User talk:Sparafucil

I usually watch usertalk pages where I've asked something, but if you'd rather reply here please feel free to paste in my half of the discussion.

Hi and have a good year. I am writing from la Spezia, Italy near the place where lived mistic and saint itala mela. I am Jewish medium talking every day with same angels and michael the archangel by my home.they talk with my mind or write and move tablet and phone.

Many people are 33 degree esoteric freemamons with noble origins. Rhey read in the people near them for example l. I am not alone.

Too times they open the page of adoro te devote. God and his angels chant this in Heaven.they STRONGLY want this chanted all over the world. Jesus Christ God and prayer are the most important things against Satan and the incoming third world war.

I have just experienced enough with other unknown people. So if you are not sure or have something to ask, pray gid wuth adoro te devote and then saint Michael the Archangel.just five minutes if your time.i am hearing and have no doubt, just for your power on Wikipedia, they will give the grace as soon.

Everything the angel asks me to write is on Wikipedia. As he tolds in the exorcism the pope us one or the only head of freemasonry and God wants the truth be avalaible gratis, asap, for everyone.like Wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.198.96 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome too from the Opera Project. Do join us. We always need a hit-man or two! -- Kleinzach 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a belated hello. It's taken me this long to find this page!Sparafucil 08:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the template you used (sources) is a redirect. The target of the redirect has been changed, it used to be "unreferenced", hence the change. I have fixed up the categories: wrong brackets. Rgds Rich Farmbrough, 10:45 5 July 2007 (GMT).

I left a question on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I fixed the mistake. Best, DJRafe 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right! I've moved it to English-language operas. I think there is a Japanese version but that needs checking. -- Kleinzach 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you are adding to the list of future articles which is great. Can I make a couple of requests? Could we possibly follow the existing format, with dates for composers but not works, and works in alphabetical order. Also ideally if you could add new works to the stats that would be helpful as we are trying to look at the project quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Thanks and best wishes. -- Kleinzach 10:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For edits to disambiguation pages, such as this one, please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 04:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention; I had to read exception 3 several times to figure out that it is not in fact an exception! I still think my revision of the original piping is slightly more elegant than yours, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Break rules ;-) Best, Sparafucil 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you feel that those articles should be renamed? Something like Macbeth (Verdi opera), Macbeth (Bloch opera), and Macbeth (Sciarrino opera)? Ewlyahoocom 05:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer [[Macbeth (Verdi)]], [[Otello (Verdi)]] and [[Falstaff (Verdi)]] myself, but people usually think of Verdi anyway when they see (opera) and the names are in accord with the permissive Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: avoiding ambiguity. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Disambiguation.Sparafucil 08:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just been through the last series of additions you made to the opera corpus and (to be frank) I've found a lot of mistakes: mislinks to wrong pages, missing punctuation and italics, wrong capitalization etc. I've now cleaned it all up but I would be very grateful if you could have a look at the edit histories to see what I have done so that we can perhaps avoid the same thing happening again.

One really important thing on WP is to always check a link after you have made it so that you know it is going to the right page and not one on Greek mysthology or whatever.

I hope you won't feel too discouraged about this. Let me know if there is anything you don't understand and I will try to help. Best -- Kleinzach 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now changing the Lully opera entries on The opera corpus. Can you tell me why? I don't understand what you are trying to do there. What is the point? Can you please explain. -- Kleinzach 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not deliberately out to step on your toes; it's just not very clear what you want. I replaced red links like Isis (opera) with working links to extant articles Isis (Lully), and you've changed them back. Would you prefer [[Isis (Lully)|Isis (opera)]]? If there's to be a change from the permissive naming policy here, to one of always having at least one disambig. with (opera), it might be worth discussing first.Sparafucil 08:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on Isis (Lully) - I thought, as presumably you did originally, that the article didn't exist. What do I want? Well I'd appreciate it if you could follow the format of The opera corpus so I don't have to clean up after your ammendments. That's reasonable, no? Regarding your last point, I am not sure why you call it permissive. We have a clear policy of using the form Richard (opera) when there is a non-opera article on Richard. If you look through The opera corpus you will find dozens of examples. I didn't invent this policy. It dates back to the beginning of the project. Changing it would entail a lot of work. Hope that's clear, if not please say so. Best. -- Kleinzach 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy seems perfectly clear; it says either (opera) or (Composer) may be used, expressing no preference, yes? And I take it you disagree with it. I do too, and would prefer to confine (opera) to cases like Mathis der Maler (opera), where it makes sense. Sparafucil 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the policy. As it explains: "Macbeth (opera) refers to the work by Verdi to distinguish it from Macbeth which is the play by Shakespeare. Likewise Otello (Rossini) is differentiated from the more famous work of Verdi which is simply Otello." (I've changed the 'may be' to 'are' so that the first sentence can't be misinterpreted.) If you check the actual titles of opera articles you will find that this is exactly what has been followed. If you disagree with this, and are willing to do the necessary work implementing any change, then you can raise the matter. (I don't understand your point about Mathis der Maler.) -- Kleinzach 01:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'may' that is ambiguous as much as 'or'. As to Mathis, it redirects to Mathis (opera), where one finds a link to Mathis (symphony), also of course by Hindemith. I cant off-hand think of more such operatic examples, but it would make little sense to have Nutcracker (Tchaik) vs Nutcracker (suite). The problem I would have with moving all the (Lully) pages is that the rule you apply necesitates a judgment about 'more famous', easy to make in Verdi's case but a little dicier with Miss Julie, where use of (opera) seems to have caused needless confusion and a little cleaning up work of my own. Sparafucil 10:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Miss Julie(s) was that someone had combined all the operas on one page. That was the problem - it had nothing to do with the eventual titles when the page was divided up! Regarding Mathis der Maler (opera) I still don't get your point. It appears that Mathis der Maler (opera) should be Mathis der Maler because there is no disambigaution necessary. (We don't put (opera) after every title!) I'll try to have a look at this later. -- Kleinzach 10:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you a note at Talk:Mathis_der_MalerSparafucil 08:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova's Homecoming was tagged as unreferenced, evidently by the bot. In the case of works of fiction, a publisher is usually sufficient; this article already had a discography. best, Sparafucil 08:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Brownhaired Girl tagged the article. And if it seems excessive, have a look a the talk page, one of the two unsourced dates in the article was wrong. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough, 08:54 1 November 2007 (GMT).

My mistake. Thanks for ending my confusion over how a bot would make such decisions!

Hi Sparafucil, Thanks for joining WikiProject Contemporary music! As you can see it’s a new and small project so far. I haven’t been promoting it as I should because I’ve been busy in real life lately, however with three members it looks like we could be ready to roll. If you know of any other users who could be interested in the project please let them know about it. My current objective is to get together a list of categories the project pages would fall under as suggested on the talk page. I look forward to working with you. --S.dedalus 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough the image does show up on the de.wiki page! There should be a way to move it to the commons. I'm also puzzled that the other image does work. Sparafucil 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to have replied earlier. I would think that you could upload the German wiki image providing an explanation why the picture is out of copyright. Perhaps the old one was deleted because nobody explained? But I'm not sure of the circumstances because I couldn't find the record of the deletion. BTW did you see my comment about fixing the Krenek operas navigation box? If it's chronological it needs dates.-- Kleinzach (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old one was never deleted and is still in the dewiki article; there just seems to be a German commons that cant be directly linked to from English WP. Sparafucil (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page regarding italics you have just reverted. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on the Tenebre talk page, but I thought I'd let you know here. Tenebre would be allowed at any parish or chapel under the guidelines of Summorum Pontificum. (Notre Dame now has a weekly Tridentine Mass thanks to Summorum Pontificum.) According to Summorum Pontificum any priest may hold services from the liturgical books in effect in 1962 (including the Roman Breviary in use in 1962, which includes Tenebre). Furthermore, statments recently made by the Ecclesia Dei Commission have stated that some readings in the Extraordinary Form may be read in the vernacular, and so you may even be able to have the traditional Tenebre with some of the readings and psalsms in English if your pastor sees fit. Dgf32 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave your notes on template pages (e.g. Template:Gounod operas). As explained previously users are encouraged to use sandboxes for personal notes. Thank you. -- Kleinzach (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that you still have your notes on this page. Please take them off and keep your notes in a sandbox. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your opinion at to the debate going on here [[1]] at the WikiProject Theatre.Smatprt (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. The reference I have at hand uses an "s". "Saudades do Brasil" is the correct Portuguese spelling, but Milhaud may very well have used a "z". I would have to check a more reputable source. I like your User Name! Hrdinsky (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sparafucil but it may be a while before I get around to the bass article because I have a crazy month coming up for me and what little time I have on here will be dedicated to assessment. Regardless, in terms of Mathis der Maler what I was reallt trying to get at is the article currently does not say anything about the work's structure (no mention of how many acts or scenes). So I guess all that really needs to be added is that the work is in seven scenes and then maybe to entitle the sections in the synopsis: scene 1, scene 2, scene 3, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious whether the term "baritono-martin" is used much in Italian. All the best, Sparafucil (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premised that my musical culture has no specialist characters at all, but exclusively amateurish ones, since it results only from 25 years’ reading of an opera fan, I must confess that I don’t recall ever meeting with the phrase “baritono Martin”, and I can undoubtedly say that it’s not very much used in Italy.

In Caruselli’s Grande Enciclopedia della Musica Lirica, which is, anyhow, but a work with a mainly popularizing aim, the phrase is not even cited in the whole 3-page-long article “baritono”, which yet tells, in the French operatic scene of the Romanticism, as many as 4 general kinds of “barytons”: 1. b. Verdi, high and quivering (e. g. Jules Devoyod); 2. b. grand-opéra (e. g. Jean Lassalle); 3. b. lyrique, clear and light (e.g. Emile-Alexandre Taskin); 4. b. d’opéra comique or brilliant (e.g. Lucien Furgère). Only the very article “Martin, Jean-Blaise” ends this way: “His voice was itself phenomenal, ranging over three octaves, which allowed him to pass, without any solution of continuity, from the tenor register to the baritone one … These vocal qualities gave rise, for a certain period, to the denomination of a new way of singing called of «baritono Martin»”. That’s all I was able to find.

According to the above description, in fact, the baritone Martin reminds me, more than what we’ll call “baritenore”, Martin’s contemporary mezzo-sopranos as Giuditta Pasta, Isabella Colbran and Maria Malibran, who, owing to their exceptional extension, were able to sing, besides mezzo-soprano/contralto roles, real soprano parts which are nowadays substantially reserved to this register of voice and which, anyway, modern mezzo-sopranos very seldom dare to confront.

Con simpatia. Jeanambr (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I missed the docs about disasters category: there's a lot of uncategorized films that will fit. And yes, it's a better topic cat for The River than agriculture. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your recent edits, can you please visit the article's talkpage? Brianboulton (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:numbering: Well, if that's how the scores number them, that's how they number it. I suppose it's not an entirely bad thing - we DO reference it in the text - but we will need to be clear that other recitatives exist, but are not listed. User:Shoemaker's Holiday (from an internet cafe, so I'm trying not to stay logged on, in case I don't get logged off. 82.109.88.42 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Editions. You have added something to the text, which is fine, but you have cited to "Wolfenbüttel-Berlin". What does this mean? As far as I know, Wolfenbüttel is a town. We need a proper reference, properly formatted, if this information is to stay in the article. One more thing: if you wish to add further information to the article, or change stuff, please raise it on the talkpage first. Brianboulton (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you are citing facts to the edition itself, not to someone's comments about the edition. If the edition is the source, you need page numbers. That applies also to the further information you have added, after your footnote. Do you have page numbers? Alternatively, do you have a source other than the edition to which these facts can be cited? I am not just being difficult here; this is a FAC, and such things matter, unfortunately. Brianboulton (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've described the edition which I looked at yesterday (not OR, I think, and one can say the opening of act II without page number, can't one?), and filled in the publishing information. It might well look better as a regular bibliographic entry than it does as a footnote, but at present the article doesnt have a bibliography as such. Why has the List of numbers footnote reverted to citing an online facsimile of a Kalmus reprint when the identical information is available in all the versions Chrysander's edition? Sparafucil (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comma is not really needed, as 'and' is not coordinating two independent clauses. You may remove it if you think it detracts from the sentence. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for contacting me. As you can see in List of musical forms, there has been a mix-up between style/genre and structural layout. That's why I am moving things either to Cat-musical form or else Cat-music genre. At the moment some of the recategorisations, like Scherzo may be inadequate. I think categories "Polyphonic form", "World form", "Cyclical form" and "Suite" are going to be needed. I have made genre a subcategory of form since it tends to define the basic structural elements. But if you find the above strategy sensible then please just pitch in and add/subtract categories. Redheylin (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best with the Barenreiter citations, but if you can give page numbers for the Act III aria and the Act II intermezzo, the citations can be improved. Also, can you give the precise title of Wolff's edition? I have listed it as "Agrippina: Vocal Score" but I doubt that is exactly right. You say the article lacks a bibliography as such; the bibliography is incorporated in the section which was called "References", but which I have now changed to "Sources" which is more accurate – it is a list of the book and on-line sources referenced in the article. I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about a footnote reversion in the list of arias – which footnote would that be?

Finally, a request: no more additions or alterations to the article while it remains at FAC, other than to correct an actual error, or as a specific response to a reviewer's comment. Ideas can of course be tabled on the talkpage for later consideration; the end of the FAC process, whatever the outcome, doesn't set the article in stone. Cheers Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your "to do" list to the talkpage, and have dealt with the points there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that edit that you did in response to my weasel word reduction. I originally misread it as readers of the Bible thinking that, but now I understand it was the onlookers toward Jesus's cross. That was a fault on my behalf. Thanks. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By whatever feeble authority that may be vested in me, I absolve you! Easy to misread in haste before, I think it now looks better for the attention we've paid. Sparafucil (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how we can get the Ansfelden coat of arms from de.wikipedia over here? Either way, thanks in advance. James470 (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesnt seem as simple as substituting "File:" or "image:" for "Datei:"  :-( The long workaround might be to load it to your hard drive and then re-import to wiki commons. As you may have gathered above, I had a similar problem with a Hans Bethge photo (since removed from de commons). I certainly would appreciate hearing if you solve the riddle! Sparafucil (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to that, I will download it to my computer and re-upload it. But first I'll bring up the issue at Talk:Ansfelden. James470 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Siegfried Palm in your sandbox, sorry ... I like your Mathis a lot, just corrected Isenheim. I saw the opera in Dortmund as a child and still remember.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is most welcome! I noticed your plan before I had spent more than a couple of minutes myself. Thanks for the kind words (and for taking out the French ss); I would love to see or even hear Mathis but only know the piano score (and the symphony). I was in Karlsruhe a few years ago but just missed that production. Sparafucil (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK today, London 1:42 p.m.- he deserves it, smile.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words Sparafucil. I do happen to know where the painting hangs. It is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I just found this link at the Met website. http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/european_paintings/louis_gueymard_1822_1880_as_robert_le_diable_gustave_courbet/objectview_enlarge.aspx?page=28&sort=0&sortdir=asc&keyword=&fp=1&dd1=11&dd2=0&vw=0&collID=11&OID=110000448&vT=1 Do you think I should add that to the image description?Singingdaisies (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was in too big a hurry last visit to remember! Yes, it's always nice to know; I even put museums in the caption. Sparafucil (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am trying to tie up the various loose ends that I've accumulated over the spring and summer. Can you revisit your "To do" list on the Agrippina talk page and let me know what is still outstanding in this respect? It doesn't look much to me, but perhaps my memory fails me. If so, would you mind jogging it? Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After first trying to jog myself, it looks like very little to me now too! I just consolidated the imslp version and listed the three in my own order of preference of navigator. You're of course right about the Google-Kalmus missing pages; I think I was once terribly irked that it had been moved back to references, but it's gone now (no loss). Best, Sparafucil (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#Proposed_changes_to_lead_section. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That spelling is something that somebody threw into the article long ago; I didn't add it. But popping Franz Xaver Suessmayr into Google Books I get references to David Ewen's Complete Book of Classical Music (2003) and several old catalogs. It appears to have been only mildly in style long ago but now is barely acknowledged. If you asked because you lean towards removing mention of it I would have no objection. The preference of English texts, overwhelmingly, is "Süssmayr," and a similar check provides many citations, among them Don Randel's Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music, Daniel Leeson's Opus Ultimum, Michael Steinberg's Choral Masterworks, Piero Melograni's Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Albert Rice's From the Clarinet d'Amour to the Contra Bass, John Rice's Antonio Salieri and Viennese Opera, W.E. Yates' Theatre in Vienna: A Critical History, and hundreds of others. 68.126.129.134 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing this because there is no scholarship to support it. The dates proffered are purely speculative and have no basis in the historical record nor in published research. (I wish there were more, and perhaps this will spur someone [outside Poland] to action.) The only - only - date we have for anything related to Zielenski is the 1611 publication date; there simply isn't any other date we can attach to him, unless something new's been published that I haven't seen yet. (You'll note that the webpage you cited even states "no dates available", giving only the thinnest of rationales for a possible expansion of dates.) The Library of Congress, and perhaps a couple of older reference works, occasionally give circa decades, but these are complete guesswork, and Grove is silent on the matter. If we are to add dates they need to be supported by fact and by published research, and none of either has been provided. Chubbles (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(per this edit)

Hi, thanks for the Marian music fixes. What is your assessment of that article? I started it with material from another editor, but I have NO idea and no musical training. What do you think i sthe good/not so good news there? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if we could start a discussion about the article on the organised persecution of ethnic Germans. It doesn't seem that there hasn't been a whole lot of activity on that page recently judging by the history. What do you think I could do to make that section on Poland (in fact, the entire article), better? Thanks,--Atwardow (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you laid out a fuller case on the talk page (which didn't come up on my watchlist) than in the edit summary. I'll try to answer there! Sparafucil (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Please do not start a revert cycle, follow consensus and discuss on talk. Please see Talk:The_Deputy#Doing_the_math.2C_following_consensus. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

unfortunately, it's been such a long time since I've created that page that I no longer remember exactly what I meant by the phrase. It most probably referred to the fact that while pieces are organized by tonality, some don't follow the scheme (e.g. the A minor pieces at the end not being part of the A minor group earlier); that effect reflects the nature of the sources. I don't really remember, but the numbering given is most probably from Moroney's complete recording, which included catalogue numbers. I believe the Bayun manuscript, if not the other sources, is available as a free download somewhere (IMSLP?). It may be of help.

As for Cabezon, his music fascinates me more and more as time goes by, but I have so little time these days for Wikipedia that I have absolutely no idea when I can embark on the project. Sorry about that; I do hope that one way or another the article on him will improve.

Best,

--Jashiin (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to change the term "widely" as it seems to suggest a broad geographic range, but the article demonstrates that despite the high number of speakers, it seems to be mostly confined within Indonesia. I feel that "widely" would be more suitable for English or Spanish. What term would you suggest instead? — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the large number of speakers that the phase "widely spoken" suggests to me, but I see there others who might agree with your notion: List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries) suggests that political boundaries define 'wideness' and that Russian, now widely spoken, formerly was not, while Indonesian might suddenly become widely spoken if the country were to break up. This looks like WP:Original research to me unless the specialized definition of the word can reliably be shown to be widely understood in this context. For your meaning, I think "widely-distributed language" would fit the bill better. Sparafucil (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy/paste this over to the Talk page there, as it's relevant to that article. That way others can chime in. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The misconception is indeed wide-spread. I don't dare to touch the SDG article, would you, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I were a Latinist! Talk:Soli Deo gloria is a good starting place. Surely somewhere in the Bach literature there is a reference that could be cited, or? That might settle at least one historical interpretation. Sparafucil (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently a vey general article (TOO general perhaps?). Your very well intentioned re-write of the lead paragraphs would be an excellent start (I think) for a much more specialised article on "Musical Parody as a classical compositional technique" - where matters touched on in this very general little summary might well be worked up in much greater detail. We should discuss this on the talk page for the article itself, of course - unless you simply want to go straight ahead with the specialist, academic article without reference to this one. Good luck and best wishes, either way. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence; a redlink for parody technique is already in the second paragraph. Shouldn't we take this up on talk? Sparafucil (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. In fact I have already put in a "starter" there (written in the first flush so please don't mind if I seem critical). In the meantime I have re-re-written the lead to suit the article we have here - including your references. We probably DO need an article on the lines you started to draft - just that we also need this much more general, less academic one too. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And following a fit of self-congratulation on my thick skin, I've gotten around to re-re-re-righting of the refs. ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, please look in at the article talk page, where I have posted a link to a suggested recasting of the article which I hope may meet with approval from interested editors, subject to all necessary detailed amendments. Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Mangkunegara I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyderabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Most of it is a mixture of educated guesses and context. I assumed that Nicholaas would be in the bigger Hyderabad for a HQ. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

C (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to C Sharp

Dab link obviously intended Sparafucil (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mangkunegara I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hyderabad

It would be very nice to have this fixed but not just by guessing, per comment & edit summary. Sparafucil (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sparafucil,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Musée Granet for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Mabalu (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add, I hope you will recreate the article without copyvio, as the Musée Granet is a great subject for an article - just don't copy stuff from other websites word-for-word. Mabalu (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabalu, I'm pleased with your apparent assumption of my good faith, and would't suggest WP:DTR applies to copyvio, either real or seeming. But after this time I have no idea what you're talking about! I've left a query at User_talk:Phantomsteve#Deletion_of_Mus.C3.A9e_Granet, but in case he doesn't reply soon, could you please describe exactly what you think was copied? Without understanding your reasoning the first time around I'm really reluctant to start again from scratch. Sparafucil (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Laura Glen Louis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. reddogsix (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your note,

I did a bit more research on maestro Salminen and you were absolutely right about the role of Rasputin and the bulk of Salminen's repertoire. Thanks for letting me know, I have already reverted my edits and please accept my apologies,

--Cormag100 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reversion of Kramer. According to the Remarque Institute of Osnabruck, the rumour that his family name was Kramer was started by the Nazis because Kramer sounds more Jewish, and they were trying to discredit his account of WW1 trench warfare. Rumiton (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Sparrow Mass!Smeat75 (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 631st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 631 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've made a mistake on Figured bass and as I wasn't sure how to fix (i.e. your intention) I thought I'd just point it out and let you fix.

In your latest edit [2] you've used File: markup for something that isn't a file, but looks like it should be part of the sentence rather than an image anyway? The sentance in question is:

Sometimes instruments are specified by the composer: in L'Orfeo (1607) Monteverde calls for an exceptionally varied instrumentation.

Cheers — KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Could you please have a look at this edit of yours in Lulu (opera). It looks like something was maybe left unfinished - the dots around the contrabassoon - but this remains in the article more than three years later. Hope you can clarify! Thanks, Deskford (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wish I could remember! Sparafucil (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see that you did explain the ellipses on the talk page. I've just been looking at the Universal Edition website to try to clarify the instrumentation and ended up even more confused. --Deskford (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alois Isidor Jeitteles has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 01:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Dudel250 is evidently a good sport about being trouted)Sparafucil (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guten tag, oder guten abend, freund. Wie Sie wissen, bin ich Jonas. Ich bin Daner, aber Ich spreche Deutsch. Wenn Sie möchten, können Sie weiterhin Ihre Meinung zu geben meine GA-reviews, Ich möchte viel in die Zukunft zu machen. Wir können einige gute Ergebnisse erzielen. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, sehr gern! Wenn ich nur Dänisch könnte... bin von Dreyer sehr begeistert. Sparafucil (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Sparafucil, thanks for creating Michelangelo Buonarroti the Younger!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. ,

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparafucil, I was about to thank you for toning down the Dürer claims, but with the same edit, you added a new claim about what inspired the satire. Do you have any reference for that? — Sebastian 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian, Nothing added at all; I perhaps naively gathered some stray paragraphs into a more logical order: feel free to tag them if they seem controversial. There really should be a link to Ship of fools somewhere, maybe in the lead. Sparafucil (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; this was there already in the very first version of 2004. I removed that now. So, all that remains for me is to thank you! — Sebastian 22:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beati is what you find on the music, never heard quorum via before I looked for sources, nobody ever said so, it also makes no sense to say "blessed whose way", the key word is integra, connected to integrity. But as you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm going by the first edition which gives the full title as Beati quorum via. If other print sources can be cited using just Beati then of course you're right that it's an alternate. Sparafucil (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will look. We sang it last Sunday, but have to return the sheets right afterwards, so I could not name the publisher from memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Te Deum (religious service) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the William Saroyan page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sparafucil,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Wendell Cherry
2. Xaver Bayer

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot,

In principle yes, but perhaps you could explain more about what the project is: do you wish to rate translators or articles (and if so paragraph by paragraph?) and what would be a passing grade?

For example Xaver Bayer is generally good, but gloss of the day earns a pitying smile: even the festival release title Shine of the Day (Glanz des Tages) isn't a phase I can imagine in my own mouth. Maybe "Glint", or, to guess by the tone of the trailer, "Gleem". Sparafucil (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparafucil, thanks for your reply, and also for your contributions to Xaver Bayer. This project is actually over now, but there will likely be a new one following up on its heels at some point, I'm just not sure when. To answer your question, the project was about rating articles that were machine translations, to see if was even worth bothering to fix them up, or whether it was just simpler to throw them out and start from scratch. In some cases, they were edited by monolinguals who were unable to understand or fix factual errors; in other cases, either the language was so simple that machine translation didn't introduce any factual errors, or someone with sufficient knowledge of German corrected any mistranslations. Whether someone is using MT or not, they should know enough not to translate proper names, like titles of films or books, and they sometimes do, with hilarious results.

Although the project is over, so that we don't actually need the evaluation feedback anymore, nevertheless, there is still a backlog of translated articles like these two that need improvement, and if you would like me to send you some, I'm happy to do so. Thanks again for getting back to me, Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what you changed looked ok to me, but only at a quick glance. It's probably better now to post the diff in a new section on the talkpage and ask for opinions. Tony (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already solicited opinion, but it's time for someone else to take a turn changing minds, I'm afraid Sparafucil (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, can you please make your source(s) clear in José Elías? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brandts Buys isn't a disambig page. It is an article that consists solely of a list of names. Most of them aren't linked (a disambig page would have every name linked since it would be pointing to articles.) Should probably be tagged as a stub. RJFJR (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true Surname pages are in a different category tree than (other) disambiguation pages. If you look at Bosman (choosing at random from Category:Dutch-language surnames) there are 2 additional ways of dealing with uncreated articles: either redlinks, (Loek Brandts Buys) or light blue inter-wiki links: nl:Loek Brandts Buys ([[:nl:Loek Brandts Buys]]). By all means be bold if you have a better plan, though. Sparafucil (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a better plan. Do you think it should it be marked as a stub? RJFJR (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Honegger operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my edit to Pipe organ.

After reading and rereading the lede many times, I could not understand what was meant by "keyboard compass." To me, it seemed to refer to some type of circular device used with the keyboard. After much searching, I finally found the definition in Wikitionary. I thought I could improve the article by using the more common word "range," and linking to the definition of compass in Wikitionary. Considering the effort I went through to understand the original article, I do not think my edit was "superfluous gloss."

Can you think of a better way to improve the article, and eliminate the confusion about the word "compass?"

I will watch this spot for your reply. Comfr (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously one can't stop to define every word in an article, so perhaps we already agree that saying the same thing in two or three ways is overkill. Your point about 'range' makes me think, though. Some Wikis, like IMSLP, are used by musicians not necessarily fluent in English and prefer arabic numerals. WP though uses "one, two, three" and seems to assume an English vocabulary that (ahem) encompasses multiple word meanings. When I find a long Finnish or Catalan article I sometimes do wish the vocabulary where on my level, though! Sparafucil (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everyday words do not require a definition, but according to MOS:JARGON, we should minimize or explain jargon. The word compass, when used as a navigation instrument, would be understood by most readers, but not when used to refer to the range of a musical instrument. I am not a musician, and I have never heard the term used that way. I did check with several musicians, and they did not know what it meant either.

Wikipedia has an article on range (music), but not one on compass (music). I did consider creating a redirect, but first I need a reliable reference. The best I could find was in Collins Dictionary, however it is only as a British term, not an American term.

I would like make the article understandable to as many readers as possible, by either explaining, replacing, or linking compass to a definition. I would like to hear how you might improve the article. Comfr (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My own straw poll doesn't agree with yours, but perhaps I move in rarified circles: the first image "compass" brings to mind is the tool I used in school to draw circles, and only second the floating magnet. ;-)

I'm still not sure I buy the jargon argument, which could be made for the specialized meanings of ambitus (music) and register (music). I don't think there's any UK/US variation. My grandmother's 1941 Webster gives, in order "A passing round; a circular course; a circuit; limit or boundary; extent; range: applied to to time, space, sound, &c..." and eventually comes around to instruments. Shorter definitions of compass as "the range of pitches obtainable on an instrument or voice" are found in the Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music and similar books. The confusion seems to be in "keyboard compass" being taken for a single thing, and perhaps there's a rewording that could help. "Keyboard range" is of course something one cooks on. ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do move in rarified circles, and that is a good thing about you. I respect you. You know a lot, and you have been very generously donating your time and knowledge to Wikipedia. Thank you. In contrast, I am a general reader, knowing very little about music. After struggling to learn what keyboard compass meant, I wanted to help the next general reader avoid the confusion I endured. I now realize that my choice of the words "keyboard range" was a mistake, for the reason you identified--it sounds like cooking. Compass is a better word, because it is more specific, and yes, technical. I think the pipe organ article is best left the way it is, except for linking compass to its definition. Knowledgeable readers will see "compass" without any synonyms, and novices can click on a link, if they wish.

Wikipedia articles have said very little about what musical compass means. There were no entries on the compass disambiguation page, or on Template:Range (music). I have tried to fix the omissions. I have expanded the range (music) article to include a minimal mention of compass. I included a reference to Harvard Dictionary of Music. Thanks for informing me about it. I added an entry to the compass disambiguation page and Template:Range (music). Compass (music) now redirects to range (music).

I invite your input on any of my edits, and thank you again for your work on Wikipedia. Comfr (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that there have been several prior edits prior to the most recent exchange regarding the rape vs. seduction issue. I've gone through these. None of these prior edits provide citations that support the idea of rape. Whatever Don Giovanni did to Donna Anna in her bedchamber, it was not rape. The ambiguity is whether Don Giovanni used deception or seduction, and *not* whether this was a rape. This seems perfectly obvious from a direct reading of the libretto. Also, I provided a quality secondary source that concludes it was not a rape.

You reverted my edit without citation, asserting that "this argument is old." This does not seem to be consistent with good wikipedia editing practice.

Please revert your reversion and restore the edit I made, with supportive citation. Alternatively, please provide some rationale or citation that supports the idea that there is ambiguity between rape and seduction.

Thanks, Sbelknap (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to WP:BRD in my edit summary. Previous discussions are on the talk page: Talk:Don_Giovanni#Raped_or_seduced (2012) Talk:Don_Giovanni#Trying to rape, or seduce? (2017) and Talk:Don_Giovanni#Rape or Seduction, where I will lay out my reasoning. Sparafucil (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... how you came to make this edit despite the fact that you NEVER edited either this article or this topic area previously? Do you have any alternative accounts you should disclose? Volunteer Marek 00:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's already a queue at User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#I'd_like_an_apology, but if you really want to persuade, an assumption of good faith and less ad hominem argumentation would be a start. Sparafucil (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any "ad hominen argumentation" (sic). I asked a question. Which you seem to be evasive about answering. You seem to be familiar with my talk page, you've never edited this article or this topic, yet you show up to make blind reverts on behalf of someone else. Do I know you? Do you have any alternative accounts you should disclose? Volunteer Marek 23:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about this composer's Office of the Dead. I don't feel qualified to edit on the subject of the relationship with the earlier mass.Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised at the reversion of my alteration to the pronunciation of "h" in Ecclesiastical Latin, but as I noted on the Talk page, I am now trying to find a way to contact Fr. Reginald Foster, a life-long teacher of Latin who was the Pope's Latinist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Foster_(Latinist)). As I also noted on the Talk page, I had an email exchange with a friend of mine who is a canon lawyer (i.e., someone who deals with Latin documents all day long), and she told me that in class with Fr. Foster, they pronounced the "h".

And the idea that I ran into something other than Ecclesiastic Latin is pretty funny. I am Roman Catholic, attended Latin Mass from early years, attended and studied Latin in a Catholic high school, attended and studied Latin at a Catholic university, and lived in Rome. I was raised surrounded by Ecclesiastic Latin - or do you think that the American Catholic Church speaks something other than Church Latin?

As I write this, it occurs to me that "Church Latin" (our term for it) might be different than Ecclesiastic Latin, but I can't imagine why. Well, hopefully better information soon...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, you shouldn't be surprised if <ref>Author's direct experience in learning Latin in the US</ref> raises WP hackles ;-) but of course I believe you. Reginald_Foster_(Latinist) is notable and also on youtube, though it's unclear to me whether his Cicero readings bear on 'EL' usage. It seems to me that Latin regional pronunciation should be more prominent at Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Ecclesiastical_pronunciation and is probably a better place to discuss variations.

'Ecclesiastical pronunciation' is too easily confused with Ecclesiastical Latin. I was under the misapprehension that 'church Latin' is what happens to be spoken in church_es_ and Ecclesiastical Latin was a norm of Italianate pronunciation, when a peek at Ecclesiastical Latin shows it's actually the opposite. I usually only experience Church Latin as a sung language, with the One True Way laid down in the Solesmes books and hand sheets like this. Calling it "Italian Latin" may be an oversimplification, given that Monteverdi's Venetian spelling "sicientes" implies soft t = soft c, or Copeman's schadenfreudiges observation that Italians use 7 vowels and don't use the same o at the beginning and end of "Domino". Sparafucil (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. In the meantime, I have found a few references to people pronouncing the "h" in Ecclesiastical Latin. The most impressive one is from a study done by Dr. Michael A. Covington, whose education was

• B.A. (Linguistics), summa cum laude, University of Georgia, 1977.
• M.Phil. (Linguistics), Cambridge University, 1978.
• Ph.D. (Linguistics), Yale University, 1982

See his report at http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/mc/latinpro.pdf (Unhelpfully, he seems to be a data processing expert but at least served on the Lingusitics Faculty)

A few other references are at http://la.raycui.com/consonant.html and https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/short-history-latin-pronunciation/ where the pronunciation of "h" is not referenced, meaning that it is the same as in Classical Latin (i.e., pronounced). And indeed, this discussion has reached the Sacred Music world, where there is a long thread on whether or not to pronounce the "h", with no clear consensus - https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/7963/pronunciation-of-h-in-latin/p1

Speaking of Fr. Reginald Foster and YouTube, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACJDtJ0UDzA) starting about 38 seconds in has a student reading aloud some Cicero and when the student says "HA-be-ret", Fr. Foster stops him and corrects his pronunciation to "ha-BE-ret". As best I can tell, Fr. Foster pronounces the "h" each time he says the word with both the wrong stress and the correct stress.

As for whether or not Fr. Foster's Cicero readings reflect on EL, even though the first student sounds like he is pronouncing Latin with the classical "w" for "v", Fr. Foster is speaking his EL pronunciation the entire way, as I would expect. When you spend decades speaking Latin one way, it's really difficult to switch to another mode. And since Fr. Foster was the Pope's "Latinist", I would take this as prima facie evidence that one pronounces "h" in Church Latin, at least in some circles ;-).

Is this enough to at least express some doubt about the pronunciation? What do you think? William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all your help on Perotin, I see you have an eye for detail. As far as image size goes, while I understand what you are trying to achieve, every time I have set image size it has been shot down at GA and FA stage, the preference being to leave it to user preference. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to congratulate you on the expansion! I'm in the dark about how to set this user's preferences without sizing, but another solution might be to stack the two alleluias for easy comparison. Sparafucil (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Caleta de Famara, Lanzarote
... with thanks from QAI

Trying to shed some light into this darkness: a fixed image is not good because it doesn't take a user's preference into account. Better make images larger or smaller by a relative "upright" parameter. Such as "upright=0.7" (small) or "upright=1.3" (large), in exceptional cases even smaller or larger. In the example, it's 0.75. Thank you for your efforts, both. Michael, I read an article in the FAZ about the publication of Hannah Arendt's Essays, but I guess you saw the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing about WP is that there is no fixed house style. While upright gives a little flexibility, every time I have submitted an article for GA with image size, it has been removed. Users wanting to see larger images than the default should change their preferences. Of course the other problem is that users now access WP over a variety of different platforms. Thanks for keeping an eye out for Hannah! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 00:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the multiple image template is one work around. But originally I was trying to illustrate square notes, hence the placement.--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For setting user preferences, go to Preferences ( on top line of Desktop page), Appearance, Files, Thumbnail size - and choose preferred size. The default is 220px, my preference is 180. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. My preference of course depends on what I happen to be trying to read;-) Sparafucil (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda (as usual) is absolutely correct, see MOS:IMGSIZE. The use of npx is deprecated, upright scaling being the preferred approach. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite right about the opening of MS F of Magnus liber. There was a technical error with my copy, which appeared to start further in. I have subsequently corrected this on the WP page. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for precision for the Palestrina! Can you please supply a citation for the occasion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem is perhaps a better place to go into ms traditions than Sicut cervus (Palestrina), but I've added links to a couple of prints. Sparafucil (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sang it yesterday. Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. As long as we say Music for the Requiem Mass, shouldn't we say "a Requiem Mass". The music is not for one specific memorial. English remains a mystery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read an explanation once and now don't find it where I expected, in the New Grove article. However the usage there is "chants of the Mass" but "mass polyphony" and "Machaut's mass". So the practice would appear to be that music for the Mass is a mass; music for the Requiem Mass is… hmm, either a requiem mass, a Requiem mass, or a Requiem! Later in the Requiem (Mozart) lead though a distinction is made between "…commissioned the piece for a Requiem service [the religious rite]" ;"Walsegg probably intended to pass the Requiem [Mozart's] off…" and on the other hand "Mozart came to believe that he was writing the requiem [generic music] for his own funeral." Hope this helps! Sparafucil (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me, any lower case of Requiem (or a plural) is nothing I'd ever write. I can't forget that it's an originally Latin word meaning rest (a noun, not a verb). I have less of a problem with mass, probably because it's English. I believe that if we think "Requiem mass" is a good term, the article Music for the Requiem Mass should be moved. Why is it not Music for a Requiem mass? Why not Requiem (music)? The article lists several compositions that not at all for any mass = Catholic Latin liturgy - but in a broader sense, thinking of Brahms, Reger, Rutter, Forrest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's an analogy with Mass (music), yes, but Music for the Requiem Mass is in accord with NG's convention while Music for the Requiem mass is not, and one does not use lower case in "mass = Catholic Latin liturgy". It's our language, you're just trying to use it ;-) And of course it gets confusing for us as well: NG (2001) sometimes uses "requiem settings" instead of "requiems" but Harvard Dictionary (1957) has "composers of the Requiem". I remain satisfied with Requiem (a Mass) Requiem (title of a work) and requiem (musical genre). Sparafucil (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to Requiem (a mass), and Requiem (title of a work which is not a mass), such as Reger's (which just sets a poem titled "Requiem"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Always hard for me to keep straight Opus 144 and Opus 148, but on its own (Requiem not a requiem) makes me think of the coda to the Lenau Lieder. All the best! Sparafucil (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! O salutaris hostia, kept straight - borderline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Darmstädter Ferienkursen to the article Darmstadt School. Since you had some involvement with the Darmstädter Ferienkursen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. —Cryptic 09:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My hymnal handbook (Page 145, Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal) has a copy of the English text from Leeson side by side with the text from Victimae_paschali_laudes#Latin. Below it discusses how it was a translation from the 10th or 11th century Latin sequence (though omitting the third stanza). I would like you to undo your revision.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "alleluia" threw me, but even with clearer labeling I have doubts about listing every 7777 tune in the See also. I have added LLANFAIR to the appropriate section (Victimae_paschali_laudes#Jane_E._Leeson_translation rather than side by side with Latin) and on checking whether the usual associated hymn Christ the Lord Is Risen Today already discusses the tune, find that you added ORIENTIS PARTIBUS there, again without clear labeling. To the extent the 'music minus 200' MIDI's illuminate the primary subject of Victimae paschali & other hymn articles you may make a case for adding them back, but I'm apparently not the only one to raise an eyebrow. Sparafucil (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that subsection. I had overlooked it. I am satisfied with Victimae_paschali_laudes now, seeing that Llanfair has its own article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to Vespro della Beata Vergine. I guess you missed the peer review. The revert of the "citation required" in the lead was no accident. It's supported by the description of the movements (which was not in place when I added the reference), so doesn't need a particular reference. If you sing the piece, or listen, that's striking without reference ;) - I am busy, or might even look for one to say so (or the correct page number). Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should always check talk pages before editing! In this case it was the misplaced comma that led to one thing, then another ;-) but I'm grateful for all the work that's been put in already. I'm not sure if we're now talking about the same thing, but I think it's the Psalms & Canticles that can be said to be based on gregorian chant, rather than every movement.

One new area that needs to be covered before featured status is the debate over pitch, transposition & instruments. There was a lively polemic in Early Music; I have most of the articles handy when the time comes. Sparafucil (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "every movement", just some means of uniting, but you could probably put that better, I wonder how deep we should go in the pitch question, - somehow I feel that's more for experts only. Link to discussions, summarize briefly, but no long prose about it. - I came from the musical composition move request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September

Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you for your contibutions!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:TPO, I am allowed to do this. The guideline states, Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism from talk pages is acceptable. The content in question did not contain any kind of suggestion for improving the article, and was simply trolling. You might also want to read the essay at WP:DTR, because I believe I understand this better than you do. Geogene (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)