User talk:Diveroli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Diveroli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Colt Clavier Collection[edit]

That is really interesting information you added regarding the Colt collection. However, if it is to remain it needs a citation. From where did you get this information? Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually it should remain because, although not published, there are witnesses: I was there, on 26th Nov. 2012, with renowned musicologist Ibo Ortgies from the Univ. of Göteborg. While Dr. Ortgies was in a room far away, I heard the loud noise in the room near to the one I was in, and I called him: we first moved the clavichord away from the "waterfall", then we held it sideways about 60º to drain the water, and finally from the bathroom we took paper towels and very carefully took away most of the water from the soundboard, taking care not to damage the finish. There was nothing we could do about the water (not too much) that went into the keys, so we immediately phoned the caretaker (who had left for a short while). We are not aware of any restoration work afterwards, but guess it must be in a queue as with many other instruments in the collection, sadly.

Unfortunately, it really can't remain. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. In other words, no reader can fact-check to find out if the claim is true. I am glad you were there and helped save a precious instrument! All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated it. It is NOT true that only PRINTED verifiable statements can remain. Countless Wikipedia entries (actually most of them) include statements that are not verifiable, such as recent exploits by world-famous artists yet not mentioned in the press, geographical and historical statements simply supported by a writer on behalf of a town council, and so on. Respectable witnesses should be enough, and I have already discussed this (and obtained limited approval) years ago with asnother Wikipedia editor. Best regards, Dr. Claudio Di Veroli (

This is WP:OR plain and simple. And you are correct, it doesn't have to be printed, but it does have to be verifiable, and your personal experiences are not verifiable to a reader. Given your status and obvious knowledge and love of the subject, perhaps you could publish in a journal your experiences at the CCC, and THEN this important information could be re-added. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You are imposing to this particular entry, as I already said, criteria that are NOT enforced in the Wikipedia normally. Let us just select at random an entry. We are talking Harpsichords, let us go to the entry Harpsichord:

"Harpsichords vary in size and shape, but all have the same basic functional arrangement. The player depresses a key that rocks over a pivot in the middle of its length. The other end of the key lifts a jack (a long strip of wood) that holds a small plectrum (a wedge-shaped piece of quill, nowadays often plastic), which plucks the string. When the player releases the key, the far end returns to its rest position, and the jack falls back. "

No reliable source quoted, and it could not be, because it is not true. This is what MOST harpsichords have as action, but there are important exceptions, the clavicytheria are harpsichords and the action is different: the jack is NOT lifted and is actually glued to levers connecting it to the key, it does NOT fall by gravity.

Further below we read, again with no supporting evidence, that "the mechanism of the instrument permits the player to select one choir or the other." NOt only there is no support, it is not even true!: ALL the Italian and AUstrian instruments up to the 18th c. had no register levers: all the choirs were ON at all times!

If we apply your criteria you have to delete half of the Wikipedia: read all the Harpsichord entry, an important one, and you will find it hopeless. Just one of many.

Just looking at the entries related to my own activities, early music, I just pick at random this entry (do not know the author):

"Notes inegales"

Mostly correct, but mostly without any supporting evidence!

If we cannot add important and trustworthy information, what is the point of the Wikipedia?

Btw. Years ago I was formally asked by a Senior Wikipedia Editor (will try and find who he was) to become a Senior Editor for the Wikipedia. Perhaps I should be glad that, being quite busy at the time, I did not accept.

  • Diveroli, I'm sorry, but the editor with the numerical name is correct. Wikipedia works by way of reliable sources, and part of a source's reliability is verifiability (per Karl Popper, I suppose). Your account may well be truthful, is probably truthful, I have no reason to doubt it--but it cannot be verified, unlike a citation to a printed work even if it's been out of print for centuries. That other articles have unverified content doesn't mean that this one should--it simply means that those other articles need to be cleaned up. Having said that, I urge you to dust off the bookshelf and see what published material you have on the subject; we certainly need editors who have expertise in topic areas. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)