User talk:Toccata quarta

Welcome

Hello Toccata quarta. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in the article about Beethoven's 30th Piano Sonata. Please accept my apologies for reverting your edit to this article, because straight rather than curly quotation marks are preferred on Wikipedia. (For the gory details, you can see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks, under the heading "Quotation characters".) Best regards. --Stfg (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Composer timelines

Good to see your edits here! I think the Romantic timelines in particular could do with some attention — and probably the 20th century one too. (I've done some work on the earlier ones). (RT) (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on the impressive work you just added to the list of composers.Spray787 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's nothing to admire; the massive addition was the result of a bug, which I have now fixed. --Toccata quarta (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! –BMRR (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carlo Grante

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

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

A tag has been placed on Carlo Grante 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 this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Tanzeel Ahad (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toccata quarta. You have new messages at OnePt618's talk page.
Message added 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Heseltine (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

What you have done appears to be small tweaks, but I really am straining to find them. It is much quicker and more convenient for you to leave an edit summary, as requested for all edits, than for someone who watches the article to have to search everything you do to make sure its not vandalism. PLEEEASE leave edits summaries! This article gets half a million hits a month, so we try to fix anything that goes wrong, immediately.Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorabji

Hi, Toccata quarta. My apologies for not responding sooner to your query. I actually thought I had, but I have my fingers in a lot of pies around here (too many, probably) and things do slip through occasionally.

Yes, the title and page number(s) etc are the ideal things to have in a reference. In the case of online citations, this is achieved by enclosing the URL in single square brackets and writing in the appropriate reference, thus:

• [www.whatever Smith, The Adventures of Kaikhosru Sorabji, 2007, pp. 343-345].

Some people prefer to do it this way:

• [Smith, The Adventures of Kaikhosru Sorabji, 2007, pp. 343-345 www.whatever].

What I did was the start of the process, the square brackets. Without them, we just had a pile of bare URLs showing up, which is most unsightly. Sometimes URLs reveal what they relate to, but generally they don't. Now we need to finish the process by inserting the references;

If in future I appear to be ignoring you, please be assured it will not be deliberate or malicious. A gentle reminder would be in order. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I have to confess I became frustrated when I saw that you had replied to edits done after mine. --Toccata quarta (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa, but when one is advancing on many fronts simultaneously, one's progress is not always linear and sequential. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Leoš Janáček

Hello Toccata quarta. I've addressed your {{which?}} question. Thanks for your interest in the article. What do you think about it? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The article is pretty good; certainly better than anything I have so far mustered up. --Toccata quarta (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning

What you did was against WP policy, and I would never put up with it. I'm serious here. You disrespected me, sir. And I had enough of this nonsense on this matter, by people like you who dare not have the word "German" in that article. Enough of the silliness already. Don't start an edit war over something that is VALID AND ACCURATE. I won't tolerate it.

WP policy is to only remove or revert something that is clear vandalism or clearly inaccurate. This was neither. But just because you personally don't want the clearer wording there, to make the point about "German". That's all. You think the average reader, who may not know the nuances, will know all the time what the hell "Holy Roman Empire" is, and know right away that it was mainly a "German" thing, especially in that context? Not all do. But even so, that was the official wording for that part of it the time. Especially in that area. And that fact and wording is in the Holy Roman Empire WP article itself. Only bias and weird hidden agendas would cause you to remove that, in this context. There was no valid WP reason, per se. (It's just make sure the word "German" never sees the light of day in the Mozart article, in regard to inferring his nationality...who are we kidding.)

The article "Holy Roman Empire" says clearly... "In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was officially changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ).[10] This form was first used in a document in 1474.[8]"

And "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" is itself linked, so is valid and simply more accurate.

The people who want the word "German" suppressed or hidden, for some neurotic reason, really need to stop this already. Deleting stuff simply because you "don't like", yet is accurate, good-faith, valid, and fuller, and sourced, is against WP policy.

his is just one example of WP policy on it, and it says clearly: "Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy." Or "Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary".

And "Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like."

These are all words from WP help, and recommendation. I did not make up the recommendation. The you (and others) are arguably violating. And not even caring.

There was NO valid reason to remove that, as that IS what it was fully called, and is accurate, and good faith. Simply because “you don’t like” is not a valid WP reason to disrespectfully undo or remove. The elaboration is valid, better, clearer, and it stays...see talk. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)