User talk:Hyacinth/Pre 21 September 2005

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

NEXT: User talk:Hyacinth/21 September 2005 - 29 September 2006


Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks and tildes[edit]

I thought so - thanks for editing limit (music) appropriately. By the way - if instead of typing [[Hyacinth]] at the end of your posts you type three tildes, thus: ~~~ they'll be turned into a link to your user page (which is probably more useful than a link to an article about the flower!). All the best--Camembert

Meta vote requires userpage[edit]

Hi, regarding your vote on To be valid you need to have a active userpage on Meta which points to your userpage of your home-wikipedia Giskart Walter 23:01, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Image link fixed[edit]

I fixed an imagine link on your user page - just thought I'd mention it in case you didn't notice and wanted to reformat it or anything. --Camembert

Thanks, I noticed, I just couldn't figure it out.Hyacinth 01:42, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Just greeting here, nice to meet you! :) According to your Chinese astrology, I could tell how old r u! :) --yacht (Talk) 05:03, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting? Hope so! :) No, I just enjoy talking, esp with gay people (I am not making a mistake, am I?), 'cause I don't know many of them! ( it seems that people here don't like to talk, just working, like a workaholic!) :) --yacht (Talk) 05:15, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
"Should be put on an island"? You mean we gay and str8 should be separated? lOl, hopefully there were a "Queer Kingdom"! (joking). I do speak Chinese. :) And I have to have a rest for a while, writing Homosexuality in China really exhausted me... :$ --yacht (Talk) 09:34, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
No, I mean the gay people should be killed :)Hyacinth 02:38, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Should be killed? Wow, that's extremist! :O --快艇 (Talk) 06:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Michael Nava wrote in his novel Burning Earth, that the Inferno of Dante is not quite so horrible for the homosexuals, because there are lots of darkskinned, muscular men running about there. Darkskinned because of the hot air and muscular because they are trained throw the running, to which they are condemned. So the moral of the story: Killing doesn't matter really. It's just the way to the next cruising area. Though I personaly would prefer to be reborned, and as a gay again. -- Philopp 16:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Great story. Actually, I'm kidding. I used to joke in high school that based on the gay people I'd met, I agree, it would be a good idea to put them on an island and, I quote, "let them die [of AIDS]." It might surprise some people that I would be told things like that by fellow students, but maybe it has something to do with where I grew up, see: Montana, Conrad Burns, Judy Martz
I like Nava very much. His fictions are never simple detectiv fictions, there's always many social stuffs in them. My boyfriend said also often that they should put us on an island. I find it a very very bad idea. About whom should I laugh, when I am living only with gays on an island? But you get me a good idea: If they want to send human beings to Mars any way, they should chose gay astronauts and gay scientists. This is the best solution for many psychological, social and sexual problems during the long journey. -- Philopp 10:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Move page[edit]

Hi - when you move a page (as you just moved bitonality to polytonality) could you use the "move this page" link if possible, rather than copying and pasting, please. That way, all the history of the page will get moved to the new location rather than being left behind. --Camembert

No problem, thanks for the pointer.Hyacinth 01:50, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I noticed you've moved some recipes over to wikibooks, which I encourage, but you also made the pages at wikipedia into redirects to the wikibooks page, which is not so good. Interwiki redirects can be hard to find, as when you click the link in wikipedia you get sent to wikibooks, but the redirect page does not show up on the list of what links here at wikibooks. Thanks, Gentgeen 09:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki link[edit]

I see again that your linking to wikibooks, but you're doing it the hard way, by typing in the url. An interwiki link can be made by just typing [[Wikibooks:Module Name]]. Interwiki links are fine, just interwiki redirects are bad. Thanks, Gentgeen

Montana Democratic party[edit]

I noticed that you work for the Montana Democratic party. I recently created lists of all the state Dem and Rep parties. Perhaps you like to write a little about the Mt Dem partySmith03 02:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)List of state Democratic Parties in the US

Edit summary[edit]

Thanks I mostly add links so I guess "add link" would work for the summary. gracias Arminius 21:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Hi what do u want me to write and edit summary for? Rajatster 06:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


welcome --Drbalaji md 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Please provide an edit summary, thanks. Hyacinth 20:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hehe, I think you will find that when you have been doing Wikipedia as long as I have that you learn where to put an edit summary and when not to trouble the recent changes list. Unless they are substantive changes to articles which I am driving, most of my edits will fall under the category of minor adjustments, and therefore probably not even worthy of note. Edit summaries are largely a matter of style: a quick scan of my contributions reveal that I use edit summaries in > 50% of cases and about 30% of the remainder are part of rolling ongoing edits; possibly 5% are borderline maybe should have edit summarised.

However, as a matter of concern, you should consider refactoring your talk page: it is in excess of 30k and this results in strain on the database servers. Sjc 09:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My talk page has been refactored as you suggested, thank you.

Everything on wikipedia is a matter of personal style, still: "Always fill the summary field is one of Wikipedia's guidelines. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. Summaries often pique the interest of wikipedians with an expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but (e.g.) "fixed spelling" would be nice even then."

Hyacinth 19:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lol; a quick scan of your contributions brings to mind a phrase containing the words pot kettle and black. If you are going to criticise someone, do at least try and make sure you have your own house in order. You end up looking such a prat otherwise. Sjc 04:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, bad habit that... -- EmperorBMA|話す 22:05, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi which edit did you want me to give a summray off? i can go there and leave a summary. thanks Rajatster 05:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Art categories[edit]


I noticed that you have recently created some sub-categories in the visual arts. Can I also encourage you to join the categorisation discussion at Category talk:Art -- Solipsist 21:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorising people[edit]

When adding people people to categories please pipe the category so they are sorted by surname first, like [[Category:Smith, John]]. ed g2stalk 23:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday[edit]

Happy Birthday. Sorry I'm a little late. Keep up your good work on Wikipedia!!! [[User:Yardcock|Yardcock | talk]] 18:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Happy belated birthday, Mikhail. →Raul654 04:49, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary?[edit]

Edit summary for what, exactly? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:59, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


Sorry to see that you are un-employed. I hope it was by choice. If you are job hunting, you might mention something about what you are looking for on your user page. I know that I'd recommend you for a job if I was aware of one that suited you. --Samuel Wantman 22:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are one sharp kid![edit]

I loved your additions to "myth". Charlie Turek, husband, grandpa, amateur magician and ancient historian and all around grunt trouble maker. 28 oct 2004

Art and visual art techniques[edit]

I noticed you created the subcategory Category:Visual art techniques within Category:Artistic techniques. It seems like the visual art ones are of the same calibre as artistic techniques. Also, since Music is in Category:Arts not Category:Art it seems sufficient to the musical techniques categorized as music. I'd like to merge visual art tech. and art. tech. and take out music. tech - sound OK? Clubmarx 21:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. Unfortunately I didn't understand it all. However, I am writing to ask you to please provide justification for not categorizing music as an art. Hyacinth 23:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dance, theater, etc. are in the Performing arts, which is in the category the Arts, just as music is in the performing arts. No dance techniques or acting techniques are in artistic techniques, mostly just painting techniques. Things inside and outside the category Art can have artistic merit or have 'an art to it.' But the category 'Art' is being using somewhat syonymously with the fine arts, especially painting. I'm trying to clean all this up. Clubmarx 00:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

category:aspects of music[edit]

Hi - I noticed you added this category (currently an "orphaned" category with no connection to the rest of the category structure). Did you know there's an existing category category:Music theory which might serve equally well as a category for the articles you've added to category:aspects of music? What would you think about moving the articles from the new category into category:Music theory and deleting category:aspects of music? -- Rick Block 15:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, noticed this discussion while leaving a note at Rick's talk. Until i read the lead of the article, i agreed with Rick (and also wondered why in the world you'd not instead want aspects to be the parent of "theory"!). (I also wonder if, to the extent it's justified at all, you aren't really claiming to be discussing "the aspects of music", rather than "aspects of music", which include contracts, architectural acoustics, file-sharing as piracy, drugs, groupies, the Mozart effect....)
There's every reason to delete the Cat if "the aspects of music" is your description of this concept, rather than the established terminology of music theory, i.e. if it's a working title not like The Enlightenment but like my Motif of harmful sensation, which it embarrassed me to see appear on "Did you know...?" on the Main page! ("Did you know that the Monty Python "Joke Warfare" skit is an example of the Motif of harmful sensation?" No, not until i thought that name up.) If it's even a reasonably well established term, IMO that needs to be made clearer in the article, and probably the Cat description.
My degreed, theory-heavy, long-professional classical-musician informant has never heard the term, so IMO documentation is needed to support the Cat, and to defend the article against any proposals to change the name. (Like Harmful Sensation, this may also be a potential original-research issue.)
--Jerzy(t) 19:50, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Hi - I read your aspects of music article and I guess I still have the same question Jerzy asks above - i.e. is this a term of your own invention? It seems like there's a tremendous overlap between aspects of music and music theory. In this case, I'm not sure two articles are actually needed. If it's a term of your own invention, is there some specific reason you don't want to merge the content from aspects of music into music theory? I don't think music theory is necessarily intended to be Western or European centric. Just curious. -- Rick Block 01:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

H.F. Redlich[edit]

You refer to H.F. Redlich's analysis of the Berg Lyric Suite. Is this the Israeli violinist Hans Redlich? If so, I will write a brief biographical article on him - he was a friend with whom I occasionally played chamber music, and his music library is now in my house (he died a couple of years ago).

Thanks, User:Ravpapa

Coltrane changes[edit]

Aloha. Please see my comments on Talk:Coltrane changes. Mahalo. --Viriditas | Talk 13:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please see my reply to your question. --Viriditas | Talk 02:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Country Music[edit]

Thank you for the advice on the Country Music Discussion page. If I ever find out who actually made the edits I will pass it on to them. I believe their edit was NPOV, even if you think my support was not. Tiles 04:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hello, and thank you for the welcome message! I am writing mostly on the Swedish Wikipedia, but I watch and edit in some areas of interest here too. Regarding the article on musicology I was surprised to find it in such a state of (relative) confusion. When I started on a Swedish version sv:musikvetenskap I could not use much of the English version. I understand the article is a mix from different sources, with a bias towards ethnomusicology and criticism, and that it needs more work. Do you think it is a good idea if I translate the structure from my version and reorganise musicology? My idea is it has to be more strict, and define what and what not musicologists study. --Blondel 15:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"what and what not musicologists study"

Seems I made a stupid remark in the previous, that led you to a wrong conclusion... But, it's just so clear when I think of it on my own! Example of things musicologists do study: music theory, music history, music sociology, ethnomusicology, (sometimes, or, bits of the field of) music psychology, (history of and sometimes theory of) music pedagogics. Example of things musicologists do not (very often) study (within the humanities faculty, where they belong): practical music making (that's for music colleges), music acoustics (it's physics), bio-musicology (it's biology), (the greater part of) music psychology, dance history (it is about music, but is sorted under other departments), song texts (literature), etc. My idea is to point to those latter "help sciences" or "cross sciences" from the main article, but not include them. --Blondel 20:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday I started on a stub article about musical acoustics. I choose to call it that instead of music acoustics. Reason: there was already a suggestion on the acoustics page for such an article. The article needed more text and specialist knowledge to be useful. In fact, the topic is better described in the article physics_of_music, which I found linked from music. So, when I found today that musical acoustics does not exist any longer, I don't mind... But it is weird - I can find it still, from my watch list! Advice?

Today I am planning to do the grand new frame for musicology. --Blondel 10:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with the redirect! I promise to be more careful with article naming in the future! --Blondel 17:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zuni/Pueblo music[edit]

I see that you created Zuni music with a redirect to the nonexistent Pueblo music. Was this deliberate? Is an article on Pueblo music forthcoming? Software bug? Tuf-Kat 20:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lydian mode[edit]

I've forgotten all I learned about musical modes, and I recently referred to the article to identify a mode (Dorian as it happens). I was somewhat confused by the musical example [[Image:The eight modes.PNG]]. The sample given as Lydian looks like a major scale to me and hence Ionian (modern Lydian would have a B-natural, or alternatively it would start with the B-flat). Is this example intended to illustrate the church modes only, or am I falling into the error of confusing a scale with a mode?

In that case, as a musician who only knows mainstream concepts, I'd find it useful to have a similar illustration of the modern modes listed later in the article. I'm not touching it myself in the hope you still have the Sibelius file somewhere, and also because I'd be likely to get it wrong. David Brooks 18:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sheets of sound[edit]

Aloha. I'm not sure what you mean by your comments. The only change I've made recently is to move the quotes to Wikiquote and add a cat. Perhaps you can be more specific. If you feel the page needs work, feel free to help out. --Viriditas | Talk 20:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello to you too[edit]

Hi Hyacinth, Thanks for the nice welcome. How did you find me, and why did you pick me to send that message? Is it because I forgot to add an edit summary in one of the minor edits I made recently? Again, thanks and hi. -- Shreevatsa 19:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hyacinth, thank you for your welcome as well! - Dan Johnson 07:04, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth, thanks for your warm welcome too. Just one question: should I respond to your message on my talk-page or yours (as I've done here)? - Bruce1ee 14:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aaaaannnnndddd. . . . . another "hello and thanks for the nice welcome." I've got a minor newbie Wikiquette question if you've got the time to answer it. . . . . Soundguy99 16:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I better offer my thanks as well, eh? It's good to know somebody noticed my existence ;) Hope I've been doing alright thus far, if not just let me know. Sholtar 03:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hiya Hyacinth (that sounds weird) and thanks for signing my page. How do you find out who the new members are? Fantom 09:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks very much for your help and welcome message - Much appreciated. Kristy 22:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Very late, but thanks for your friendly welcome! I hope this makes up for my initial rudeness :) Slinger 30 June 2005 08:31 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome. Ka-Ping Yee 10:11:44, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

Hello Hyacinth, My thanks too for the welcome - Like Shreevatsa I do wonder if I forgot something - a signature?, if so I do appologise as I'm still 'learning the ropes'. I'd pinch a page from Slinger's book of tricks and send you a flower by way of emphasis, but haven't worked out the image thing yet - time is limited and am concentrating mostly on the content of the Technology page (& relatives). Rossfi 13:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

V-IV-I turnaround[edit]

Can you please explain your intentions behind creating this article? The voicing/inversion chosen is not at all representative of how the turnaround is actually played in practice. It is not the job of Wikipedia to "prove" that the blues are "incorrect" ("considered tonally inadmissible"), or to defend the harmony of the blues for that matter. Please check out WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.BassHistory (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)