User talk:Eusebeus

---

Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (Reubke)

(X-posted from User:DavidRF David I wikified Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (Reubke). Never heard it, never even heard of it, but I highly doubt this chordal sequence: i, bII6, viio7, i4-3, v, VI6/4, viio7 (spelled enharmonically as a diminished seventh of Abb minor) and finally V Am I reading that correctly - the enharmonic spelling of A double flat minor?? Surely not. Eusebeus (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about the funny chord progression. I've never heard of the work or the composer either. I just moved it from Piano Sonata in B-Flat minor because that was far too generic a page title. A user named "Lisztener" created the page and most of its content. A quick google search says that "viio7" is the "leading-tone diminished seventh chord" examples and a check of Diminished seventh chord shows all sorts of double and triple flats, so its possible, especially starting with a key that already has five flats. But to tell you the truth, I knew nothing about the chord before the google search. You'd have to ask a harmony expert.DavidRF (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I will address this on Talk:Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (Reubke) momentarily. --Yano (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Julius Reubke received his early musical training from Hermann Bonicke in Quedlinburg. Among other works, he produced his "Trio in E flat" during this time. He entered the Berlin Conservatory in 1851, where he studied piano with Kullak and composition with Bernhard Marx. He was considered the school's most gifted student and composed works fluently written in the keyboard style of Chopin during this time. After a short period of teaching piano at the conservatory, he went to Weimar to study with Liszt, where he became one of Liszt's favorite pupils. His two most important works, written in 1857, were the "Piano Sonata in B flat minor" and the "Organ Sonata in C minor." Both works were admired by members of the Weimar circle, and Liszt regarded Reubke as a composer of promise. He moved to Dresden in 1857 and joined the Dresden Tonkunstlerverein, participating as a pianist in their concerts. He died in June of that year. His organ sonata, an instrumental setting of a psalm text, is considered one of the truest manifestations of Romantic thought, and it represents one of the high points of nineteenth century organ literature. His early death left his considerable promise unfulfilled. ~ Lynn Vought, All Music Guide MusicTex (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

December 2008

Please do not add what may appear to be defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Arch Coal. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please ensure that you do not defame people or organizations, intentionally or unintentionally by making unsourced characterizations. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodward effect AFD

Just FYI, I updated myself from Delete to Keep. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but to just review the new sources. It could still go either way, and I have no preference in any event. It's a fairly big shift in material for an article of the size, so I just want to make sure you see it. I don't know if it's a shift in value, and am up in the air on that (like you can see from my comment). rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodward effect

See recent changes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward effect. I don't think this is a fringe view: one that most experts think is idiotic. My reading is that most people who understand the concept are very skeptical, but are unwilling to completely rule it out - they don't want to look stupid if the theory is proved and the technology turns out to be practical, although they are fairly confident neither will happen. My guess is that the theory about mass variance may or may not become accepted, but will never have any practical use. I can say that because I have no scientific reputation to protect. But the real question is not whether the idea is true, but whether it is notable. Given the references, I think it is. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• After rewriting the article, I am starting to think the theory should be treated in the same way as Baron Münchhausen's claim to have escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. But the number of references and fact that people are still running experiments makes it notable.
  • I thought the Baron lifted himself back onto his horse by this method. Anyway, a strong metaphor and one I use often. I have struck my vote. Eusebeus (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël

Joyeux Noël, Eusebeus. --Pixelface (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Star of Diligence for user TTN??

Hi - you gave user TTN an award -- TTN is a long-time vandal, endlessly going around and deleting entire articles. TTN recently deleted the article on the award-winning Pilot (Malcolm in the Middle episode) citing reason as: "Still nothing here" and redirecting to the list of Malcolm episodes. TTN has been systematically destroying the Malcolm episodes. TTN is tearing down Wikipedia instead of taking some effort to improve it. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. He's a defender of the wiki against those who incessantly fight all encyclopedic standards and the most basic requirements. Take it to Jimbo or the village pump if you don't like the fact that Wikipedia still ostensibly is an encyclopedic project. 78.34.133.5 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus that was cheeky...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think this was the best award. Cheekily, Jack Merridew 07:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, Eusebeus, there are rules and policies here. Please justify TTN summarily deleting Pilot (Malcolm in the Middle episode), without consensus and without an adaquate edit summary. As the person who did the REVERT, restoring the article ("Hullaballoo Wolfowitz") wrote, "I believe edits like that must be treated as vandalism" and I agree. You call TNN a "defender of the wiki" - seems you're probably either friends with him, a deletionist, or both. Look at the number of articles created by TTN compared to the number he deleted or edited. I believe he created six. He's tearing down the work of others, sadly. Please remember "encyclopedic standards" are slightly different for online media compared to printed -- paper isn't wasted, and WP founder Jimbo agrees. Unfortunately I have better things to do than to patrol for WP vandals like TNN, so in that case he usually wins. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

John Paul II

Not sure how you feel about these type of articles, but I am impressed by folks trying to get some important figures up to FA and feel I can help a bit, though as an atheist much religious material sails over my head really. But anyway, these chaps could do with some tightening of prose, I had a bit of a go and will have another crack at it later, but thought if we all chip in it may be of value. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

JRB37

Any luck on those page number for the Kammen cite? Foofighter20x (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another one popped up that was yours... Foofighter20x (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Any guidance on how to rework the prose? I looked over the MoS and can't find anything with the language used or tone of voice... is it too mechanical or something? That's one criticism you guys had that I just didn't get. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ('Obviously' not news??) WikiScrubber (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park episode list

I saw your work on the episode list for Farscape episodes against considerable resistance. I was proposing to merge the episodes of South Park season 1 into a more manageable list of episodes, would you mind giving an opinion on the talk page concerned. Alastairward (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance (geopolitical)

Check out the more encyclopedic rewrite. Remember, this is still really a "stub" for a larger article which having the stub there enables. -74.162.128.218 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Just to let you know that you've been mentioned by me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neon_white.27s_unhelpful_commentary_at_WQA. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Use_of_the_word_.22Spastic.22

www.pinkzebrashop.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.144.53 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I guess you were just archiving that discussing as I clicked 'edit' and added this. I didn't notice the change to the page between my reading it, and my adding the comment.

I'm not happy with the outcome, as no action has resulted; whilst I have no intention of causing argument for the sake of argument, I do feel strongly enough about the issue to request further input. I feel that enough people agreed with my views, within the discussion, to warrant further debate. Where would you suggest I could ask for further advice? --  Chzz  ►  17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to have cut out your comment. I doubt you'll find much consensus and just a lot more back and forth, so the best thing is probably to let it go. I don't think the comment was intended in an uncivil way. If you feel very strongly, you can always consider AN/I. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Haydn Symphonies

I see now that the largest opponent to all the small sections was exposed for running a sock farm that you are putting all the little sections back. I actually don't mind merging them if they are really small. It looks a bit silly if the lead is just a single sentence. Surveying other composers articles, composition date usually goes in the lead section. Instrumentation could be the lead sentence of the movements section. My two cents.

The Haydn 98 note on the keyboard solo should be easy to find. Its the one thing that's always mentioned in the program notes about the work. Gotta be in Steinberg for sure. The Landon London volume is always checked out of the library. I'll add that when I get home.

I wish score excerpts were easier to find. I get spoiled by NMA for Mozart and wish they had that type of thing for more composers. For what I have done, I usually just get the notes out of Hodgson, Landon or Steinberg and use lilypond to create the image. Often some of the other language wiki's (e.g. german, french or dutch) has an image, too. That's how I found the ones for #70 and #47. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yea I am going back and restoring those sections mostly b/c eventually it would be nice to include the details of the composition that are provided across HCRL and others. So I foresee expanding in most cases. Thanks for correcting my error on 39. I had written on 26 that it was an early departure from the da chiesa style, an ignorant slip up I only caught today.

I suppose, but something has to go in the lead and for most non-Haydn articles that's composition date. As for the note on #26, the old text was worded oddly, but I took it to mean that the movement structure didn't fit the three usual norms: italian, standard-4 movement (minuet-3 or minuet-2) or Sonata da chiesa. I think there's only a few real departures and those are #18, #25, #26 and #30... well and I suppose also #60 (and maybe #45 if you count the coda as something different). Anyhow, the unique movement structure is worth a note if you can think of a better wording.

On another matter, I keep thinking we should set up a Haydn sub-project to centralise our discussions. Probably just be you, me and Antandrus, but that s fine company to keep. But at least there would be a single place for these discussions that go back now some three years almost! Interested? Eusebeus (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Tell me what page to watch. You thinking of a special wiki-sub-project or just using the talk page for List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn? DavidRF (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah a triumvirate ain't a bad thing at all...well, not so much this one but this one (well, Peta has sorta been inactive a wee while...) ...lotsa featured articles, mentioned in a Peer-reviewed journal etc. hehehe Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Now that's obscure. Eusebeus (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They are very nice plants. But quite unforgiving to grow...I don't think they'd handle Montreal winters very well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing handles Montreal winters very well. Next winter I'll be in Spain hopefully. Btw, do you agree with the gloss regarding your arbcom election that has been provided over here? You greatly help reduce the friction between the various sides here (hence my urging you to run for arbcom, for what that was worth, despite your totally unacceptable inclusionist tendencies ;-) ) and I am unhappy to see your name get dragged into this kind of stuff, albeit tangentially. Eusebeus (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed that - I do generally try and find common ground with people. Funnily enough, the divisiveness of the two sides in the trench warfare at AfD (which I thought was vast and insurmountable) was surprisingly easy to defuse with most editors involved, and rather dwarfed by some other grudges I have seen in the more central bureaucracy (or is that quagmire) where I have seen numerous ongoing exchanges and pile-ons suggesting the rather strong influence of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". An arb nomming and another opposing, that could be funny. I will have to see if I can find some common ground there I guess.

PS: The arb voting was very enlightening on a number of counts, and I only figured out one oppose just recently...from (I think) a very oblique link...) Spain does sound rather fun...Madrid (great character, was surprised by how much I liked the place), or Barcelona (liked it, but smething a bit homogeneously cosmopolitan about it like SYdney or SF, still I love Sydney the best so maybe tht is not such a bad thing) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cas, that's a solidly principled stand you took there at the kww rfa. Good on ya. I don't always agree with you, but you never disappoint. Eusebeus (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

dmetric returns?

Do you really think the sock puppet is back? Maybe I assume good faith too much. DavidRF (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, unfortunately. The use of socks to "enforce" page changes is unacceptable and if these actions persist, I'll actually bother to file a CU plus lay out the evidence in solicitation of further blocks against the sock accounts ("Tcourt" at Haydn 30 is certainly one). As for the larger point, I remain opposed to the inclusion of discography sections in the articles as unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Issues about things like the use of timpani and continuo in different recordings is more relevant, but this is one of the reasons why a Haydn/Mozart daughter project might be useful for centralised discussion. One thing is clear: we cannot countenance additions being made by sockpuppets, and the dmetric farm was one of the largest I have seen in my 3 years here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)

Hi, Sheree Silver, which you participated in a deletion review for a while back is undergoing another AFD, located at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Feel free to comment. Spring12 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended or upset you with my observations, I was just double-checking the consensus was read correctly. Spring12 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Haydn-30 reference

The new reference only includes a page number, not the actual reference. Could you fix that? Probably just a "typo". Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On Haydn-27, you quote HCRL with the following two sentences:

Robbins Landon's description of the movement, "as Italian an andante as was ever composed in Naples or Palermo" is fanciful.[2]There is nothing particularly Italianate in its style.

These seem to contradict each other. I had to return my copy of HCRL to the library, so I can't read what he wrote right now. Is there a typo in here? Could you please rephrase this a bit? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmetric

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmetric. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

After seeing your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the deletion discussion for Chronology of Star Wars, an article which has been nominated for the same reasons. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 07:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals (2nd nomination)

I would like to thank you for your participation on the AFD for this article, which is important to the quality of wikipedia (whether your opinion is in agreement with mine or not). I'd like to ask you to revisit your vote, considering user:Paul Erik has begun sourcing the main article to the point where I believe it establishes the topic notable enough to be discussed in major publications like Billboard, and The Hollywood Reporter, and there are likely more sources out there to be discovered. My opinion is that the main article is clearly notable, while the subarticles should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, as some may be notable, and others not. I'd appreciate you considering your vote again, based on the new sourcing. Thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why wait?

Perhaps you should just comment here.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)