Qazin

This is the Qazin talk (discussion) page Qazin (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussions

Hallo Qazin, Although it might be careless of me to describe this publicly, it occurred to me that you might appreciate knowing some of my motivation, which is essentially that I have the same relationship to the absolute pitch article as you do to Sight reading. I have a website of my own dedicated to the understanding and, I hope, development of absolute pitch-- so I've put in a lot of effort to enhance the accuracy and quality of the absolute pitch Wikipedia article, and I'd love to have a direct link to my home page, but if you read the discussion page for that article you'll see the tussle over promotional links that happened there. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia policy is generally meant to keep the door closed to that kind of blatant promotion, and we're tarred with the same brush; but whether or not that's so, my interest in vigilant perpetuation of the discussion is mainly that, since off-line I'm in an academic environment, it helps me stay sharp in recognizing how to distinguish between sources percieved to be "reliable" or "unreliable", which was a big problem for me in the last two terms. aruffo (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Aruffo, thank you for your explanation. I agree that fighting spam, and even more generally, enforcing the guidelines and policies of WP, is essential to its very existence. I can imagine what WP would be like without editors like you constantly fighting spam - it would be unusable and would die. I also recognize the need for continually improving the guidelines to remove ambiguity so that their implementation can be more consistent. I've been doing a little work to that end on WP:EL. I believe it is necessary for us to be able to use the guidelines based on what they literally say, not what we wish or think they should say. If they aren't right, the proper forum to change them is in their talk pages.

Incidentally, I just declared my support for the trainear.com link, but I want you to know it is nothing personal against you. I also agree that the personal attacks against you are inappropriate and unproductive. I personally believe you are working in good faith. Qazin (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

sight reading standards

Bachcell, thank you for your contribution to Sight_reading#Assessment_and_standards way back on 12 December 2007. I've recently been checking all the references on the article. I can't find any of the article content on the page your reference links to. I also followed the Zoo Music link on the page the reference links to and couldn't find the referenced content. Has the referenced site changed, or is there another deeper link that we should use instead? Also, there are no references for some of the material following the note 1 link in the content. If you have a minute, I'd greatly appreciate any guidance you can offer on this to help me clean up the references. Thanks, Qazin (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I just caught this. Maybe they removed it because of complaints, but it was their position that this was validated by pilot tests. I hope they cancelled it, WA just voted out its present superintendent for a fellow who doesn't like these assessments Bachcell (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The site and exercise has been revised it is now at [1], and subject to revision. The 5th graders are now expected to sing OR perform on instruments from sheet music they have written rather than new music, 8th graders are still expected to sing by sight "Students are asked to perform a sight-singing exercise of four measures of music. Students will be assessed on their understanding of rhythm and steady beat and their ability to perform in the designated key with accurate interval changes, acappella."Bachcell (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)