when dealing with proposed deletions. They aren't 'votes' but numbers and resources matter. That's all. But maybe you knew that already. If so, I apologize for taking up your time. Cheers. 20:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I could help the rescue squad by participating, or that I could get help from the rescue squad? Either way it seems like an implicit compliment. Hyacinth (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually both. I noticed your participation at the deletion discussion of Equivalence, and noted it was not listed at the Article Rescue Squad. All is well that ends well. Prost. 20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Mutually beneficial. You can do good by doing well, and vice versa. It is good to succeed. 21:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

## Anyone can edit listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Food issue

The article Food issue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is way too broad to be a disambiguation page, and is not a useful technical term as an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC(talk) 17:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

## Nomination of Food issue for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Food issue is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food issue until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC(talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Hyacinth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

## Category:Weekly television shows has been nominated for discussion

Category:Weekly television shows, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Dizzy's Business Major seventh chord.mid

Thanks for uploading File:Dizzy's Business Major seventh chord.mid. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Dizzy's Business Major seventh chord.png

Thanks for uploading File:Dizzy's Business Major seventh chord.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Charlie Parker - Au Privave - circle progression dominant seventh.mid

Thanks for uploading File:Charlie Parker - Au Privave - circle progression dominant seventh.mid. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Charlie Parker - Au Privave - circle progression dominant seventh.png

Thanks for uploading File:Charlie Parker - Au Privave - circle progression dominant seventh.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

## Anacrouse

Hello, Hyacinth. Thank you for your file on Commons. Please could you add this for french anacrouse : Début de Valet will ich dir geben, BWV 736. L'anacrouse est notée en rouge. Regards, --Sidonie61 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Which file are you thanking me for? What do you want me to add (something related to Bach and anacrusis)? Hyacinth (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:No personal headings

Template:No personal headings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 11:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:No personal comments

Template:No personal comments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 11:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:No personal summaries

Template:No personal summaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 11:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

## Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:No personal headings

Template:No personal headings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 14:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:No personal comments

Template:No personal comments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 14:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:No personal summaries

Template:No personal summaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 14:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For real this time! Hyacinth (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Tristan chord as dominant with appoggiaturas Chailley.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Tristan chord as dominant with appoggiaturas Chailley.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

## Osgood curve

Please see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing and WP:CITEVAR. All of the references in Osgood curve are cited, with in-text parenthetical references for the ones where it makes sense to name the author as part of the article text and footnotes for the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Free reeds

A tag has been placed on Template:Free reeds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

## Example in "Degree (music)"

Please have a look at the new section I added to Talk:Degree_(music), following your modification of the first example. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing secondary dominant.mid

Thanks for uploading File:I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing secondary dominant.mid. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing secondary dominant.png

Thanks for uploading File:I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing secondary dominant.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2019 special circular

 Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

## Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

## Barbershop seventh

Nearly a decade ago, in Harmonic seventh chord, you added this quote from Gage Averill's book: "There's a chord in a barbershop that makes the nerve ends tingle....We might all our chord a Super-Seventh!" Is that second sentence a typo, for "We might call our chord..."? I don't see how else to understand it, but didn't want to change a quote without checking the source. Rigadoun (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch! If interested you can read the quote yourself: [1]. Hyacinth (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

## Ludus Tonalis graphic

Greetings. Your nice score excerpt from Ludus Tonalis was converted a couple of years ago by DatBot to a much smaller file that unfortunately lost too much resolution. You’ll see now there are staff lines and stems missing. I don’t know what the best solution is, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. MJ (tc) 17:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I uploaded versions with less and less resolution, stopping with a 9 KB version (only 3 KB more than DatBot's version and lower heighth and width). Hyacinth (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That should have been sufficient, but the bot ambushed it again a few days later. I wrote a query at the bot’s talk page. If you were to just revert to the previous version, would the bot do it again? MJ (tc) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@DatGuy, Mark R Johnson, and Jerome Kohl: I wonder what the criteria which triggers DatBot to "Reduce size of non-free image". Size isn't even mentioned at W:NFCC. A brief explanation of DatBot is found at User:DatBot, but presumably DatBot would be more helpful and easier to understand if it explained how it works more fully (since the page it cites, W:NFCC, does not). Hyacinth (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot does not decide which files to go through automatically, but rather the {{non-free reduce}} template is added. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89 and Ronhjones:
Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Size relates to WP:NFCC#3b. Generally, non-free images should be at most 0.1 MP. There are more details at WP:IMAGERES. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The "File history" does not have clickable "revert" buttons. Hyacinth (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination of David Bouchard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Bouchard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bouchard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

## Category:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited L-system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Purpose needed

Template:Purpose needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

## Category:Kenneth L. Hale Award recipients has been nominated for discussion

Category:Kenneth L. Hale Award recipients, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

## Category:Victoria A. Fromkin Lifetime Service Award recipients has been nominated for discussion

Category:Victoria A. Fromkin Lifetime Service Award recipients, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Figuration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Figure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Cited source: Capuzzo, Guy. Neo-Riemannian Theory and the Analysis of Pop-Rock Music, pp. 186–87, Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 177–199. Autumn 2004. Capuzzo uses "+" to indicate major and "-" to indicate minor (C+, C-).

In your music example for "Ostinato for Radiohead's 'Creep'..." you have chord symbols above 4 triads of tied whole notes, "G+, B+, C+, C-". I'm not sure why you used the "+" sign, as that is generally notation for an augmented triad, not a major one. The actual notes below are all major chords, not augmented, so this is wrong, or at least misleading.

Although a minus "-" sign is often used (but not recommended by notation experts) to indicate "minor", and the last chord is indeed a minor triad, the more conventional symbol is a lower-case "m". I trust you will understand my concern. I feel the notation line should be more like this: "G B C Cm".

Shermanbay (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Shermanbay

There's more than one way to notate chords and chord quality, and different people have different preferences and references use different systems. Pluses and minuses may also notate the syntonic comma. Hyacinth (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded a new version and added a note in the citations mentioning that Capuzzo uses a different notation system. Hyacinth (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

## Minkowski island

(for context)

Hyacinth, you redirected Minkowski island to Koch snowflake. No doubt they are connected, but the page does not mention Minkowski island. The only page the does, besides the original redirect, is Fractal antenna where there is a picture. SpinningSpark 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed that on that page you made an edit saying Vicsek fractal is a synonym, so surely it should redirect there (although that article does not mention Minkowski either). It looks like the same thing to me anyhow. SpinningSpark 17:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed Hyacinth (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Is it fixed? Minkowski sausage is an open curve, Minkowski island is a closed curve You have made them synonyms. SpinningSpark 23:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
What you asked for is a mention of "island" on the page "Koch snowflake". If you've looked at that article the lead says that a "Koch snowflake", "Koch island", and "Koch curve", are different names for the same thing. I have not magically created a synonym that predates me. Hyacinth (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirects should lead to articles about the topic that covers the redirected term, not to articles which mention the topic that covers the redirected term. A subspecies of dove should redirect to the article about doves, not to the article about dove shaped objects. Hyacinth (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I have not magically created a synonym... Yes you have. The lead says Koch island is a synonym of Koch snowflake. It does not say that Minkowski island is a synonym. I am no expert, but it appears self evident to me that these are not the same object. Nor is Minkowski sausage for the obvious reason stated above. SpinningSpark 12:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you just write two articles about the Minkowski sausage and the Minkowski curve? In the meantime, could you define a fractal sausage and a fractal curve for my future use? Hyacinth (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Because right now I am busy writing other things. Because I am a volunteer and I will work on what I choose, not what is convenient for someone else. Because it gets right up my nose when other editors tell me what I should be doing. In the meantime, stop inserting stuff you are just guessing at in these articles based on images or names that are vaguely similar. You clearly know absolutely nothing about mathematics and you are very clearly not getting the information from reliable sources. Leave it to someone who knows what they are doing. SpinningSpark 08:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
You could convince me and I would never disagree with you again about this issue, or you could break the rules of Wikipedia and personally attack me (WP:NPA).
A question is not a demand, even when it is a suggestion (because a suggestion is not a demand).
If you do not have time for something that is not my fault.
Given that we have not discussed mathematics, but instead have discussed titles (English class, not math class), and that you have used no math to support your position regarding titles (even an unsupported claim to holding a mathematics degree), I suggest that you quit sticking things up your nose and keep on collaborating and discussing things. Hyacinth (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what interests you more: fractals or antennas? Hyacinth (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well electronics is my background, but I have to say I find fractals way more fascinating than antennas. SpinningSpark 12:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh! I forgot about sausages. Many users might prefer sausage to both fractals and antennas. Hyacinth (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

## You are confused about the meaning of "depreciated" and "deprecated"

Please look up the definition of "depreciated" (meaning decreased in monetary value) and "deprecated" (meaning no longer supported by software). I will fix your new category names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sometime synonyms. Hyacinth (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Not at all, which is why I suggested checking a dictionary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative, so I suggest you don't waste your time, especially since me being wrong doesn't change the results.
However, you may use references to convince me that the roots of the words are different, if they are. Reasons always seem more convincing than assertions.
Depreciate: "to lower in honor or esteem".
Deprecate: "play down: make little of". Hyacinth (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The definition of "deprecate" in question is the third one at M-W: "to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of (something, such as a software product) in favor of a newer or better alternative". That's the definition being used in the "deprecated parameter" and "deprecated template" categories that you were tagging. "Depreciate" is not used in a programming context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Quoting is almost always more convincing than pointing. Hyacinth (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Should Category:Depreciated Portal:Literature pages be moved to Category:Deprecated Portal:Literature pages (since it contains, "pages that...have since been removed or replaced," and not pages which are cheaper than they used to be)? Hyacinth (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Notice that I didn't create Category:Depreciated Portal:Literature pages, and that is what I meant when I said there was a time and a place when someone besides me used the two terms to mean the same thing. Do you want me to do the move? Hyacinth (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes please, that would be helpful. I am unfamiliar with the process around category moves/renames, despite having read WP:CATMOVE a couple of times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Since nothing links to the category, and no templates appear to place pages in the category, the main task is recategorizing the old category members to the new category. Once a redirect is created this is now fairly simple (you can just click the + next to the old category and hit enter). It does appear that some members of the category transclude other members, including the categorization without WP:NOINCLUDE, but as the transcluded pages are moved to the new category name the pages which transclude them will stop being placed in the old category. Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

## Deletion of Minkowski island

Hyacinth, your deletion of Minkowski island is entirely out of process. Please restore it. It is unbecoming of an administrator to use the tools in a content dispute. SpinningSpark 18:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, per your request. Thank you for saying please. I'm not kidding or being sassy. I appreciate your politeness, especially given how rare it is on Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Hopefully, we can now both calm down and work collegially. I apologise for my earlier rudeness. SpinningSpark 23:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"curve"
"snowflake"
three curves forming an equilateral triangle
Looking the same doesn't prove that two things are the same, but don't you think the Minkowski Island antenna looks a little bit like the third iteration of the saltire form Vicsek fractal? Don't you see how a "Koch snowflake" is built from multiple copies of "Koch curves" arranged to form a polygon? Hyacinth (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The difference could be just in the method of construction. Vicsek demonstrates in this book that the same/similar fractal can be arrived at either through growth like a snowflake, or progressive removal like a sponge. SpinningSpark 09:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, but the difference between what? Hyacinth (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
filled in (growth/sponge)
outline (rewrite)

Is there anything that I could do for you, such as tedious tiny edits to multiple pages or the creation of images? For instance, I could create an image to demonstrate different construction methods leading to the same result (although, how does one tell from an image if someone is adding onto a figure and then shrinking the results, if they are cutting away from a figure, or if they are using rewrite rules?). Hyacinth (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead to the article, Koch snowflake, in which you claimed in an edit summary that, "We don't normally call for etys, that's something for Wiktionary," contains the etymology of "Koch snowflake":

"It is based on the Koch curve, which appeared in a 1904 paper titled "On a Continuous Curve Without Tangents, Constructible from Elementary Geometry"[2] by the Swedish mathematician Helge von Koch."

The Mandelbrot set lead contains etymology:

"Its definition and name are due to Adrien Douady, in tribute to the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot.[2]"

The Julia set lead contains etymology for both "Julia set" and "Fatou set":

"These sets are named after the French mathematicians Gaston Julia[2] and Pierre Fatou[3] whose work began the study of complex dynamics during the early 20th century."

Who did you mean when you said "we"? Hyacinth (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We, the Wikipedia community who produced the guidelines that we like to follow, the particular guideline in question here being WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I never said that etymologies are not found in Wikipedia articles. They are, and can be interesting (but too often the lead sentence of an article is cluttered with a too detailed ety that really belongs on Wiktionary, or at least, later in the article). The point is that they are not an essential part of an article. Only problematic text should be tagged in-article and not having an ety for Minkowski sausage is not problematic. This is similar to articles lacking images; {{Image requested}} is used on talk pages, not in-article. Besides, I doubt that the ety of Minkowski sausage is very surprising or interesting. It is almost certainly Minkowski because he studied them and sausage because the set is open-ended and its meanderings resemble a string of sausages.
I just noticed that you have tagged this yet again, this time with "clarification needed" (which I've removed). You seem absolutely determined to find something to tag this with, rather than just accept what the source says that it is a synonym. I mean, so what it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? Neither are nearly all of the other entries in the table. You've demanded a citation and now got one. Why are you finding this one so problematic when it is one of the few entries that actually has a cite? SpinningSpark 10:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Compositions by genre

A tag has been placed on Category:Compositions by genre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination for merging of Template:Patience

Template:Patience has been nominated for merging with Template:Solitaire. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination of Partial for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Partial is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partial until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

## Nomination of Banana Sprite challenge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banana Sprite challenge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banana Sprite challenge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

## Category:Linguistics, Language, and the Public Award recipients has been nominated for discussion

Category:Linguistics, Language, and the Public Award recipients, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

## A cup of coffee for you!

 I found your Wikipedia:Mostly negative essay and I think it is great for identifying a bias in Wikipedia's design which we need to counter somehow to be more encouraging. Thanks for that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

## "Musical object" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Musical object. Since you had some involvement with the Musical object redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

## Edit summaries

00:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, [please] convince me: Why is an accusation without support or links a better edit summary than a copy and paste given Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Clearly if I add a comment to a talk page readers can tell I did so whether I write in my edit summary "added comment" or if I copy and paste a comment with a signature. If you convince me then I will become ardent. You have witnessed this, if not realized it: you convince me that an article should have more links and then I add more links but if you convince me an article should have less links then I remove more links. You may have found this confusing, and I can only assume this is because most editors are not as flexible and easy to convince as I am so you have interpreted my reactions as jokes or making a point (as me disagreeing with you when actually I changed my mind and agreed with you). If you care enough to complain, then I hope that you care enough to convince, and I am relatively easily convincible. Hyacinth (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about or the point you're trying to get across. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, but I'm not trying to make a point. My goal was to invite you to convince me of an assertion you have made repeatedly. I'm asking you for a favor. Wikipedia, or at least my edit summaries on Wikipedia, may be improved, but I don't "get" any "prize". For instance, on this page at 07:03, November 29, 2019‎, you wrote, "And once again, please stop copying the text of your edits in edit summaries." I chose to ping you on my talk page so that you would be free to ignore it or to respond. Hyacinth (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Overhand knot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Half knot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

## "Quality measure" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quality measure. Since you had some involvement with the Quality measure redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination of Age appropriateness for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Age appropriateness is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age appropriateness until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

## Question about Harmonic Series Image

Hello--

I have a question about the image you created of the Harmonic Series--curious how you made it, also if you would be willing to create a higher resolution version without the guidelines? Apologies if this is not the proper way to ask but I could not find other contact information for you. Would appreciate any response and happy to take offline if you prefer. Thank you!

Adam.masser (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean File:Harmonic series to 32.png. See: File:Harmonic series to 32.svg. Hyacinth (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: Yeah, that's awesome! I hope you have a great day, because you've made mine! Many thanks, Adam.masser (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I create a time column of fractions from 0-1, progression in time, which I plug into the equation:
${\displaystyle \sin(f*2*\pi *x)}$
where ${\displaystyle f}$  is the frequency of the sine wave and ${\displaystyle x}$  is the number from the time column. To adjust the amplitude you may simply multiply the result by a larger or smaller number. To create a harmonic series you use ${\displaystyle 1/f}$ , so that the amplitude is the inverse of the harmonic; thus the equation is in each cell of all columns, with each harmonic as the heading. I appear to usually use 100 cells in the time column, each ${\displaystyle 1/100{=}0.01}$  larger than the previous; the less cells the worse the resolution.
The cells in the column of the first harmonic contain the following text in OpenOffice:
=(1/B$1)*SIN((B$1*2*PI())*$A2) where B$1 is the first harmonic and \$A2 is the value from the time column A. Hyacinth (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: That's pretty brilliant. I really did not realize you could do that in a spreadsheet but I'm messing with it now and it makes sense! So cool, and thank you kindly for explaining. I don't know if you intended it to be, but I think your image is one of the most elegant and aesthetically beautiful representations of the harmonic series I have seen. Well done! I am going to play around with this method and turn it into some art, hopefully. Please let me know if you'd like attribution or anything else. Thank you again so much, I really appreciate it! Adam.masser (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. On Wikipedia, in my experience, criticisms are near constant but compliments are only occasional. I've created plenty of images, so it's good to know that at least one was appreciated/found useful.
If you sum the harmonics' columns then you can create images of Fourier analysis, such as File:Fourier Series.svg or the animation at square wave (neither of which I created).
In Indian classical music often one of the first things one is taught as a student is the idea of a string as a model of the universe (both literal and metaphorical). Since change is constant, the universe obviously consists of vibrations. What we think of as objects are like really high harmonics with very little amplitude but a much faster frequency than the string. As John Cage says, duration is the one thing that all music has in common.
It might be ideal to use a spreadsheet with values for both ${\displaystyle y}$  (amplitude) and ${\displaystyle x}$  (time), rather than relying on the fact that each value for ${\displaystyle y}$  is equidistant to the previous and following values. Hyacinth (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I took an alternative math track, integrated math, in high school (instead of discrete math like algebra class, geometry class, calculus class). It was almost always applied math, and I feel that has been of great benefit in studying music. Music is the window that I see the world through, and math is one of the main windows I see music through (and math has opened other windows, rather than closing them, such as intuition/feel/groove/physicality). Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: I like what you said about the universe and strings. My primary instrument is guitar and the string metaphor is an extremely important way I understand music--I think that's why this representation of the harmonic series resonated so strongly with me. Objects being high harmonic frequency low amplitude vibrators is a novel way of thinking about the world. I like it and will give it some more thought. I had a HS physics teacher that would talk similarly about how everything physical is actually a hologram made up of light which is vibrating in a non-spatial dimension. Honestly don't recall everything he said, and sometimes it deviated pretty far from the textbook, but he definitely kept it interesting and kept us curious about what it means for something to be physical, to be a wave, or to be both at the same time.
I haven't spent very much time thinking about music in a mathematical way. I've been playing music for many years, but most of that time I have been really resistant to music theory or any kind of formalization. In the last year I've realized how limiting that is so I've been trying to immerse myself more. That's part of why I was on the harmonic series page, doing some reading to fill in missing parts of my understanding. I think it's unbelievably beautiful how patterns like the harmonic series (or Fibonacci sequence, fractal patterns, other natural series) show up again and again in nature and are described with such precise mathematical and geometric formulations. I'm definitely hopeful that building a solid foundation in the underlying mathematical and theoretical bases of music will open new worlds; after just a few months applying myself to learn music theory I already notice I feel more possibilities when composing a song than when I tried on intuition alone. Adam.masser (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You might enjoy popular music studies, such as books by Richard Middleton and Peter van der Merwe. There are advantages such as the examination of things that classical music theory ignores and/or says are impossible (like ninth chords and polyrhythms) and often claimed (as proof of its superiority) to be only the province of European classical music (such as polyphony and chromaticism), and the usual disadvantage is that without familiarity with classical music theory the popular music studies theories are often difficult to understand (such as modal frames, whose coverage has been criticized on Wikipedia). Jazz theory may be the most attractive to study, and ethnomusicology is always an option (although study from a local POV is almost always preferable to anthropology's alien POV). Hyacinth (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: Who says ninth chords are impossible? That's like my favorite chord! Those are some great suggestions, which I will make sure to check out. I have been trying to learn through a jazz lens a bit (picked up Jazzology a couple weeks ago), but it's certainly an uphill battle. Wishing I had started paying attention to this stuff much sooner, because it's awesome! Adam.masser (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Usually the argument is that a dominant ninth chord is simply a dominant seventh chord with a prominent nonchord tone, much like the argument that the "so called" sus4 chord (on C: C, E, G, F) is claimed to be simply a triad with a prominent nonchord tone known as a suspension. Sometimes the arguments are more subtle, such as that extended chords are ambiguous: the dominant eleventh chord on G (G, B, D, F, A, C), could be a thirteenth chord on F. When Steve Reich first used phase music in two compositions for tape many people argued that the technique could never be performed by human musicians, and Rich was forced to create his own ensemble to prove that it was possible. Similarly, many people said that even the simplest of polyrhythms in Conlon Nancarrow's Studies for Player Piano are impossible: I remember reading that 7 against 4 is impossible for human performers, even professionals, right after I got an album of African Pygmy music with one track where two teenagers perform that very rhythm. People often argue that the twelve-tone technique and serialism are useless because the relationships; even tone row inverse form, retrograde row form, and inverse-retrograde row form; are beyond perception. Yet the same old fashioned theorists often also argue that just intonation is useless for much the same reasons. Obviously there are limits to musical perception, but many theorists play a game where they prop up European music of the common practice period paid for by the church or monarchy as the best music ever by pointing out how useless any other kind of music, whether the classical or folk musics known as world music or the popular music and jazz that top the charts and sell far more than classical music.
I'd also recommend anything published by the Berklee College of Music or written by Berklee professors (long considered the best "jazz school" in the country, though the only competition is exceptional music departments within schools). Hyacinth (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Candy Ken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Subjugation

Hello, Hyacinth

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mccapra and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Subjugation, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for merging of Template:Tactile illusions

Template:Tactile illusions has been nominated for merging with Template:Optical illusions. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for merging of Template:Temporal illusions

Template:Temporal illusions has been nominated for merging with Template:Optical illusions. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for merging of Template:Auditory illusions

Template:Auditory illusions has been nominated for merging with Template:Optical illusions. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

## Category:Unmovable pages has been nominated for deletion

Category:Unmovable pages, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Can't move

Template:Can't move has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Byron (composer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Michael Byron (composer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.dramonline.org/albums/michael-byron-dreamers-of-pearl/notes. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JavaHurricane 05:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

## "Renaissance music manuscript sources" template

Hi,

I just recently created a English Virginalist School template. I've noticed it is very similar to your Renaissance music manuscript sources one. Would you be open to the deletion of the Renaissance music manuscript sources one? Or do you think that's unnecessary and the Renaissance music manuscripts could have both templates on their pages? An English Virginalist School members template was needed and I thought it made sense to put the content from Renaissance music manuscript sources in it, as it's not like there are thousands of collections of virginal/virginalist music. Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Richard Middleton (musicologist)

The article Richard Middleton (musicologist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:N

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kthxbay (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

## Riffs of "You Really Got Me" and "Iron Man (song)" at FFD

Hello. I see that you uploaded files of riffs from "You Really Got Me" and "Iron Man (song)". I nominated them for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 5, where I invite you to discuss them. --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

## Michael Byron (composer)

This article was deleted at AfD. If you disagree you need to ask for a review at WP:DRV. You can't just unilaterally restore it yourself. Please revert your restoration and follow the consensus process. – bradv🍁 20:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Done. Thanks for saying please, it is rare on Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I said please because I'm Canadian and because my mother taught me well, but to be blunt it really wasn't an optional request. Using administrative tools in a content dispute, particularly to reverse a consensus discussion that you disagree with, is blatant abuse of tools. Please familiarize yourself with the current administrator policy - it has changed considerably since you became a sysop. – bradv🍁 22:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Well then, I take it back. No thanks, I can do without your faux politeness causing your demands to be highly misleading. LOL Hyacinth (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

## Canvassing

Can you please explain this edit for an editor who as far as I can tell has never edited the article that's at DRV? Praxidicae (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous assumption and an insult to Kohl, who qualifies as "Appropriate notification" for multiple reasons, including being an editor, "known for expertise in the field," and as editor "who ha[s] participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". You can't read Kohl's mind and neither can I, so there is no cause to think that Kohl would support my position. Obviously you aren't aware of Kohl's valuable contributions to Wikipedia related to music and his frequent participation in discussions related to music, including disagreements with me. Similarly you aren't familiar with the policy on or definition of canvassing. My message was, "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." Note also that the explanation of inappropriate contrasts inappropriate "Mass posting" with appropriate "Limited posting". Hyacinth (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
How do you figure they were an interested party? afaik they've never edited the article and certainly didn't participate in the AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop personally attacking Wikipedia editors, including Kohl. If you wish me to answer your questions pleases refer to WP:CANVAS in them. See: Talk:Minimal music, and probably most articles about composers, for examples of Kohl participating in highly related discussions. Also, look at Kohl's page and see what he does for a living. Hyacinth (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Could you supply diffs of the personal attacks. Many thanks. Nick (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Just refreshing this. I assume you're aware that making unfounded allegations of personal attacks is block-worthy. I look forward to seeing either your evidence of personal attacks, or your accusations being struck with an apology being made to the parties involved. Nick (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nick: Per WP:PERSONAL: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Do you have anything to say about the content or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 11#Michael Byron (composer)? Hyacinth (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You accused Praxidicae of making a personal attack. An administrator accusing someone of wrong-doing is a serious allegation, and per WP:ADMINACCT you are requested to either back that up with appropriate evidence, or strike the allegation. – bradv🍁 19:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:ADMINACCT: "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions." Being accused of canvassing for something which doesn't meet the definition of canvassing and colluding with a single user who I did not even assume would agree with me would be laughably baseless, if it was not, per WP:PERSONAL, criticism of the contributor, not the content. Hyacinth (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

## "I Got Your Ice Cold Nugrape" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect I Got Your Ice Cold Nugrape. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#I Got Your Ice Cold Nugrape until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

## "Nugrape Twins" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nugrape Twins. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#Nugrape Twins until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination of Michael Byron (composer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Byron (composer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Byron (composer) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandstein 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

## Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger has been nominated for deletion

Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

## Category:Pupils of Olivier Messiaen has been nominated for deletion

Category:Pupils of Olivier Messiaen has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

## Question about Template:Use Harvard referencing

Hi Hyacinth, I have a question about {{Use Harvard referencing}}. I have encountered a number of pages that use mixed citation styles, including shortened footnote templates that link to full citations as well has plain text shortened footnotes that use the name, date, & page format to refer to but not to link to full citations. I was wondering if you meant for Template:Use Harvard referencing to indicate that all references should use Harvard referencing or to note that some citations use Harvard referencing, or that there is an opportunity to use Harvard referencing, within a given article. Peaceray (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray: According to WP:CITEVAR, "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." Hyacinth (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have gotten very familiar with CITEVAR recently. Am I correct to infer then Template:Use Harvard referencing is for use only when the citation style of the article uses shortened footnotes? I currently have been using {{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}} for that. Although now that I am aware of this template, I will probably use it on those pages that already have the edit notice.
My concern is with identifying those articles that have mixed citation styles that include some Harvard Referencing, especially when the shortened footnotes are plain text & do not link to full citations. Since converting those plain text shortened footnotes into the correct templates is labor intensive, it would be nice to also have a means of flagging that as well.
To me, this effort is fully in sync with this statement in CITEVAR: ”The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it." Having a last name & year does not do much if it does not link to a full citation.
Peaceray (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: How about {{Inconsistent citations}}? Hyacinth (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Hyacinth! I will use that as a starting point. I am a Template editor, so I can create a similar template & probably reuse some categories & code. Peaceray (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

## Category:Ars nova and subtilior has been nominated for merging

Category:Ars nova and subtilior has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for merging of Template:Renaissance music manuscript English sources

Template:Renaissance music manuscript English sources has been nominated for merging with Template:English Virginalist School. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

## Question about the (odd) harmonics of double reed wind instruments.

Dear Hyacinth,

I first have to apologize for this rather anonymous reaction. It is because I'm not a Wikipedian, although sometimes tempted but then again deciding to protect myself from getting addicted, and also from all the negativity as mentioned in your own essay. In addition I don't know if this is the right way to approach you with my question, but I could not find an Email address. So please forgive the nuisance of finding my issue here.

My question is about this sentence: "The timbre of a single reed instrument is related to the harmonic series, while the timbre of a double reed instrument includes only the odd harmonics since the two reeds alternately touch each other and separate while vibrating, thus cancelling out the even harmonics, and this may be compared to the timbre of a square wave." which you added in the introduction of the Wikipedia article on "Double reed" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_reed

From Reference #2 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Reed_Instruments) and also from material on the Music Acoustics site of the University of New South Wales, Sydney, (see https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/flutes.v.clarinets.html and https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/pipes.html ) I got the impression that the bores of the one-sided closed pipe being cylindrical or conical are responsible for the suppression, or not, of the even harmonics, and not whether the air is blown through a single or a double reed. And actually this leads to the opposite conclusion, namely that the clarinet with a single reed gives mainly odd harmonics.

I was just reading these UNSW articles a few days ago which triggered my interest. The explanation with the two touching reeds 'sounds' ;) to me not very convincing, but I have to admit that I also not fully understand the reasoning in the Australian papers.

So I'm still puzzled and was wondering if you can elaborate a bit more on this, and/or give some more context to the argument given in the present article.

Kind regards, Ben Smith --145.69.103.132 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC) (ben dot smith at telfort dot nl)

If you go to a user page there should be an "email this user" button (or two). That way you can email a Wikipedia editor without knowing their email. I don't know where that button is if you view mobile Wikipedia, but if you user a computer rather than a phone there's a button on the side and on the bottom (you can Ctrl-F 'email this user'). Hyacinth (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
any thoughts? Ben Smith, can you briefly describe why closed bores don't have even harmonics and why, if double and single reeds are the same, why both are used? The links you gave me don't even mention both terms "even" and "odd/uneven" in the same article. Hyacinth (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It is my understanding that it is the bore (cylindrical vs. conical) that makes the difference, not whether the reed is single or double. In fact, there are single-reed mouthpieces made for normally double-reeded instruments, such as the oboe, for use by doubling musicians accustomed to single-reed instruments. As far as I know, this does not make a huge difference in the playing technique, though I have no direct experience of such devices. I do know from experience that a double reed on a cylindrical bore behaves just as a single reed. That is, it acts like a stopped pipe rather than an open one. The rackett, for example, plays at 16-foot pitch, much lower than you would expect from the bore length and, if you can manage to get one to overblow (not easy!) it overblows at the twelfth, not the octave. The crumhorn, also a cylindrical-bore double-reed instrument, is virtually impossible to overblow but, with extreme coaxing, will produce a twelfth above the fundamental, not an octave. I don't know if this is relevant to the stopped-versus-open-pipe behaviour, but the crumhorn also produces a fairly stable and musically usable "undertone", a fifth below the fundamental. Thomas Stoltzer specifies that his seven-voiced setting of Psalm 37, "Erzürne dich nicht" (1526) can be played on crumhorns, and the range of the bass parts, especially, require this underblowing technique.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I quote:

Flue-pipes may be either "stopped" or "open". In a stopped pipe, the end remote from the mouth is closed by a tight-fitting stopper. There can be no motion of the air here, so that this end of the pipe is necessarily a node, while the mouth, at which there can be no variations of pressure, is a loop. Thus the possible modes of free vibration for the air inside a stopped pipe are those shewn in the above scheme (fig. 4).

For the first mode of vibration, the wave-length is four times the length of the pipe. This gives the fundamental note of the pipe. For the second mode, the wave-length is only a third of that of the fundamental mode, so that the frequency is three times that of the fundamental, and the note sounded is the third harmonic of the fundamental. The other modes of vibration sound the fifth, the seventh, the ninth harmonic, and so on. Thus a stopped pipe emits odd-numbered harmonics only, like a string plucked at its middle point.

If we now remove the stopper from the pipe, we shall find that the pipe emits the even-numbered harmonics only, the odd-numbered harmonics disappearing as soon as the stopper is withdrawn. The reason for this is that the open end of the pipe is no longer a node, but has become a loop because the pressure is that of the outside air. The scheme of vibration is now that shewn in fig. 49.

If we forget that our pipe ever had the stopper in it, we shall think that the top vibration (marked 2) as the fundamental note of the open pipe, although it is of course the octave of the fundamental note of the stopped pipe. The other modes of vibration (marked 4, 6, 8, etc.) now appear as the second, third, fourth, etc., harmonics of this new fundamental note, so that the pipe is sound all the harmonics of its own fundamental note.

This, however, is approximately true. In the first place, the open end of the pipe is not exactly a loop...

In the second place, it is even less legitimate to treat the mouth of the pipe as a loop.

— Jean, James (1937/1968/). Science & Music, p.137-9. Cambridge (1937) and then Dover, New York (1968). ISBN 0-486-61964-8.

Hyacinth (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Now the question is why does a conical bore act like a stopper when it's not a stopper? Hyacinth (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Jean is describing cylindrical flue pipes, not reed pipes. It has been a long time since I visited this subject from a theoretical point of view, but I think a quick review of Horns, Strings, and Harmony by Arthur H. Benade would throw some light on things. Though the book is now 60 years old, it is very readable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The fipple/reed difference doesn't really seem to matter as the assertion is that the reed has little to do with the spectrum. Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

## wstitle in EB1911

Thank you for this edit to Wikipedia "Double reed". I came to the article because the edit caused the article to be placed into Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference. This is because there is a special parameter called "wstitle" which replaces "title" in templates like {{cite EB1911}}. All you need to do to use it is to place Wikisource article name as an argument for wstitle like this:

{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Reed Instruments}}


The full citation looks like this:

{{EB1911 |last=Schlesinger  |first=Kathleen |wstitle=Reed Instruments |volume=22 |page=974}}


Which looks like this:

Schlesinger, Kathleen (1911). "Reed Instruments" .  In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. 22 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 974.


In addition the section WP:FREECOPYING in the Wikipedia:Plagiarism guideline was written to handle importing text from public domain text--which EB1911 is because of its age-- so instead of importing a a paragraph of text from EB1911 as a quote you can simply copy it and then add an attribution by removing the "cite" at the start of the citation:

Here is some copied from EB1911 ({{EB1911|inline=1 |wstitle=Reed Instruments}})


Here is some copied from EB1911 (  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain"Reed Instruments". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.)

The parameter inline=1 is added if the citation is inline, because it changes the wording of the attribution slightly from that used if the reference in in a references section. You will find a more detailed explanation in the documentation included in the templates {{cite EB1911}} and {{EB1911}}. BTW there are a lot of these template pairs available for linking citations to Wikisource eg {{DNB}} and {{cite DNB}}

The reason for simply including text from Public Domain (PD) sources and not quoting them is that the often archaic or floury Edwardian wording can be updated in the usual Wikipedia way -- something that can not be done if it is quoted.

If anything I have written is not clear or I can be of help in any other way please leave a message on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: A cited quote is much more transparent then the highly opaque paragraph which is actually a quote with a note at the bottom of the page saying that some of the article may or may not have originated or be exactly the text from a source. You say {{EB1911}} exists for a reason, I say that {{Cite EB1911}} exists for a reason. Hyacinth (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
if the text is opaque then placing it outside quotation marks makes it possible for Wikipedia editors to edit the text and make it more transparent. -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

As this conversation may need third parties to join in I have copied what I think are the pertinant paragraphs to Talk:Double reed. I have also asked you an aditional question there about inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

## Respected sir

If you go to a user page there should be an "email this user" button (or two). That way you can email a Wikipedia editor without knowing their email. I don't know where that button is if you view mobile Wikipedia, but if you user a computer rather than a phone there's a button on the side and on the bottom (you can Ctrl-F 'email this user'). Hyacinth (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority of Wikipedians hate me. What makes you different (you might want to watch out for that, so that people don't hate you too)? Hyacinth (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

## Category:Coxeter plane graphs has been nominated for renaming

Category:Coxeter plane graphs has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Music eras

Template:Music eras has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aza24 (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

## Seventeen Years!

 Hey, Hyacinth. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!Have a great day! 17:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

## Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Hyacinth,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

## "9 equal temperament" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 9 equal temperament. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#9 equal temperament until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

## "10 equal temperament" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 10 equal temperament. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#10 equal temperament until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As always, I will point out that your reason for deletion failed to cite policy and guidelines. You where the only person in the discussion, which means the decision was made arbitrarily without policy and guidelines being considered. Your reason given may have been influenced by policies and guidelines, but you did not indicate this in any way. Hyacinth (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
They were the only participant because no one, including you decided to participate despite it being open for 8 days. Don't chide the nominator for abiding by policy. There was nothing arbitrary about it. I can't believe this has to be said to an admin, but it's nbd. Praxidicae (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't chide, I described. Hyacinth (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

## Linguistic reclamation of slut

@Piotrus: Unfortunately, it's hilarious that you would think that women are more okay with being called a cunt than being called a bitch. But, I don't have a citation, and I might someday re add the term with a citation. I know that the burden of proof is on me, having made the claim, but I cannot currently support it with a ridiculously unnecessary citation. Hyacinth (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

## "French Words and Phrases" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect French Words and Phrases. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#French Words and Phrases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Extended techniques

Template:Extended techniques has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Use Harvard referencing

Template:Use Harvard referencing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Population density, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standing stock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

## "Wikipedia:PDF" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:PDF. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Wikipedia:PDF until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Out-of-process category deletions by user:Hyacinth. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As you may be aware, the outcome of the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048#Out-of-process_category_deletions_by_user:Hyacinth was that the category deletions were reverted. Nobody supported your actions.
I was surprised that you didn't respond to the feedback, and troubled to see evidence of two similar previous episodes. Nobody initiated further action at this stage, but I was not alone in thinking that there are grounds for a desysop. Please can you take care to avoid any further such incidents? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I made my edits based on precedence. Nothing I could have said would have changed the discussion. For example, nobody seems to have noticed who created each category I deleted. 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Given all that was said in the thread, your response here is incredibly tone-deaf and concerning when it comes to admin tool use. Do you really not understand the issue with this and your other errors in judgement? I'm quite concerned about your suitability to continue to hold the tools. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that going to Wikipedia twice a month is a crime. Hyacinth (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth, your replies above are a bizarre set of non-sequiturs. Inter alia, you write that you made [your] edits based on precedence.
"Precedence" makes no sense in that context, so I presume that you actually meant "precedents". Please explain: where are the precedents for deleting per a named CFD a whole bunch of categories which were neither listed nor tagged in that CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

buidhe said, "I am starting to wonder if most or all of the daughter cats of Category:All music pupils by teacher are nondefining," and none of the comments specify Messiaen as the only invalid category. Y'all are irrational to allow the deletion of Messiaen's category and then freak out over the deletion of similar categories proposed and unopposed during the deletion of Messiaen's category. If you can't see why I did it, it's because while you accuse me of ignoring process, you didn't bother to read the discussion that I used as my rationale before dismissing it. Keep in mind that I did not continue deleting or removing categories after the first objection was made. I may have been bold, but that's actually encouraged on Wikipedia. Believe me, I was not happy to be deleting a category structure that I spent a considerable amount of time building, but that's what the process indicated. Hyacinth (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is serious, don't call it nonsense. If you don't like being pinged I'll try to remember never to ping you again. I couldn't really have left you a message the next day since I took a break from Wikipedia that apparently lasted 10 days. You should think of this as a teachable moment, for if you expect others to behave properly, you must instruct them, not ridicule them. Hyacinth (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
But you have been instructed...multiple times! When I brought up the old case that I mentioned at the ANI thread, your misuse of the tools was pointed out. Further up the page, SpinningSpark pointed out your out-of-process deletion of a redirect. And if you actually read the ANI thread, you'd see that people are pretty willing to overlook a flub. What they've been less willing to overlook is your apparent refusal to own up to your mistakes. No one has ridiculed you; people have criticized your actions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I would nominate the categories for deletion, so it could be discussed as you would like it to be, but that would require editing every category, so I am unwilling to do so. Why don't you? Hyacinth (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hyacinth your previous comments showed that your understanding of process and of consensus is alarmingly poor. You really still do not seem to comprehend that an XFD discussion can form a consensus to delete only the pages listed at that XFD discussion. This key point is not at all complicated, so I am highly alarmed that you don't get it.
Your latest comment of 22:19 is just bizarre: why on earth do you think that should I make the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You're trying to criticize my intent, which is unverifiable, which is distracting you from criticizing my actions. Hyacinth (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"If they had been listed, maybe there would have been consensus to delete them too ... but we don't know, because they weren't nominated," suggests that someone should nominate them. When I ask a question, it's because I'm curious, not rhetorical, not demanding. I asked a question. The question may strike you as bizarre but I think we can agree that questions aren't bizarre. Hyacinth (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth, I did not criticise your intent. I did criticise your failure to demonstrate comprehension of policy and practice.
And now I also have criticise your failure to comprehend a very simply reply.
I also criticised your suggestion that I nominate the categories for CFD. You asserted that you would nominate the categories for deletion, so it could be discussed as you would like it to be, but ... but this misrepresents my position.
I have not asked for a discussion of these categories. All I have asked is that they should not be deleted without a CFD discussion at which they are listed and tagged.
Since you struggle to comprehend this, let me spell this out for you:
no CFD, no deletion. Fine by me.
CFD where the categories are listed and tagged, leading to deletion. Fine by me.
N deletion without a CFD where the categories are listed and tagged. I object.
That's all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

is there any reason Hyacinth isn't at RFAR by now ? This misuse of tools, failures to have suitable administrator accountability and battleground attitude from Hyacinth really needs a proper discussion by our beloved Arbitrators. Nick (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick, in my case, the reason is lack of faith in the arbs. There are real problems here of admin accountability and of competence, but I have too little faith in the arbs to bother making a case.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Perspectives of New Music

Template:Perspectives of New Music has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

## "Template:Wolfram Alpha" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Wolfram Alpha. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Template:Wolfram Alpha until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

## "Kalos" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kalos. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 19#Kalos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

## Women in Red

Hi there, Hyacinth, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have written a wide variety of articles about music and culture, including a number of biographies. It's good to see you now intend to devote more attention to women in music. If you have not already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten simple rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

## October harvest

Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

## Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_22#Category:Pupils_of_Nadia_Boulanger. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

## Category:Wikipedians with epilepsy

Hello Hyacinth, I noticed that you have Epilepsy and i wanted to know if you would like to add yourself to my category called Wikipedians with epilepsy which i made back in May. If so, please give me me a message back and i would like one day for all Wikipedians with Epilepsy to be add themselves to my category. D Eaketts (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Native American musicians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohawk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

## Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger has been nominated for deletion

Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oculi: This is hilarious. Almost as if someone took my advice that she was the best example, and then decided to destroy the importance of education. I guess you can study with a hole in the wall or with Nadia Boulanger and it's equally useless. Who cares about composers and their obscure music anyways? Hyacinth (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

## December with Women in Red

 Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in AsiaOther ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

## Orphaned non-free image File:World Eskimo Indian Olympics 2015 logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:World Eskimo Indian Olympics 2015 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

## A New Year With Women in Red!

 Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

## "Wikpedia:Sexist wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikpedia:Sexist wikipedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Wikpedia:Sexist wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For some reason the link to the discussion doesn't work and "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15" doesn't contain the heading "Wikpedia:Sexist wikipedia" but rather "Wikpedia:Draft namespace". Hyacinth (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hyacinth:, the redirect is part of the header, and along with other redirects, the pointed link would link to the dot containing "Wikpedia:Sexist wikipedia" pointing to "Wikipedia:How sexist is Wikipedia?". That's what a discussion link is for. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I see I was clearly mistaken. I assume using a link that implies that a heading that doesn't exist does exist is caused by some alert template limitation. Hyacinth (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Hyacinth (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

## February 2021 at Women in Red

 Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1womanOther ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

## In friendship

Jerome Kohl was on the Main page today, - he is remembered in friendship, as a positive influence as you said --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly I said that there's no one nice on Wikipedia. Seems strange that you would put such words in my mouth, or let them be put there, and then still include me in your funereal ceremonies. I don't mean to sound uppity, but such blatant disregard for the feelings of the mourning are inexcusable. Hyacinth (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that, in the long run, you will miss Kohl forever, because he was a

bout references and citations when other people where about politics or aesthetics. Now one of the sanest voices on Wikipedia is gone, and the bias created by his absence will last forever. If that can't be acknowledged, then I do not wish to acknowledge his death but instead wish to remain silent. A candle burning in the dark of the night, and no one is allowed to say he's a candle, seems like the shittiest mourning I've ever seen, and I've been to hundreds of funerals (because of my mom). Hyacinth (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Rather than the empty ceremonies of my youth (my mom took me to hundreds of fuenrals a a child), are we to dedicate ourselves to Kohlmes or imagining that he no longer exits? His article, Jerome Kohl, was written, after his death, as a euology, and yet the editors rejects the idea that he was a prolific editorial source on Wikipeida. But if he was a scholar who he still deserves citations like a "normal" artist who didn't growu up the post-WWII big boo. It seem incrousouse to both use chidlrens's lives as weapons as art, and thus the entire aritistict education system post-Freud, has to deal with an insane conservation of artists, while epeceting an unusal crop from the field thous relentlssly pursue. Just liike Satar Trek'. Then we're fine: just like

## Talk page disruption

Hi, what happened here? I reverted the disruption to the IP's comment but I wasn't sure how to salvage the comment you added, so I just moved the ill-placed signature to the end. I hope you're doing OK. Nardog (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

## Schubert

=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyaitions acinth&action=submit


Hello, Hyacinth, You contributed an image (your own work): >Sequential modulation in Schubert's Piano Sonata in E Major, D. 459, movement III...< to <Modulation (music)> page. ery argument, th3n Wikipeida is not your place You took the music itself from a reputable source and, I guess, you provided the chord analysis to it. In this respect, please, note that there should be a capital "I" (and not "i") at the beginning of m. 4 of that sample, as it is C-major chord. (If the analysis came from the source, it's a mistake there :)) but we want it right here, don't we? Pathan K (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Will you be able to re-do the image? If not, let me know. Cheers Pathan K

User_talk:Hyacinth
Modulation/non-modulation may be debated endlessly. These debates should be mentioned in Wikipedia, and they may be, but your claims unsupported by citations, are not worthy of Wikipedia. It's like if I said I did coke with Andy Warhol in the '70s. It may, or my yay not be, true, but Wikipedia requires citations rather than folk tales and fictions (for example, I was born in 1981 and thus never had the chance to do coke with Warhol). If you are interested in destroying monarchies, then Wikipedia is a good place to contribute arguments. But if you wish to win every argument, Wikipedia is not the place for you. There's a difference between spending decades to find sources to support your argument, and simply stating your argument. If you can't see that then I wonder if you are of ANY use to Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Seizure warning

Template:Seizure warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Natureium (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)