User talk:Aza24

Welcome!

Hello, Aza24, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Portrait of a Musician

Nice research work. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I had literally just messaged you on your talk page when you sent this! Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say in the lead that among all the intrigue as to the sitters identity, the painting is considered not especially good. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are super helpful, thanks! I would add that but in all of the sources I read no one really said that, probably out of respect for Leonardo. I think people use that it is unfinished and probably mostly not by Leonardo as an excuse for why its not "very good." Because I did see people say that it "wasn't good" but it was mostly in unreliable sources. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil:Also... do you think it makes sense to nominate this article for featured status? Or are there some content or formatting, per the standards of FA, that this is lacking? This would be my first FAN, so its uncharted territory for me. Aza24 (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha, now that I look back, the "not very good" was in a blog! Re FAC, the page needs a bit of work still to be honest, but not major surgery, more tidying up. Let me read through again, and I might make some notes for you. If its your fist shot at FAC, maybe nom for Peer review or GA first. Your on the right track. Ceoil (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll go for GA for now. Thanks again, it looks way cleaner now.

not wanting to preduice the GA, here are some points, mostly light weight, I thought of earlier

• You have some harv ref errors
• I would merge books, articles, online in the refs, its fussy and pointless to distinguish
• some of the notes are not referenced
• "refined and articulate dedication to accuracy" sounds like the voice of a particulat writer; - needs attribution and to be put in quotes
• But since comparisons of Leonardo's notation of music from drawings - dont understand this, pls clarify
• The issues that have since discredited this theory - could be more straightforward...this theory has been disproven because...or some such Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

ps, this is obv not exhaustive, and might keep plugging at the page. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is probably similar to Léal Souvenir re speculation around the sitters identity. Would use some of the language to bring this across, as was agreed on there. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've followed all of your suggestions, with exception to the merging of sources, its just cleaner and I've seen a lot of other articles do it that way. Just some questions:

• I tried to rephrase the line at the end of "The musical score" section but I'm not sure if it makes sense? Basically what I'm trying to say is that drawings by Leonardo of like musical notes don't resemble to style of musical notation in the painting, so the music on the sheet music is probably not by him.]

I understand what you are trying to say, but it could be better expressed. In these situations, imagine the reader knows nothing, and if it takes more than 15 words to explain, or you are clarifying explanations, you not doing it right. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• "refined and articulate dedication to accuracy" is my words, should I rephrase them to sound less individual still or is that fine?

I find it very hard to parse. As we say in Europe, you wot? Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• What are the harv ref errors?

Listed sources not used as inline references. Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• At the end of the the page statistics theres two bugs that I'm not really sure how to address?

  I wouldnt worry too much about them; both are Wikidata related, which is a sister project, but "off site". Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portrait of a Musician

The article Portrait of a Musician you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portrait of a Musician for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious

portrait of a musician

Thank you for quality articles about musicians and composers, and even their depictions, such as Portrait of a Musician, for long-term project Orlando Gibbons, beginning with "massive changes and rewriting", for "Your edits are super helpful, thanks!" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2385 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: This is much appreciated, thank you! I must say, even in my short time on Wikipedia I have noticed you yourself making super impressive articles about Bach Cantatas. In fact, your List of Bach cantatas page has encouraged me to, at some point, go for a "List of Motets by Josquin des Prez" and eventually a formalized "List of Compositions by Josquin des Prez", cheers! Aza24 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The Bach list was partly translated, and much expanded with detail by Francis Schonken, the person to ask about Bach. I don't deserve too much credit for that. I'm prouder of the Reger works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, good to know. Well either way, your edits and contributions, including your noble efforts in support of infoboxes (a topic I personally make an effort to avoid!), haven't gone unnoticed by me.

Thank you! You said that well, I support infoboxes, but I waste no time in fighting where I know they are not wanted. Did you know that I believed in 2013 that the "infobox wars" were over, when we had a decent discussion for Robert Stoepel? I thought so again in 2015 when the community arrived at a consensus for Beethoven. Some still use terms such as "infobox warrior" and "idiotbox", and it's just sad. As if we had no other problems ;) - Live and let live is what Voceditenore said (in 2018), for whom you might also want to find a place in reliable people, - opera perhaps. She supported infobox opera, which is now in more than 1000 articles, but yes, the beginnings could be described as war if you didn't look closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Another name: Brianboulton, Monteverdi, and infobox compromises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah thank you for the background. I had skimmed through some of the logs in the Beethoven and Mozart articles, and I to be completely honest found myself smiling at the silliness and passion of the arguments. (On both sides, dare I say) If you're referring to Brian's "identiboxes", I must say, in my opinion that is by far the best solution, but like you said, I won't push for something where its not wanted. While I can understand the argument against infoboxes for Composers, I simply cannot for musical pieces and operas, so I'm happy to see the norm has been in support of them in those contexts! Aza24 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If you like to see a short discussion, go to Wagner's Siegfried ;) - Operas: widely accepted but don't add boxes to articles created by Folantin, Smeat75 and Smerus without a discussion. Other compositions: no recent complaints. Please avoid "insane" in describing some discussions even if true ;) - The safest thing about composers is also to look up the creator, no-no for Jerome Kohl, SchroCat, Ssilvers and Tim riley. (I failed to do so for Georg Katzer, or would not have bothered expanding.) I guess we have by now hundreds of composers with infobox, - I can't tell because I use {{infobox person}} for all (even composer are persons, not semi-gods, right?), restring myself to articles I expanded (such as Alexander Vustin), to avoid conflict, because these conflicts are no good (insane indeed, not healthy) for all involved. See WP:QAI/Infobox, in case of more interest, or just proceed carefully based on the above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Another composer's works list I like is List of compositions by Francis Poulenc, remembered when talking to Ceoil about his exquisite TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Orlando Gibbons

Following your kind invitation to review your text in the Life part of the article I'm afraid I have found so many points that seem to me to need a tweak that I hesitate to wade in and make wholesale changes to what you have written. Would you mind having a look at what I have put in my sandbox and considering whether you are happy with my various alterations? I may say that apart from my reservations about the prose, the article seems to me excellent: well proportioned, properly sourced and with a wealth of information but avoiding excessive detail. I'm more than happy to discuss any or all points further if that would be helpful. I'll keep an eye on this page, so perhaps you'd add your thoughts here in due course. Tim riley talk 19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through edits in each of the sections and I must say they are very helpful and concise! I've implemented almost all of them into the article. I had some questions I thought you might be able to assist with now that you've read through it:

1. Any idea about a 4th picture I could put in Gibbon's "Late career" or "Final years and death" section? I was thinking about a picture of Westminster or Maybe Charles 1 but I'm not sure.

I think you're right that Charles I (preferably when young) or the Abbey would be a good choice. The latter would be more to the point, but the former would break up a longer slab of text. Tim riley talk 08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I went with Charles! Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Were you confused at all in reading the section about his doctor of music? The sources I found were really confusing and conflicting on that so it took me a bit to write that part.

I've tried to tighten it up a bit. See what you think. Tim riley talk 08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah it looks much better now, thanks again! Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Would it make sense to put the post-mortem section as the last section in the life and career? Or is keeping it where it is better?

Either way seems fine to me. On balance I'd be inclined to leave it as it is. Tim riley talk 08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep it out due to your note on balance and the fact that it really isn't part of his "life and career"! ;) Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help, now I have no excuse to start drafting the music section! Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar for work at Abraham Lincoln

	The Original Barnstar
	For monumental contributions which have improved the reference style in this critical article at Wikipedia Hoppyh (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: this is very much appreciated, thank you! The article is looking better everyday and I'll continue to make small edits the references when I get a chance. Also, I know you work on a lot of US Presidents, so if you ever find yourself working away on another one with messy or disorganized references, I'd be happy to help out! Aza24 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits

Edits that just do things like change double spaces in wikitext to single spaces are frowned on; see WP:COSMETIC. By all means make them as part of substantive edits, but just doing them alone simply wastes processor time and resources. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thank you for letting me know! I was only doing them on some of the Level 1 and 2 vital articles because they are quick and easy and I was finding 30-40 on these pages that should seemingly represent the best Wikipedia has to offer. I will cease doing so unless they are part of bigger edits. Aza24 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive response! Peter coxhead (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How to request protection of a page ?

Please explain in a simplistic manner Editor wikip6 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Editor wikip6: Hi, basically you go to Current requests for increase in protection level on the requests for protection page and you paste this at the bottom of the section and fill in the appropriate information:

=== [[Example Article Name]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example Article Name}}
'''Level of Protection:''' Explanation for why. ~~~~ 

The main "levels of protection" are:

• Fully protected
• Extended confirmed protected
• Semi-protected

Most pages do fine with "Semi-protected" by the way, just make sure you specify "Temporary semi-protection" or "Indefinite semi-protection."

Also make sure the article name is exactly the name of the article you want. (Capitalization matters!) Any other questions you might find the answers to on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

All the best -- Aza24 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstandings in re: 'School of Athens' Talk

School of Athens Conversation

Just an additional note concerning our exchange concerning my postings on the 'School' page... Yes, I think I understand the Wiki rules about original research and am reasonably well-versed in academic citations and their use as well. Again, I never suggested that any of my observations be included in the article. I think, though, that we are all responsible for our own observations and logical deductions that flow from those observations. My purpose in trying to bring these points to the attention of others is to show what the work and the associated IDs are NOT. What not to include. One point, for instance, that I forgot to include in regard to the Pythagoras mis-identification was that, if you look closely, the person holding the tablets is looking directly at Averroes, not "Pythagoras"...and Averroes, in turn, is reacting. Really doesn't have anything to do with the "Pythagoras" figure. My feeling is that, regardless of any amount of citations to the contrary, we are all responsible for our own senses. And, if you do an image search for St. Paul, you should be able to see that Raphael simply followed widely used 'templates' for his depiction of St. Paul. So, the question becomes, "do citations from an alleged expert overcome personal observation"? I think not. So far as we know, Pythagoras never wrote anything.Yet, some would have you believe that is him, writing. Doesn't that give you pause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias316 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Raphael left his "key" to the IDs in the work itself. I had it complete, some 9-10 years ago. I don't expect anyone to believe that. But it's true. It can be done. I have recently written a fairly detailed explanation of how the process works on my Talk page. I would appreciate it if you would review it, particularly the section on the 4 figures to the right of Aristotle, and let me know if you understand. What is astonishing, is that Raphael (and 'friend')?...did this in a manner that seems to indicate that they had a just incredible sense of what they would need in order to make the correct IDs. Why did Raphael do this? Once you have deciphered the thing, the purpose is obvious. Some things are being said that would not have pleased his patron. At all. Anyway, thanks for your attention. And I hope my remarks were not the source of any personal upset or affront. Didn't mean it that way. Thanks. (And feel free to delete this after reading). Tobias316 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC) @Tobias316: I appreciate you bringing your comments here. While I disagree with your point about "citations from an alleged expert overcome personal observation," I think there's a fundamental flaw with your theory. Raphael was consciously painting figures from the time of ancient Greece, philosophers and scientists. He would have no reason to hide Christian figures that represent a connection between the ancients and Christianity since he was already painting them in the other Raphael Rooms! Pythagoras is writing in his book, while his student shows a diagram to Averroes since Averroes is responsible for transmitting a lot of ideas from the west to the Arabic world. Pythagoras is widely known for having a large group of followers and many students, the one showing the diagram and another one looking from behind his shoulder and taking notes represent this. Additionally, Pythagoras was placed there on purpose, as to mirror with Euclid on the other side. Lastly, a painting that Raphael did do of St. Paul (on the right) does not prove a likely comparison. I hope you can understand that there doesn't seem to be enough convincing evidence, or plausible explanations to my concerns here to prove that that man is not Pythagoras. - Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Okay, but when you say, "Raphael was consciously painting figures from the time of ancient Greece..." Well, that's an assumption, isn't it? And is that assumption correct? I assume you've noticed that there are also figures dressed in a manner consistent with the Renaissance? And I am not relying solely on the visual comparison to other images of St. Paul. Although, Sts. Paul and Peter are represented in Disputation of the Holy Sacrament. On the lower level, at a younger age. On the upper level, older, much more aligned with traditional images, 'templates'. So, I wouldn't assume too much there. And, if I am not mistaken, Vasari did acknowledge the presence of the "Evangelists" in the 'School'. I am also insisting that the image of the correct Pythagoras is seen next to the Delphic Sybil, or 'Pythia'. Raphael is telling us. Or, trying to, at least. The Delphic, Cumean, Persian, Libyan and Tibertine sybils are arranged throughout...ALWAYS...standing next to a figure whose name begins with the same letter. I think that when we are trying to work through these issues, it is very important not to allow our expectations to influence our conclusions. Easy to say, hard to do. But the notion that this work represents, exclusively, a grouping of ancient Greek philosophers is simply wrong. That unfortunate conclusion is like putting blinders on. You cannot progress under that assumption. (Diogenes, Thales, Averroes, Plotinus, Archimedes, Socrates, Aristotle and Plato are included, yes). But I can show you proof of what I say. If you go to my 'Talk' page and read carefully what I have said there...and are successful in ID'ing the 4th figure...you should be able to see that the idea of the 'School' is simply refuted. The ID of Zechariah is proven correct.And it can't be a 'school' of philosophers if Zechariah is there. And, in addition, my association of the work with the Divine Comedy is correct. Why? Because the ID of Francesca and Paolo is also proven correct. You will realize this, once you are able to identify the 4th figure. I don't mean to sound immodest. But please consider that I just may be a bit further ahead on the learning curve. I made multiple errors in the process. Trust me on that one. What I think was supposed to happen, what was intended, was that we were supposed to pick up on the fact that Plotinus is standing to the immediate left of Plato...and Archimedes is to the right of Aristotle. If you are recoiling, now, because it sounds as though I am suggesting that the work is akin to a kiddies' menu puzzle at a family restaurant... no. Much, much, more sophisticated than that. They give you Plato and Aristotle. You are supposed to go from there. And notice that a similar pattern is displayed in Disputa, as well. Some of the Saints are identified, leaving you to work out the rest. There's a purpose to this. Please try it. Consider it a "working hypothesis". The arrangement, placement, of the figures, is amazingly and brilliantly composed so that the IDs of one aid identification of others. What I am trying to do is steer others along the right pathway. So that they can solve it for themselves. In order to do that, I have to point out what it is not. Tobias316 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC) And... ...just so there is no misunderstanding, I never asked that the figure I identify as being Pythagoras be included in the article as such. I understand that, whether I am right or wrong about these matters, there needs to be a consensus of opinion. I was simply saying: don't include this one. St. Paul. It's wrong and misleading. But also, as to the figure of St. Paul who has been erroneously identified as being Pythagoras...can you explain why? Other than generations of mistaken opinions? He's not touching or holding the tablets. She's showing them to Averroes. He's seated next to St. Peter. ??? Tobias316 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Well? Any response? Have you read my comments in re: Zechariah and Judas on my 'talk' page? Do you understand that it is not possible that those IDs are a product of coincidence or a product of my expectations? Have you considered the implications, the logical conclusions that flow from the presence of those figures? Since you were so kind to say that you found my 'theories' interesting...I was expecting some sort of response. You see, these are NOT my 'theories'. Tobias316 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)