User talk:Toccata quarta

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



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[edit]

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)


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

Speedy deletion nomination of Carlo Grante[edit]

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)

Leonardo da Vinci[edit]

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)


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)


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[edit]

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)


With reference to this edit I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the existence of {{subst:uw-minor}}. __meco (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to it.—Toccata quarta (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for opening the sockpuppet case on Michael Repoulis. I was contemplating doing this when I found you'd already done it! --Deskford (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at VPR[edit]

Could you please redact the ad hominem portion of this comment? Accusing someone you disagree with of lying and intellectual dishonesty doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion (and would likely derail it), whether the claims have merit or not. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What else is the person doing? He clearly contradicted a Wikipedia definition. Pretending to be knowledgeable while not being such or lying is far worse—infinitely worse, if I may say so—than pointing out that either of those two things has taken place. Do you think straw man fallacies have a place in Wikipedia? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No, not really. I disagree that iridescent was deliberately being dishonest or casting a strawman argument,1 but even if they were, ad hominem comments aren't required to refute an argument. Anyway, thanks for the redaction.
1 I think their main point--as they elaborated in the rest of the comment--was that FAs aren't necessarily "the best articles" (relative to articles that aren't FAs), but rather those that meet certain requirements. Basically, they placed more emphasis on the concrete criteria set out in WP:WIAFA than the broad description at the top. wctaiwan (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sky color[edit]

Thanks for the note and links! (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Query re MOS:BIO[edit]

Hi Toccata, I noticed the reverts @ Garry Kasparov & would like to understand them better, your edit summary simply refers to MO:BIO. (I'd like to confirm what specific part you're applying. Is it: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."?) I'm not challenging your reverts, in fact I agree w/ them. I want to be sure I understand the MOS guideline employed. Thank u! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the part I was referring to. There are some cases when ethnicity is emphasised in the lead, such as Charles-Valentin Alkan and Felix Mendelssohn, as it is relevant to the subjects' notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Toccata, I took a look at those articles, I understand the prominence of ethnicity in the Mendelssohn article (many mentions & references), but just from a straight reading, the Alkan article doesn't seem to present at all why ethnicity has bearing on notability, so I'm puzzled. (I don't know the subject, perhaps you do well. How does ethnicity feature in Alkan's life, and, why isn't there text in the article to convey same? Is it perhaps omission in the article, or am I missing it?) I think you understand this better than I do, so thx for any help. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it is omission on part of the article. This page (which is the work of a prominent editor of the Alkan article) has some information on the topic. All best, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your good answer. I need to read & review (again) the article you identified, to gain solid understanding how "relevant to the subject's notability" is fairly & conscientiously applied. Meanwhile I notice, at least the following articles have "Jewish" in their immediate leads, and I'd like to determine whether (or not) "relevant to the subject's notability" applies: Isaac Boleslavsky, David Bronstein, Akiba Rubinstein, Alexander Khalifman, Edward Lasker, Richard Reti, Grigory Levenfish, Miguel Najdorf, Johannes Zukertort, Jacques Mieses. (I'm sure there are more.) Any help / guidance / suggestions / comments is appreciated. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I have just gone through those articles and cleaned them. I spared the one on Khalifman, as it has only a lead. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for doing all that work! I've restrutured the Khalifman article, including creation of a lead (and moved the ethnic info to body). Thanks again for your kind help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Caroline Haslett[edit]

It's a direct quote, now with an added reference to support it. "Wonders" were how this "All-Electric House" was perceived at the time, how it was described, and this is important to understanding its cultural context. This is not added peacock phrasing, per WP:PEA. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it needs to be attributed. For instance, one could write, "The All-Electric House that she invented was described by Times magazine as a 'wonder'." Such words, when not attributed to anybody, are problematic per WP:PEA. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It already was attributed, that's why I added a ref to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The goal of Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources have to say. Have you looked at WP:PEA, specifically the Bob Dylan example? Accusing me of violating WP:PEA and describing my adhering to a Wikipedia policy as "clumsy unreadability" is needless and will get you nowhere. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

WP 1.0 articles by size[edit]

You had asked about listing articles by size and assessment. I wrote a tool for you at [1] that should do it. Please let me know what you think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Just what I was hoping for. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

List of 21st-century classical composers[edit]

Unlike the list for 20th century, this list has no room for works. Isn't it better to list recent works in 20th century then, for a better profile of a composer, rather than showing only the less mature works? (example Rhapsodie Macabre) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Jerome Kohl came up with the idea of removing non-20th-century works from the 20th-century article ([2]). I think the other article merits a "Notable works" table column as much as the first. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that Jerome removed works before the 20th century, that's different (for me) than after, especially as long as we don't have room in 21st. Or should I be bold and install it there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, he has also removed 21st-century works. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Started to change, got to D, need a break ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
reached Z, now the works could be populated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg music and chess
Thank you for your tireless work on the maintenance of composers' and chess lists and articles, and facts about composers known and less known, such as Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! - Gerda Arendt
Thank you very much for the compliment, although I don't feel I quite deserve it. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 283rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize. I miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your edits on Wagner, and for sorting out my errors - I think I am about at the end of any changes now, do you feel there are still things to be dealt with? Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. There are several things that are of concern to me:
(Disclaimer: English is not my first language, so that may influence my areas of focus.)
  • "described as marking the start of modern music"
Wouldn't "described as the start of modern music" be better?
  • At times there is "Ring cycle", but at others there is "Ring Cycle". I think the first form is better (as the second is not related to the work's full title in German).
"However, Wagner continued his correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with (and support from) her husband Otto."

What is the "(and support from)" part supposed to convey?

  • "Richard Wagner's Visit to Rossini (Paris 1860): and an Evening at Rossini's in Beau-Sejour (Passy) 1858"

This is missing an ISBN number. I found two at Sources also differ on the use of a colon in the title; some use a semicolon, others a comma and some nothing instead of it. Some of them also capitalise the word "an".

  • "Italienische Tondichter, von Palestrina bis auf die Gegenwart"
A Google search shows various approaches to capitalising the title of this work. Google Books also adds ": Eine reihe von vortragen" at the end of the title. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


Are u OK after the rebuke at Bobby? (I understand your angle but as you know agree w/ the current status.) Together (life interventons not withstanding) we'll all build a great encyclopedia!? (The concept is wonderful but currently poisoned by Admin maverickiness. [I do truly hope you haven't or won't experienced what I mean.]) Anyway I love chess and classical music (many many years violin student and life-long love of classical), so you know what I mean! (Do u play?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered by it, but frankly, "GM" is a FIDE title, so I'm staying behind my position. (I've also come to the conclusion that some of Wikipedia's policies in this area should be changed.) But I would certainly like the Fischer article to become a GA/FA, and will try in the future to do some work on it. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to[edit]

Hi. I've started a discussion about today's links to at: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Links to Cheers. GFHandel   00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

D Clef and COI[edit]

User talk:D clef's edit on my talk page indicats that there is a COI. I have left a message to that effect on D Clef's talk page. I recommended using a edit request. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tarik O'Regan[edit]

Hi there, I think it's right that Tarik O'Regan's Algerian heritage is included in his biography because it has become notable to his identity as a composer, as per MOS:BIO. In other words, what makes him notable as a composer is that he writes works based on (or referencing) his Algerian heritage, with which he self-identifies, and has become notable for that fact. For example: and and!/articles/q2-album-week/2012/jan/10/celts-and-christians-collide-tarik-oregans-irish-colloquy/ and What do you think? Grovereaper (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that he is of such or such ethnicity is not a reason why he's famous, even if it is a widely known fact. (For an example of ethnicity being relevant to a summary, see the article Barack Obama.) However, the influence of Algerian music on his work is definitely important, so a "His music is influenced by [insert influences]" sentence is a good idea. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So would that sentence go into the summary paragraph somewhere? I suppose he is one of very few classical composers with an Arab background working in the US or UK, does that make his ethnicity notable do you think? For example I notice the ethnicity of Mohammed Fairouz is mentioned in the first sentence. Grovereaper (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have adjusted the two articles as best as I could. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war?[edit]

You have twice reverted the information I added to the List of medieval composers. You have not tried to contact me and find an agreement but simply, as a start, as a first move, summarily deleted my contribution. I will again insert that information. I invite you to read what the definition of an edit war is and the consequences of one here before you delete my contribution a third time. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 21:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Basemetal, that's very interesting. (That you *believe* in WP policies and guidelines. Because from what I can see, no one follows them.) For example, I think I can find in WP documentation somewhere (it would be easy), that you, as editor, should "not re-revert, even if you think you are right". Question for you: Isn't that exactly what you are doing, or alerting your intention to do? (So then, you yourself are not following prescribed WP protocol, by "re-reverting even when you think you are right". So you, by definition, are equally guilty of not following WP policy and guideline, and, how does that give you any kind of position-basis to accuse or suggest that another editor is not?)
I'm not saying you are wrong. I just think the WP policies/guidelines seem to be a sham in general, chaos rules, and the only order brought to bear, ever, is an Admin who takes a personal subjective liking or disliking to something that has crossed his or her radar, for whatever reason. (And then he or she uses whatever policy or guideline quotations he or she cherry-picks, to justify what sanction he or she wants to bring, on whomever he or she wants to bring it. For example, right at this very moment, writing these words that I'm writing to you, in introspective dialogue about WP operation, could be justification of block of me by an Admin, for "tendentious editing", "battleground mentality", "disruption", "rant", "wall of text", "demonstration of inability to work in collaborative environment", whatever other BS the abusive Admin's little heart wishes it to be, to carry out his or her agenda of the moment.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't believe in WP policies and guidelines religiously as it were. They're not gospel. But they're something that has got to exist no matter how flawed its application. But I also believe it is better to reach consensus if not agreement thru personal interaction before one appeals to policy and regulations. I personally never just summarily revert people's contributions before first contacting them and trying to sort out what their purpose was, what they would think of a revert, etc. I don't think it is very pleasant to have someone revert just like that a contribution you have just made. It is almost an insult, almost a "Shut up, you moron!". Now if I have been guilty myself of going against policy, it was out of ignorance. I'll look for what you are saying, even though your directions are a little bit vague :-) But the bright line rule of 3 reverts clearly distinguishes between they who start the series of reverts and they who just react to it, since the first ones would reach the number 3 first. In any case I found a way (I'm assuming you have followed the substance of the matter, that is the actual reverts in List of medieval composers) to take out what Toccata quarta objected to and at the same time provide the same information and more. No only will readers be conveniently provided with the information that those two hymnographers were actually female but in addition they will learn something about ancient Armenian naming customs. The whole reason I inserted that information in List of medieval composers was that I had myself wondered while reading the article, had to go to their personal articles to find out (think what if they did not have personal articles to turn to, and the List of medieval composers were the only place readers could find out) and thought it was more convenient for readers if that information was already present in the List of medieval composers article. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policies on edit warring, so I don't need to have them pointed out to me. I'm sure you are aware that WP:3RR is subject to exceptions. The overall spirit of Wikipedia is a bit absurd in terms of gender—on the one hand, we have Category:Women composers (although there is no Category:Male composers or Category:Men composers), but at the same time we are instructed to use gender-neutral language. Whatever the case, I really don't see why we should single it out. Homosexuals are a minority too (among composers), but I don't see the label "LGBT" in the list List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
But the issue here was not to systematically distinguish composers by gender, but rather to give information about names of a kind that'd be unfamiliar to any reader except those aware of Armenian naming customs. You can see further down the list there are other composers, male and female. There's no mention of their gender. But their name is immediately identifiable as female or male. So, from the point of view of the information provided these two Armenian composers formed an exception. They were the only two composers whose gender could not be easily identified. On statistical grounds they would be likely to be mistaken as male by most readers. It made sense to provide that information in this case. In any case by directly giving the translation of the Armenian names the purpose was also achieved. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 14:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Armenian naming customs, and I'm sure the same is true for many other visitors of The inclusion of that information—which is already contained in the relevant articles in any case—will make many readers think that the female composers not identified as such in the list are male. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


Tocatta quarta:

You have deleted many modifications I did with the comment SPAM. If you are not agree with the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, please delete your account. There are guidelines to talk with the autors prior to delete their articles. I have undo all your undos. Next time please contact with me before. Thanks.Wkmsclg (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is the most astounding distortion of Wikipedia policies I have seen in ages. Your edits constitute spam as you have repeatedly added a redlink like this one into multiple articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of links (see WP:NOTLINK), nor a platform for self-promotion (see WP:SOAP). As you can see, promoting non-notable material constitutes spamming. I'm well aware of Wikipedia policies, but you apparently are not, since you speak of "deleting" accounts, although on Wikipedia they are either blocked or banned.
I also strongly suggest that you have a very careful look at WP:SPU. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by Toccata Quarta[edit]

You are deleting every post I am doing. This is not the way Wikipedia works. is not mandatory. You must readit as This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I have reported every undo as vandalism. It is my last warning to you in order to send this vandalism to Wkmsclg (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(watching) before seeing this I addressed the topic on your talk, - treat other editors as you want to be treated, please (spell names correctly, for example, remain fair and factual). Being new is your only excuse, - but for a new editor you know quite well how to revert and read edit summaries, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Relax, and be careful, unless you want to get into trouble with administrators.
Let's look at this step by step:
  • You added the name of a composer and some of his compositions to various lists of compositions, among other articles.
  • If the composer is notable, then the reversions that I have done are indeed less than appropriate. If the material is not notable, then my reversions are fine, and you are deliberately spamming.
  • Considering that the composer link you added to various articles was a redlink like this one, you were promoting a non-notable composer. Therefore, my reversions were OK.
  • However, I notice that the redlink has now become a bluelink, which means I'm not going to remove that name anymore from the relevant articles.
  • I have looked at the article and have some doubts about its subject's notability, but that is another issue.
That being said, as you are not a particularly prolific (and consequently experienced) editor, I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and read carefully what you see. Your statement regarding WP:WTAF is nothing but a falsehood—the editor who referenced is was User:Jerome Kohl, not me. Accusing somebody who reverts something of being a vandal is a very serious accusation, and is not taken lightly. For relevant reading, please see WP:3RR and WP:CIV. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for this issue. Now in my humble opinion you must think about an editor who start to write articles and once he saved them receives a deleted content marked as SPAM with the "...Your edits constitute spam as you have repeatedly added a redlink like this one into multiple articles...". Perhaps it is my way of work the cause of this issue. Here are my steps:

  1. I create the article about a composer.
  2. I start to update any othe article with the content which references the article created.
  3. I start with another composer.

If I wait until the article turn into bluelink I can not continue with the second stage, delaying whatever other contribution I wish to do. Now I understand your way of work but it was the word SPAM in the edit summary field what I can not understand doing the things with good faith. If you are agree I can deleted every "vandalism" I have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkmsclg (talkcontribs) 15:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand the point I was trying to get across. Your apologies are accepted. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Jew[edit]

Hi Toccata, don't know but think that User:All Hallow's Wraith point at Johannes Zukertort, is that a person is not under contemporary definition considered a Jew without a Jewish mother. From what I can see this is consistent w/ contemporary definition given in article Who is a Jew?. The definition can otherwise be complex and varied. What is the criteria we are using for WP articles? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A relevant discussion of this topic is found at Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 1#Category "Jewish chess player". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please cite me...[edit]

...the policy that says that WP:Project Music has the jurisdiction to prevent an infobox from being added to a composer's article. I submit, rather, that your project's objections to infoboxes is contrary to general Wikipedia practices. If you delete the infobox I have added to Harry Partch, I will bring you to the attention of the adminstrator's noticeboards for disruptive editing. The Music Project, does not, and cannot own the articles it claims to be within its purview, and it has no standing to prevent those articles from adhering to normal Wikipedia practices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are about as likely to be reported for having violated WP:3RR as I am—see [3], [4] and [5]. You threaten to report me for edit warring, even though you have performed just as many related reverts as I have. You are also blatantly distorting the policy WP:OWN. You are not seeking to achieve consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Infoboxes (yet again). either, and focus only on my edits, while ignoring the fact that the consensus is also reflected in the edits of other users—see [6], [7] and [8].
I also suggest that before bringing "you have no authority I will report you" drama anywhere, you have a thorough look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional comment: I notice that you are a preeminent example of a civil editor (per [9]): "You are totally out of your league in this instance, so I suggest you deal with subjects about which you know something, and keep your nose out of things about which you clearly know nothing. In other words: please fuck off." Nice. And let's not forget this gem of an edit summary: "this piece of bullshit" ([10]). Now I know that I should not expect you to partake in a discussion seeking to achieve consensus. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi TQ! Can I suggest that you are careful with using WP:PEACOCK? I think you have mentioned that English is not your first language, and I do not feel that the language you are copyediting in Richard Wagner falls into the WP:PEA category. WP:PEA relates to words that are exaggerated or indefinite, contentious, unsupported puff, etc. - but expressions such as (for example) 'deepening of his powers', especially where they are followed by a justifying source, do not fall under this criterion. There is a thin line of course between using infrequent adjectives and 'peacock' - but any language which one can find in encylopaedic sources should be acceptable (look for example in any detailed article in Grove). There is no need to reduce an ordinary English WP article to the standards of Basic English. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My English is not that bad; it certainly enables me to understand the guideline in question. My point is that an unsourced statement such as "Wagner was awesome" is to be removed, but one like "many commentators consider Tristan und Isolde Wagner's greatest opera<ref>Citation</ref>" is fine. "Wagner was awesome<ref>Citation</ref>" would need attribution, though. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the example you cite. But I cannot concur that the words deleted by you as WP:PEA, viz., 'Wagner's middle stage output begins to show the deepening of his powers as a dramatist and composer', are in the same peacock category as 'Wagner is awesome', and I believe most contributors would agree with me. The latter statement is an 'encylopaedic' expression conveying worthwhile (and indeed important) information about the changes in Wagner's style, which information is backed up by numerous reliable commentators; whilst the former statement has no informative content whatsoever. Shall we take this issue to the article talk page? Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In retrospect, I'd say the "deepening of his powers" passage is unnecessary, because it was in any case a duplicate of what the end of the same paragraph said (and still does). Toccata quarta (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That's true, because I reworded the final sentence a day or two ago following a previous citation by you of WP:PEA (which I also felt was not quite justified, although I did think the sentence needed clarification). So let's in the circumstances leave things as they are. But as the article is often a source of controversy, we should try to be as accurate as possible in citing reasons for edits. With thanks,--Smerus (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Personal history"[edit]

I'm not going to bother to change this again, but it's funny how your edit summary states: "Rm heading restored without a convincing edit summary, not supported by Category:FA-Class Composers articles, as well as thousands of other biographical articles on"...while several of the articles at Category:FA-Class Composers articles do not use "Biography", opting for "Life" (e.g. Georges Bizet, Frederick Delius, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Peter Warlock), "Life and career" in the case of Olivier Messiaen, or, in the case of Rebecca Clarke (composer) and Frank Zappa, nothing at all. I'm left at a loss as to what the objection is supposed to be. There is certainly no standard I have breached, and no consistency even within the Composers project. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Life" is indeed used; "Personal life", on the other hand, is something I have never seen in this encyclopedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Uh...I'm pretty sure you meant "Personal history", because "Personal life" is far from uncommon in bios on Wikipedia. Given that, "I've never seen it" certainly has to be the weakest argument I've ever seen. I'm sure you can do better than that—this level of "argument" is a bit embarrassing to witness. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 08:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "Personal history". Unless there is a guideline listing all permissible section titles of this sort—or one listing all forbidden ones—the present argument is the most valid inferential one I can present. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Which means you don't actually have an argument. It also leaves way up in the air your motivation for so persistently changing it. I'm as much in the dark now as before. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
And I can say the same. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Meaning, you refuse to make even the pretense of a cogent argument, so you'll just whip out the "I'm rubber—you're glue", as if it applies in the context. You have no apparent qualms about deceptively pointing in your edit summaries to an "authority" that in no way backs you up, presumably assuming nobody will call you on it. We could just agree to disagree, but you won't even show me enough respect to give me an argument to disagree with. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
What kind of argument do you want to see? I can think of only three:
  • a WP guideline,
  • one extrapolated from a dictionary and/or a book on English grammar, or
  • one reflective of the common practice of English-language encyclopedias other than WP.
The closest I can get to a guideline is Wikipedia:Wikiproject composers#Sections. "Biography" is the standard word across WP: see MOS:BIO and WP:BIOG, for instance. There may be a policy of which I'm unaware, of course.
I have never seen "Turkeys taste like lemon" used as a synonym for "Biography", so I see no reason to assume that it's a synonym, even without consulting a dictionary.
I come from a country where English is not an official language, so I can't help you there, as I spend far more working with material in a different language.
Please don't forget to use expressions such as "cogent argument" and "deceptively pointing ... to" in your upcoming reply; they make me yawn even more than Partch's music. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles[edit]

Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


You are correct; I should have been more careful. I accidentally selected the rollback option and immediately reverted upon realizing my error. Ankh.Morpork 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaboration on what happened; your apologies are accepted. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

YaoYao@Taipei New Year's Eve Party 2011.JPG Happy New Year!
Wow! Looks like they had fun at that New Year's party! (Mine was pale by comparison ... maybe next time.) I think you do valuable editing work for chess-related articles. Please keep it up. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope you enjoy the upcoming year! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to ask your thoughts ... Seems depressing to me, time is needed for mundane task of removing vandalism (e.g. "Fischer preferred Oreo cookies over chess" etc.). Seems imperative the Wiki must semi-protect these articles, otherwise quality editors are relegated to jantorial services, and that is tiresome and uninteresting. I'm sure this is discussed somewhere, but I'm not sure who's in charge of policy change such as that. I think it's ill-considered to continue going with the way it is. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There's always WP:RFP. However, I suspect it would be rejected on the grounds of "insufficient disruptive editing". Toccata quarta (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah (which means, they value their editors as little more than janitors [not to denegrate janitors]). Bots will eventually take care of this, but that kind of AI technology will take 25 years to get here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"American-born"! (That's gotta be the most creative way I've seen to-date, for disassociating USA from "The kid from Brooklyn". It's tiring to even see it. And Oh, I just finished editing Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938, and my gosh, it says there that Botvinnik's corker is "famous". Shame shame on us!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; this site has too much peacock about "fame" (a subjective phenomenon) and propaganda about Fischer (hardly one of the 30 greatest chess players of all time). Toccata quarta (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
OMG! Lookee here: Edward Lasker#Notable games -- the bad word "famous" is actually used TWICE in ONE sentence!! (Is there a 9-1-1 number we can call about this, or something!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Shit! - This article even has a *section* name having the bad word "famous". And the first sentence in the section even repeats the word, as if to rub it in. (What'r we gonna do about these transvestites travesties!??!??!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey! <joke>Can't you keep your naked racism at bay defaming the people and nation of India?? Or at least can't you stop slandering and vandalizing the chess article?? (Clearly those can't be *accusations*, don't you know [those sentences end in question marks, can't you see that?!], so they cannot be accusations when they are in fact *questions* -- don't you understand written English??) </joke>

(Too funny! Makes for fun reading. We all need a break for humor now & again.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not remotely as funny as " is not a reliable source." Toccata quarta (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. (But you forgot the qualifier—it's funnier w/ the qualifier: ChessBase is not a reliable source, generally.) (!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Quarta, thanks for your sharp eye. (In articles, and other places.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"Implement influence network infrastructure." (Wow. That sounds like some really "high-tech shit!" [—George Carlin]. Like this lead for article Chess ending.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
That lead is a real gem. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You do good work. (Even a little edit like this.) My ambition to do anything re pure chess articles is directly related, me thinks, to fact you & Quale are on this site. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I remember our being told we were both *racists*. Now today I was informed that I'm from Ohio! (I figure it's not an insult however; I think for that to be the case, I'd have been told I was from *New Jersey*.) Hehe Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Was that the Halloween Gambit expert? Thankfully he has received a temporary block for his disruptive behaviour. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, him. I don't like to see blocks though; was trying to be patient so he'd have time to "get" WP, I think there was a sign of that beginning (e.g. him differentiating the POV in his initial copyedit, from that of his database source - a distinction almost sounding "wikilawyer-like" [!] but nevertheless an improvement indicating beginning of adjustment/objectification of his thinking re relationship to WP content guideline). Perhaps he had/still has miscomprehension re WP and secondary sources; it is easy mistake to make: good OR = "knowledge", and an encyclopedia is nothing more than a collection of the best knowledge we have on any topic. ("Right?!") Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for your recent comments at the ANI. "Fuck off is almost a colloquialism" (or whatever was posted there)—that was a good one. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't seen you edit in over a month. (You OK? If anything I can do, just let know.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to take a break from editing for a "while". I'm not sure whether I'll return to regular editing now, as I'm still feeling disillusioned by Wikipedia (getting harassed by a nationalist [see the bottom of this talk page] didn't help). Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Toccata, just checking w/ you, how are you? ("Disillusionment"--don't get me started!) ;) Copyediting alongside your editing is still one of most positive experiences for me on WP (your attend to detail, command of the lang--still blows me away Eng wasn't your mother tongue!). Noticed the last Magnus match [article] dup'd the prev year format (that was nice!). But I've finished playing only half the games themselves--too boring! (What'd you think?) Anyway re WP, IMO is in some kinda prehistoric phase it needs to evolve from. (And that takes time.) Best to you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your nice message. I still don't know if I'll ever get back to editing this encyclopedia regularly; I just don't have much free time these days. I agree that the last World Championship was quite dull, but I'm sure that a Carlsen–Caruana match (if Caruana ever makes it there) would be great. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

ITN nomination[edit]

It's very real. I chose not to react after it was posted, but for the record, I'm disappointed that it's been posted. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to what? Toccata quarta (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The nomination is not of an important enough event; chess is not a sport; the person involved is not notable enough; there's not been anything like enough world-wide media coverage of the alleged ""achievement"". Need I go on? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As you can see at Chess Olympiad#Recognised sport, chess is a sport (in terms of being recognised as one by reliable sources). I don't know what you mean by "enough", but it's not obscure by any means, receiving attention not only in newspapers and news sites in Norwegian—see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and [27], for instance. The achievement is not "alleged", as you can see from the above sources, and I think you should read Elo rating system. It mentions that the Elo formula is used—in an adapted form—in the association version of your beloved football. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
We're just going to have to disagree, but I will congratulate this small and obscure hobby popular in Norwegian language press on getting to the front page of a website people have actually heard of. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
None of the sites I linked to is in Norwegian. As for obscurity—chess is so obscure that anybody whom you'll meet on the street has heard of it—including you. "Hobby"? Are you trying to say there's no money in there? Can you tell me what factory Carlsen works in? He appears to be too busy getting interviewed by people in the financial world (see [28] and [29]), as well as being "buddies" with George Soros and Kenneth Rogoff (see [30]). Oh, and I almost forgot to write "getting photographed with Liv Tyler" (see [31]). Toccata quarta (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing other editors' comments on talk pages[edit]

This is absolutely inappropriate. Please do not do it again. You should know better than that.—Chowbok 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if an editor is promoting shameless lies and using "subtle" insults? Toccata quarta (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. If he's lying or insulting, then say so. You don't get to delete his comments for that.—Chowbok 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Number one" vs. "No. 1"[edit]

There are 7 "number one"s used in the Magnus Carlsen article, and 8 "No. 1"s. (Although both are consistent w/ MOS, isn't it a little sloppy, do you think, to have usage cut right down the middle? Seems one should be chosen for consistency.) What do you think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone for the second option. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I like your choice! Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


"worldwide popularity"? That likely will never be cited which is why removal is better.Curb Chain (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My 60 Memorable Games#Reception should suffice for extrapolating sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
So such a statement would be composed through WP:SYN by you?Curb Chain (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
What statement? The book is one of the most famous and popular chess books of all time. Which part of that claim are you disputing? Toccata quarta (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
None of this is sourced and coming from your own mouth. That's not how wikipedia works. Does our article actually say "Bob Dylan is a famous musician"? Anyone is famous by having an article on wikipedia, so 1), it is a useless qualifier, and 2) different people will consider different things more or less famous, so this is another reason it is a useless qualifier. Same with controversy, this is subjective unless it is sourced.Curb Chain (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Assuming that "None of this is sourced and coming from your own mouth." refers to my comment from 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC), I have already given you a link to an article with numerous sources. Your claim that "different people will consider different things more or less famous" endorses original research. Regarding "controversy"—how do you feel about the article Controversy? Toccata quarta (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No, you can not use extrapolation (your own word) to create content like you did per WP:SYN. Article writing is not the same as endorsing WP:OR and I am telling you not to do it. And read WP:BURDEN; using "controversy" or other related words must be sourced.Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all, English is not my first language. I apologise if I misused the verb "extrapolate"; I simply meant to say "find a source". What irked me about your actions is that you chose to blank multiple portions of a high-quality article, without even attempting to remedy it. Instead of proposing a solution or pointing out a problem, you just engaged in deletionism. This site has a Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006, so it seems like not everybody has a zealous approach to editing. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
My issue is with the article and through deletion I am improving the article. Please read the policies if you have conflicts with articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorabji copy edit[edit]

Hi Toccata quarta. I'm taking on the copy edit you requested for the Sorabji article, and in such an exercise I always check a few phrases for close paraphrasing. Unfortuantely, I do not have access to the Abrahams reference, but I'd like to check how close pp. 144-145 are to the wording "He manifested in it great interest in interacting with the world of musicians". Could you check that out for me please? Best --Stfg (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for deciding to work on the article. I have consulted the relevant passage in the Abrahams dissertation, and I see nothing in the part of the article referencing it that strikes me as close paraphrasing or an outright copyright violation. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks for checking that. Please understand that I shall be working rather slowly on this, as I'm doing some things in real life as well. But it's the most interesting (to me) subject I've seen requested in my 18 months at GOCE, so I couldn't resist. At least you get bumped up the queue :)) --Stfg (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
All that is understood and well. I have played a bit with the second sentence in the lead's last paragraph, and currently it reads "Many of his works contain strongly contrasting approaches to musical form, ranging from baroque to athematic ones." I'm not very happy with this sentence, since "ranging" is repeated in the next sentence, and I also think "which range" (notwithstanding the issue of repetition) might be better. If you have any idea on how to improve the flow of this sentence, that would be most welcome. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about that sentence too. I had completely overlooked the repetition of "ranging" (d'oh!) but that will be easy to fix. More at the core of it are: athematic writing isn't really a form; from baroque to athematic isn't exactly a range. I was planning to let it alone for a day or two and work on, hoping that perhaps the body would show what is being summarised here, and then discuss it with you. My suspicion is that it's more a matter of compositional technique than of form, but ... What do you think of that? --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's true that athematism is not a form, which is why I went for "approaches". There must a be way to make it clear it to readers that baroque and athematic "forms" are in stark contrast to one another; perhaps "musical form, such as baroque and athematic ones"? Regarding technique and form, I feel that the former has more to do with creation than a final product. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I like "approaches". Maybe something like "His works often incorporate such contrasting approaches as athematic writing and passages in the baroque style."? --Stfg (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
May be even "... motivic passages in the baroque style", if the sources support it? --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have gone for yet another solution. I think it is OK now, but feel free to change it if you think of an improvement. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking much better. I'm uncomfortable about "contain" -- do works contain the approaches they use? How about something like apply, exploit, ...? --Stfg (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Musical works are regularly said to "contain a fugue", etc. For what it's worth, Google returns 5,440 results for the string "contain approaches". Perhaps a third party might provide a comment? Toccata quarta (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue with the phrase "contain approaches" when the relationship is genuinely one of containment. The Google test, always suspect anyway, doesn't address that. Fugues are entities with identifiable beginnings and ends, and are certainly often contained in larger works. Approaches are more abstract. It's fine for you to obtain other views, of course, but I think that, if we're already so tied up over one word in an article that contains over 5000, then I'm going to find it difficult to progress a copy edit, and it might be wiser if I return your request to the pool and bow out, with regret (because I was very interested in this one). Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you do that? You did outstanding work on the first parts of this article. I'm not arguing with you, but simply providing a reply. If you think I'm wrong, then just ignore what I have to say; after all, I was the one who requested help with the article, and I may be unqualified to discuss these matters. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

() I'm sorry. Wikipedia has given me a horrid time in the last week or so, and I'm on a short fuse. But I did offer other suggestions, and indicated with a question mark and a "something like" that I wasn't insisting on any one choice. It felt as if you were defending "contains" as the only option, and that calling in third opinions had a flavour of seeking dispute resolution. You're as well qualified as I am to discuss these matters, and I don't have it in me to just ignore what good editors have to say: I'd think myself very arrogant if I did that, especially while you're trying to shepherd the article towards GA. I'll sleep on this and decide tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to place you under needless pressure; feel free to take your time.
On the topic of the "architecture" sentence, I have gone for the following solution: "Many of his works contain sections employing strongly contrasting approaches to musical architecture—some of them use baroque forms, while other are athematic." What do you think of it? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I like it. "other" needed pluralizing, and semicolon is more accurate than dash here, but the wording is perfect. I'm sincerely sorry about this afternoon's outburst. You weren't the cause of my wiki-woes, and I shouldn't have taken them out on you. Please don't let it inhibit you from starting other discussions like that during the copy edit; it was going very well till I blipped. Next time I'll go for a walk before replying. I've reclaimed the GOCE request and will resume work tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this reply. I have done some inconsiderate things on Wikipedia myself, and I think it's usually no big deal; after all, we are all human and such slips are bound to happen in the midst of thousands of edits. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gary vs. Garry on BCO refs[edit]

Tocatta, when I've used:

Kasparov, Gary; Keene, Raymond (1982). Batsford Chess Openings. American Chess Promotions. ISBN 0-7134-2112-6. 

as a ref, I use "Gary", because that is how the name is printed on the book cover, the book title page, etc. (I don't think this should be changed when citing the book, that it should be represented as teh book representes it. Kasparov is listed as the first of two co-authors. I don't know the history behind use of "Gary" versus "Garry", but clearly the publishers had their reason at that time [i.e., it's no typo]). What do you think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. I had made mistake earlier of presuming "Gary" was how Kasparov's name was spelt, based on the BCO book I own, and made some edits on that basis. So I understand those should be reverted. But I think the case of using the BCO book as a ref, is perhaps a different animal.

Here's a pic of the book cover: [32]

I see on the new edition (BCO 2) the spelling is the same: [33]

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some guidelines on this at MOS:QUOTE, which offers multiple solutions. However, if "Gary" is restored, then the redirect should be avoided with [[Garry Kasparov|Gary Kasparov]]. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaissance art[edit]

When planning an edit on an article, it's always a good idea to check the previous edits. Your corrections to this article, in line with MOS, ignored the vandalism that had immediately preceded your edits. The result was that the vandalism was buried under half-a-dozen later edits. When something like this is finally noticed, then the correcting editor may or may not be able to trace the original text and may just delete a valuable sentence because it has been vandalised. If you are editing an article that's not on your "watch list", could you make a practice of checking the history first? (Some idiot deleted 1/4 of the article on Fra Angelico and it went unnoticed for three months, for a similar reason. ) Amandajm (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but if my edits and the reversion of something else lead to an edit conflict, then feel free to revert what I did; getting WP rid of garbage is far more important than conforming to stylistic guidelines that most of our readers do not care about. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
On the topic of vandalism, I don't understand why WP policies for the implementation of semi-protection are so strict. In my opinion the percentage of vandalism, rather than its frequency, should be used to decide. Some articles attract a lot of vandalism but very few devoted editors (example). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorabji (2)[edit]

Hi. Just to warn you that tomorrow I plan to return to my real-life project and semi-wikibreak. I'll keep the article on my watchlist until the GAN is complete (unless I convert to a full wikibreak), but today is the last day I'll be able to give it significant attention. Do you have many more issues you'd like to raise on its talk page? --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The issues are numerous (around 30 bullets). Obviously I can tackle them with a dictionary, but it may be best to place another request at the GOCE. Will the folks there mind if I make a highly specialised request just a few days after having made a general one for the same page? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
They won't mind, but you're likely to end up with a 2-month wait. How soon could you get those bullets on to the talk page? --Stfg (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It's difficult to make an estimate, but I don't think it would take me more than 2 hours to create the list. Just let me know if you are OK with doing any further work there, and I will post material there in groups of 10 or so bullets. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. I'm keen to complete the job if I can. If you do each group as a new subsection, with section editing, and don't worry to correct typos and formatting that done't affect the question, then we won't edit conflict and maybe we can get it done. --Stfg (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

() Looks as if we may be done now. Is that right? --Stfg (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, I will implement many of the remarks made recently on the talk page into the article, and I will keep working on the article in the near future, but otherwise, the copy editing is done. Thank you again for your invaluable work on the article. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Great. Good luck with the GAN (I'll notice when reviewing starts). --Stfg (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji[edit]

The article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji for things which need to be addressed. Tomcat (7) 13:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji[edit]

The article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 12:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit vs proofreading[edit]

Congratulations on getting Sorabji to GA. Just one thing for future reference: on the GA review page you commented that I proofread the article. In fact I copy edited it, which is very different indeed from mere proof-reading. When you make a request to GOCE, it will always be understood as a request for copy editing, and there is an expectation that the copy editor's choices will be respected where they are not clearly erroneous.

I'm taking the article off my watch list now the aim has been achieved. Congratulations again. --Stfg (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the congratulation, as well as the final copy editing of the article. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivia in List of Renaissance composers?[edit]

Excuse me, but why is the fact that John Milton was the father of the poet John Milton not trivia, while the fact that John Danyel was the brother of Samuel Daniel trivia? Please restore the sentence you removed. (And carefully because I have added some other contributions since then). It is all the more useful that the two brothers seem to have their last name usually spelled differently, at least in the literature. Maybe you should slow down and think a bit before you jump to remove stuff as "trivia" just like that. The best contribution is adding yourself material to an article, not removing other people's contributions for no good reason, such as in this case. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed this is not the first time you're pulling such a stunt (see on this page #Edit war?). Is this an obsession, or what? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

John Milton: they have the same name, so it provides disambiguation. Danyel: it's not relevant to the list. Why not mention what his hair colour was or how many languages he spoke? It's not relevant to his name nor his lifespan.
Thank you for your lecture on what constitutes contributing to WP; I'm sure Huggle and Twinkle users would agree with you. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Right. How about:
  • John Cornysh (late 15th century – early 16th century) Probably a relative of William Cornysh
  • John Mundy (c. 1555–1630) Son of William Mundy;
  • Edward Gibbons (1568 – c. 1650) Brother of Orlando Gibbons;
  • Ellis Gibbons (1573–1603) Brother of Orlando Gibbons;
  • Michael East (c. 1580–1648) Probably the son of Thomas East;
  • John Tomkins (1589–1638) Half brother of Thomas Tomkins;
  • Robert Dowland (1591–1641) Son of John Dowland;
  • Antoine de Févin (c. 1470–1511/12) Brother of Robert de Févin;
  • Robert de Févin (fl. late 15th century – early 16th century) Brother of Antoine de Févin;
  • Domenico Ferrabosco (1513–1574) Madrigalist, highly regarded by Alfred Einstein (!); father of Alfonso Ferrabosco
  • Piero Mazzuoli (Son of Giovanni Mazzuoli, whose compositions are all found in the San Lorenzo palimpsest)
  • Agostino Agostini (died 1569) Father of Lodovico Agostini
  • Vincenzo Galilei (c. 1520–1591) Father of composer Michelagnolo Galilei and astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei
  • Giovanni Maria Nanino (1543/1544–1607) Also spelt Nanini. Brother of Giovanni Bernardino Nanino
  • Francesco Guami (c. 1544–1602) Brother of Gioseffo Guami; active in Germany and Italy
  • Lodovico Agostini (1534–1590) Illegitimate son of Agostino Agostini
  • Felice Anerio (c. 1560–1614) Brother of Giovanni Francesco Anerio
  • Giovanni Francesco Anerio (c. 1567 – buried 1630) Brother of Felice Anerio
  • Giovanni Bernardino Nanino (1560–1623) Brother of Giovanni Maria Nanino
  • Michelagnolo Galilei (1575–1631) Active in Bavaria and Poland. Son of composer Vincenzo Galilei, brother of astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei
  • Gregorio Allegri (1582–1652), brother of Domenico Allegri
  • Domenico Allegri (1586-1629), brother of Gregorio Allegri

For that matter how about
  • David Sacerdote (1550–1625) Earliest known Jewish composer of polyphonic music, active at Mantua

Why is religion now relevant here according to your twisted ideas of "relevance" and "trivia"? Why is it not like "his hair colour etc." Of course I would consider this information about his religion relevant but then I consider information about family relationship between musicians, poets, or even scientists, etc. also relevant because they give context and help in their navigation the user of such a file (which is after all a barebone list, the first roadmap into a period of musical history) that readers would access in order to move around and explore and then go on to seek further information according to their preferences and interests.
Ok. That's enough. I've wasted enough time with you. You've got peculiar ideas as to what is relevant or not. I'm gonna revert your deletion of my information. If you want to play this game, fine. Btw, there are several errors in that file which I will point to you later (that's shows how useful your really are as a maintainer of these files). Anyway, if you once more touch a contribution of mine on such futile and idiosyncratic grounds I'll just simply revert your edit. If you continue this game will then I will follow until one of us reaches 3 reverts or we will have to resolve this problem (and hopefully the problem of your appointing yourself judge of what is relevant or not) through medation. My patience with you has just about reached its limit. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to know why you are so angry and allow yourself to become irritated so easily; this is only the second instance of our interaction on any talk page (as far as I remember), yet it might appear to a third party that I have been "harassing" you for years.
Regarding the rest of what you wrote:
  1. You have no right to tell editors that they are useless just because they focus on different types of edits; as said at WP:NOE, "Of course, we would like as many people as possible to get involved, including those whose only edit may be to fix a simple typo. Everyone's contributions are equally welcome."
  2. I have not looked at the list in much detail; I'm sorry if I do not have your brainpower, but I have hundreds of articles on my watchlist and I can't review each of them in 2 minutes and make sure it's stylistically a topically consistent from top to bottom.
  3. You have not replied to my point about bloodlines not being relevant to a composer's name or lifespan.
  4. As for your "game" comment, your false dichotomy is amusing; why do you assume this discussion is not a path for finding a solution? I'm willing to talk to you. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for appearing angry and for saying you were useless. Of course that's not true. I do tend to write a bit too fast, plus I had already another problem a few days ago with a file I created (Henry Greenway) that I had to waste 30 minutes afterwards to convince the patroller who put it up for speedy deletion that he was wrong. Life is short, and if I spend time on Wikipedia I'd rather contribute than having to get into these kinds of arguments. Of course discussion is the real way. I'll respond in more detail later. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Toccata quarta.
Let me answer first your question: "You have not replied to my point about bloodlines not being relevant to a composer's name or lifespan." Of course it's not. But you seem to be implying that the only things that are allowed and need to go into these list files is name and lifespan. Are you really saying that?
I'd also like to ask you some questions back in order to better understand how you operate in your editing activity especially when it comes to those maintenance tasks on a file such as the one of quickly removing something you consider to be trivia (as in this case).
How many pages (from the article namespace) do you have in your watchlist? (You said "hundreds" but that can be "200" or "1900") I personally never have more than about 20, maximum 30 pages. (You said something about "brainpower" but it's clear in view of this that I am not the one with the most impressive brainpower).
Another thing I'd like to know to understand how you operate: Do you base your actions on a Wikipedia document (WP:Blah, WP:XYZ, WP:This or WP:That; this last one actually exists: amazing!) or do you base them on your own judgement and common sense? What is your motivation? To make an article conform to a Wikipedia document or to make it be a better article?
Finally regarding these list files (particularly the "List of composers..." by period list files) we've already had two unfortunate interactions about, what is their readership in your opinion? How are they used? Should Wikipedia editors ask themselves such questions when editing those files or not?
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment[edit]

Hey Toccata quarta - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


You formatted in Wagner, edit summary "Consistency". What should be made consistent? Its titles vs. translations. Here we have titles in English, for example The Flying Dutchman, there we have just an attempt of a translation that is not used (as far as I know) as a title. I tried to make that difference (!) visible. Please treat the translations of the early works' titles only as titles if you have a reliable source doing so, - I didn't find one but didn't have time to really look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I followed the model used by Smerus in the passage "Die Hochzeit (The Wedding)"; the translated title is placed in italics and English rules for using capitals are followed. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I could obviously not explain what I mean, The Wedding IS a title. "The lover's caprice" or however that is rendered IS NOT a title, only the translation (!) of a title. It should therefore not be italic and not capitalised, if you ask me, unless there's a good source doing so, - but I won't revert it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Miloš Zeman[edit]

I agree that if it is unsourced it can't stay in the article, but the claim is very apt and true. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions in chess[edit]

Black (or White) is capitalised in the format where I did so-this has always been the case in my forty years following, playing and writing about the game. The MOS here has nothing to do with it. Hushpuckena (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My reference to MOS: had to do with "circa". Regarding capitalisation, I followed the conventions set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Capitalization conventions. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Magnus Carlsen up to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Oops, I edited too hastily; thanks for fixing. Opus33 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

squire in brackets[edit]

That's a problem! Inside a quoted statement, any word I personally add for clarity HAS to be inside a square bracket, not parentheses. So changing that to (squire) is, for a scholarly presentation, very misleading: it looks as if Lully added that word in parentheses! He didn't. So the parentheses are unacceptable. That is why I put the following: [ spacesquire space]... which gives something very close to the result I want: [ squire ]. Most people won't notice that there is a space around "squire"? Or perhaps there some other way for Wiki's coding to permit something that looks like this: escuyer [squire] ... but with the blue link to the Wiki page. Until there is a solution, I will remove the blue underlining. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Ranumspa

I'm sorry, I did not notice that it was part of a quote. I will fix the text. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good. It is a problem, isn't it. I'll look and see what you did to fix it :-) Thanks Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Ranumspa

Edward Elgar[edit]

Hi, re your revert: I take it that you don't have that book. The page in question is not page 99, but page P99 - it's numbered as such at upper right: the letter is part of the page identifier. Similarly the three refs immediately following, where the page numbers are:

  1. le Fleming 1954, pp. G26, G27
  2. le Fleming 1953, p. H18
  3. Sterndale et al. 1974, pp. M94, M101

These are from the same fourteen-part set as Davies 1993; this set is sometimes found bound into larger (and thus fewer) volumes. Retaining the letter prefix uniquely identifies the page in such bindings, as advised inside the front cover for parts 1-12, and in the Foreword. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, of which I was unaware. I will revert my edit. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Very pleased to see this exchange. I keep an eye on the Elgar article, and I was sorry to see a dispute there. So glad it's been resolved in such a civilised manner. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


To clarify, as you seem to be operating under the assumption that I dislike Wagner, I don't dislike him in the least and I never mentioned removing him from the VA list to anyone nor do I agree with his removal. We are in more agreement about Wagner then you realise, that's why I put so much effort into my FAC review, something I would never do for a subject in which I was not quite interested. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


I keep on forgetting to thank you for your tireless correction of my typing and punctuation in Wagner, etc. Just to say that I am really very grateful!!--Smerus (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User Mmlov and edits to the Frank Zappa talk page[edit]

Hey. I've opened a sockpuppetry case over Mmlov (who I believe has been vandalizing Talk:Frank Zappa through different IP addresses here. If you have any input to give, it would certainly be appreciated. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

French Defense[edit]

Does this sentence seem good to you (it doesn't to me):

White usually tries to exploit his extra space on the kingside, where they will often play for a mating attack.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In the end, not really, so I reverted myself. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Who is "they"? Is it just White? Is it both players? (The problem with the singular do you know if it is singular or plural?) Change it to "he". (You've already used "his" earlier in the sentence anyway, so be consistent.) Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not take orders. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry – I didn't intend it that way (and was certainly too direct in my phrasing). Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
OK; apologies accepted. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Serial or no[edit]

Hi Toccata, going thru Magnus, can't help but see there's lots of non-serial comma, and lots of serial comma. Not supposed to mix of course. (I'd vote serial, what say you?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong feeling about that. I prefer not to use serial commas if given the choice, though. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a long, complex article, with lots of info/data. (IMO, no serial comma just adds burden on reader, who must mentally separate, to make sense of text.) It's a big choice for the article, perhaps there are hundreds of cases in it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this topic should be raised at Talk:Magnus Carlsen, to establish consensus. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right; but could be lack of response too. (Wanted to chk w/ you however, since you are dedicated editor this article.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Lists of compositions[edit]

Thanks for fixing my "See" at Max Reger. If there's one thing that I really wish for with Wikipedia, it would be the use of a standardized format for finding lists of compositions under different composers. I'm not a musician - I'm trying to catalog a very large collection of classical recordings, so I always need to find correct listings for any number of different composers. Sometimes they're a real mess, such as the way I had initially found Reger's article organized. But even so, if you look around you'll find several different formats used, and in different sections of an article, not always obvious. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Sections offers a recommendation, but no more. The approach I like best is the one I used in the article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. I've never liked the solution used in the article Gustav Mahler, for instance. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Toccata quarta ! I'd like to know why you favour the form "Buonaparte" over "Bonaparte" for the page on Beethoven's Eroica symphony, since the very Wiki article on Napoleon brings the latter spelling. Perhaps I'm missing something here. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I did that because "Buonaparte" is used in the original text. Per MOS:QUOTE, "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." The rest of the guideline contains more information on this matter. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
So, I was missing something... Thanks for the explanation ! MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Goldberg Variations[edit]

Do you care to expand on your "pointless clutter" comment and removal of the Infobox Bach composition template and Italic title template? Did you base your revert on some MOS guidance or policy? Bede735 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

List of most viewed YouTube videos[edit]

I reverted the footnote again because after I posted an explanation on the talk page, I waited, noticed you had not responded but that you have made edits elsewhere, so I assumed taht you decided not to respond. Are you going to respond? Trinitresque (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Katherine Ciesinski[edit]

Your edit changes the character of the, now five year old, text to a large enough degree that makes your edit unwarranted. As Ms. Ciesinski's official biographer, I've taken the liberty of restoring the original text of the article, as per her mentions in the Baker's, Oxford, and the guide to Women in American Music. Thanks for your time. OUPNYC (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Five year old" means nothing; if something is wrong, it's wrong. The bit of text that I changed was contrary to the Wikipedia guideline WP:WTA (specifically the WP:PEA portion thereof). Please consult it. Regarding your second sentence, such behaviour is a violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN. (Please consult that one too.) And as for the other encyclopedias, they're just that. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


I find it interesting after your argument you failed to back your point up here. Perhaps you missed it? OGBranniff (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No; I just felt that others had already presented sufficiently strong arguments. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
At the time in which I was asking you to support your argument, you were the only person that had commented on the discussion. Therefore, your statement here that "others had already presented . . . " is mere disingenuousness, to be charitable. OGBranniff (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The arguments were eventually presented, so I no longer felt the need to reply. I'm not capable of replying to comments in a nanosecond, and I do have many interests within Wikipedia and beyond it. Sorry. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. Thank you for your reply. Have a good evening and I hope all is well. OGBranniff (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • And here is a bit more on the background. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello! My defence I explained everything but you didn't want to understand. Your resistance was pointless and annoying. Why you put the numbers now? I guess you understand that those numbers are necessary. Don't put some annoying things on my talk. Again, I am glad that you understand those numbers are imortant even if you changed the name (Key??). –Tsasaa12 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the worth of your edits. I was talking about the Wikipedia POLICY WP:3RR. Please read it. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks. Quale (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


If you move/rename a chess article, you need to make that change in index of chess articles too. The reason is that if you don't, "related changes" in that article shows changes to the redirect page instead of the article. Thank you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that information; I have accordingly changed the index page. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:[edit]

Hey there! I just wanted to let you know that per WP:BLANKING the IP in question is allowed to blank their talk page, even if it removes warnings. Since the warnings are permanently visible in the page history, and diffs are acceptable evidence in cases that involve Wikipedia admins, it doesn't matter in the long run if the IP blanks their talk page. Regards, RA0808 talkcontribs 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but in my experience blanking does affect ClueBot's actions. Is that not the case? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Having not much experience with Cluebot I can't be sure. In my experience with Huggle the warn level stays even if the user blanks their talk page. RA0808 talkcontribs 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the warning templates for vandals, you will that they contain the string "<!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 -->" (example). I haven't been able to find the diffs, but I do recall seeing ClueBot post a level 1 warning twice due to page blanking. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


He did call these pieces 'Symphonie pour le piano seul' and 'Concerto pour le piano seul' so I believe capitalisation is appropriate. Probably italicization as well, which I will see to. Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the French titles should indeed be italicised (as is the case with Stockhausen's Klavierstücke), but I believe that in English these titles are generic, just like "Choral Symphony No. 1". Regarding capitals, in this case, the text does not use a title, but merely a reference to the works' genres; it is comparable to the phrase "yesterday I finished writing a symphony", rather than "yesterday I finished writing my Symphony No. 2". Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Riccardo Muti article and info boxes[edit]

You might want to take a look at User talk:Erru il 1988's talk page where I've posted a note to him re: info boxes and his reverts of my removal of the box - which he added in spite of your note. I'm not a member of your Project (though I am on the Opera one), and therefore have similar feelings about them as your Project does. Good luck. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Puccini references[edit]

Hi Toccata quarta, I've found a better reference for the diabetes and added it. If you're wondering why I've replaced the Kendell references, see this discussion. The IP has an ongoing campaign to get his book into Wikipedia, happens every couple of months. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff[edit]

I've refiled this case against Mendoza2909, feel free to leave your observations if you have time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Toccata quarta, thanks for improving Missa Gaudeamus page! Actually it is the first article I tried to create, hoping to improve further.. une musque de Biscaye (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I forget if I asked before...[edit]

That'd be Toccata quarta as in a work for piano completed in 1969 by a composer who died in 1988 (KSS)... ? I'd made a sequence of the first movement and bits of others (sounds quite good, anyway, allowing for the approximations- not surprisingly) and hoped to try to typeset it at one point but I think it's probably beyond my abilities. Anyhow. Happy editing and cheers! Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my username is a reference to that piece, although there are a few other composers who also wrote a "Toccata quarta". Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Have you heard the "recording" that's been uploaded (by the fellow who typeset the work) of the Jāmī Symphony, over at sorabji-files, by the way? (Yes, the uploaded synthesized version sounds maybe something like at best an organ, percussion, vocalise, etc. and reducing an orchestral work of five hours-odd to that limited palette is wearying, but- I never expected to hear it in any form at all, and I find it fascinating- at least- personally...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (to be more accurate and not to understate, I've listened to it several times and like and am glad to have it, but I'm fairly used to MIDI sounds etc.)

I have. However, you shouldn't be getting me started on anything Sorabji, since then this might develop into a conversation violating WP:NOTFORUM in every manner imaginable. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted, noted. I haven't been here regularly for some time and keep forgetting things. Cheers Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Richard Wagner[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Richard Wagner know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 22, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 22, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard Wagner

Richard Wagner (1813–83) was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas. His compositions, particularly those of his later period, are notable for their complex textures, rich harmonies and orchestration, and the elaborate use of leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements. These innovations greatly influenced the development of classical music; his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music. Wagner revolutionised opera through his concept of synthesising the poetic, visual, musical and dramatic arts. He first realised these ideas in his four-opera cycle The Ring of the Nibelung. He had his own opera house built at Bayreuth, containing many novel design features, where his most important stage works continue to be performed in an annual festival run by his descendants. Wagner's controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment in recent decades, especially where they express antisemitic sentiments. The effect of his ideas can be traced in many of the arts throughout the 20th century. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Overture of "The Flying Dutchman" ...[edit]

Your move to Overture of "The Flying Dutchman" as played at sight by a bad spa orchestra at the well at 7 in the morning made me look at the German again. Do you have a source for your version? A better translation would be Overture of the "Flying Dutchman" as played at sight by a bad spa orchestra at the well at 7 in the morning, because the original has a sloppy zum "Fliegenden Holläner", not giving the precise opera title, - that should show somehow, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My move only changed the quotation marks in the page's name. The WP article is called The Flying Dutchman (opera), but Wikipedia is obviously based on sources, even if those use incorrect grammar. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You probably misunderstood me. The German article is "Der Fliegende Holländer", however: Hindemith did NOT quote it precisely, but (intentionally, I would assume) in a sloppy way. The present English title is overly correct, which is not a good translation. If this English title is sourced, fine. Sourced is more important than true. But if not, I would move it to the better translation mentioned above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


FYI, I added the info about him being the elder brother of Robert Fuchs after noticing that analogous information had been provided elsewhere on the page for members of the Strauss family etc. (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That falls into the realm of WP:OSE. I have always been of the opinion that such lists should be limited to lifespans and descriptions of composers' oeuvres, and that bloodlines should be mentioned only when there is need for disambiguation. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I made the addition just for editorial consistency. Cheers, (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take part in a new discussion[edit]

Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:

"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ([34]).

Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013 Minor Edit of Harmony by RiskNerd[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my contributions and for clarifying the definition of Help:Minor edit. You wrote: "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content." Do you know if there is a way to revise my edit to remove the minor edit flag? Will I be notified automatically if another user later makes any changes to my edits or additions?

I understand now that when adding factual information and cross-referencing with other Wikipedia articles that help to complete the encyclopedic presentation of a subject, such as adding information about Unison to Harmony as I did in this case, such additions are not considered minor because other users may disagree with the idea that the article was incomplete without the additions. It is clear that Wikipedia is a living document, an ongoing discussion amongst everyone who might read or edit any of its articles. Your prompt message on my talk page and your invitation to discuss was appreciated. Did you find any fault with my contributions? RiskNerd (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply; sometimes I get exceedingly distracted by the business of "ordinary" life and working on Wikipedia, and as a result forget to reply to questions such as the ones you've asked.
  1. It can't be changed.
  2. If somebody reverts one of your edits, you will receive a notification next to your username at the top of this page. Otherwise, the only way to know what's happened to your edits is to use the WP:WATCHLIST.
  3. Judging by the edits I have seen from you, I should point out that one of Wikipedia's most important principles is the referencing of reliable sources. Pages related to this that probably every Wikipedian should be familiar with are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:REF.
I hope this helps you. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies re Wagner edit[edit]

Apologies, this was a clumsy edit by me. I did mean to remove the material, not because I am 'opposed' to it as such but because it is essentially WP:UNDUE basically repeating in a slightly different form/context the matter in the previous sentence; the reference added is unnecessary as the information is covered by the reference to the previous sentence. I guess this was inserted by the IP editor just to try to justify adding a certain book to the references - as he has tried to do before. We might therefore hazard a good guess at the IP's identity.--Smerus (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, slips happen from time to time. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[edit]

I guess this is what I was thinking of (when earlier supposing all games might not be avail w/o paid membership). (The games aren't blocked, but it is harder to get to them w/o the links!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Music of Iran[edit]

Hello Toccata,

Please review my posts and you can see that I am not exaggerating at all. This is not at all a bias opinion, I am a very fair person, and I just wanted to add the name of some Famous Iranian Singers and the person who brought Jazz music to Iran and played in front of the Shah. I am kindly asking you to please reconsider my edits and allow me to post my family's legacy here on Wikipedia. I will hold my account fully responsible for any misleading information you may find, I can back it up with newpaper articles. Photos, what you wish... Please I ask you kindly, to redo my edits to this page, it would mean a lot to my family as well as Vigen's family which is Nikole's first cousin.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterbloo (talkcontribs) 18:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who decides about this matter; it is judged by Wikipedia policies. If your family members are notable enough for Wikipedia, then feel free to create articles about them, establishing notability by referencing reliable sources (otherwise the articles will probably be deleted). For more information on relevant Wikipedia policies, see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. In your case, WP:COI is something of a problem. There's also WP:RA as a solution. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Then I will create pages, will it be ok then? It's funny how you have Vigen taking credit for my Grandfather as Sultan of Jazz, vigen was a pop singer (May God rest his soul) I loved Vigen as much as my grandfather, he was my mother's first cousin, and you have him listed there as king of Jazz, he did not play jazz music, he was a singer with a beautiful voice. That is what I am trying to tell you... Incorrect information listed here... You can ask anyone and you will see that I am not making this up.
I will create an article and then we can see, if you will approve it, right now you are just going on policy which is incorrect... but it's ok I will get my family's name there if I have to dispute this item, which I have already contacted WIKI about... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Good luck then. You may also like to check out WP:AFC. Just remember, the important thing is for your article to assert notability by referencing reliable sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

String Quartet No. 16 (Beethoven): Reverting edit[edit]

Hello Toccata, this is reference to your post on my talk page about my edit on String Quartet No. 16 (Beethoven). I understand that much of the content was not conforming to encyclopaedic neutrality, but since I quoted almost all of it directly out of other articles and linked to the sources, I thought this should be acceptable? Or does that apply to explicit quotes only? (Also, what is a better method of continuing a conversation - replying on each other's talk pages or continuing in a single thread on any one of them? Need a tip, thanks.) Bubka42 (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Extensive quoting sometimes falls into the realm of WP:COPYVIO. However, it is common for Wikipedia articles to contain passages such "Musicologist Nomen Nescio describes the Piano Concerto No. 2 by [composer] as 'a harmonically rich work, [etc.]'".
As for talk pages, some people like fragmented conversations, while others (myself included) prefer to retain each conversation on one place. The first group of editors frequently relies on Template:Talkback. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits to List of firsts in India[edit]

Hi, you reverted back my 'minor edit'. Sorry for not providing any description. No, the edit was not a mistake. The list element I removed was a duplicate (same as the 6th element in the list). Jeet (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Stam[edit]

Declared really is puffery as has arbitrary criterion of: 1)least 8+ years at blue chip level under their belts 2) still currently working, for whom qualifies an "Industry Icon".

According to Merriam Webster declare means:

1) Say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
2) Formally announce the beginning of (a state or condition): "Spain declared war on Britain in 1796".

I'm taking the language down a peg. I think put on the list or listed will be sufficient. --Wlmg (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I understand that. But I would say that the important guideline is WP:SAY. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok. On a personal note it seems peculiar that would make such a list. After all when a model retires they get kicked off the icon list. Then what? A list of fashion icons of the past? --Wlmg (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Popular music operates on a similar basis; the "top 40" list changes more frequently than such rankings of the canon of classical music. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sicilian Defence[edit]

Hi Toccata. I'm not following your meaning in this case.

At grandmaster level, 1...e5 scores slightly better, mainly because of the difficulty in breaking down defences such as the Berlin Defence.

(What is not specific about this sentence? It seems complete and specific to me. Let me know in more detail what your objection is.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Such as" is uninformative. In what respect are those other, unspecified defences comparable to the Berlin Defence? Do they have similar pawn structures, similar king safety, or something else? Neither similarities nor opening names are mentioned there. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I understand you better now. (Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi there! Just to thank you for your continuing support and comments in developing the Alkan article. GA today, FA I hope in a month or so! Best,--Smerus (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I feel my work on the article has been negligible so far, and I haven't yet gotten around doing the bulk of work that I wished to do on it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I don't mean to cross swords with you at the Bach article. Let's talk about this audio file. First problem I have is that it's by Vivaldi (99.5%), not Bach, and you and I could have done just as well as Bach in copying the notes of those chords onto a keyboard score (unlike the outer movements, which took a whole lot more skill by the great man). Tony (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

chess endgame[edit]

Are you going to report the false positive by Cluebot on chess endgame? I don't know either of these quotes, but they seem genuine to me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have already done so. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


It's not about   can understand   but about the   ease. Tables should be useful, should provide info easily, at a glance, without damaging readers' eyesight, without wasting their time Wlod (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

George Gershwin[edit]

Please read the explanation here. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

OR tag in George Gershwin[edit]

This may even be justifiable: although on the surface the whole passage seems to be if anything OVER-referenced, and the "If..Then statement" the merest common sense. All good articles are riddled with what CAN, if you push the parameters a bit, be classed as OR. Wikipedia would be unworkable otherwise, since we're not allowed to just copy blocks of text. To put it another way: nothing wrong with originality, in fact the best wiki articles are full of original "thought". Obviously this originality has fairly narrow bounds (hence the "original research" criteria), but there is a real danger in drawing these bounds tighter than necessary. I think on the whole we should give "borderline" cases the benefit of the doubt.

But actually the main point is that at the moment this question is hiding in an inconspicuous little tag: I deleted the tag so that the question might be raised responsibly in talk. Fair enough, you think this IS OR (or at least "bordering" on it) - so why not raise this in talk, as I suggested. I would have done so myself, but since my own opinion is so much "on the other side" this might have been biased of me. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for grumpy edit summary - I'm a bit like that I'm afraid (allowed to be at my age!)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
And incidentally - have a look at WP:SYNNOT - I know it's "only" an essay and not official policy - but there's a lot of sense there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi there. You may remember that we discussed an ambiguity in MOS:LQ while I was copy editing Sorabji for you. This is just to let you know that I've mentioned it and linked to our discussion in the discussion of this issue at WT:MOS#Regarding MOS:LQ. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sick mouse[edit]

Toccata, thx for the restoration at WCC. (Don't know how that happened; my mouse might be going bad.) Thx again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI (Wagner talk page)[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I realise that it is perhpas a marginal case, but wouldn't you consider Hinton a musicologist, albeit in a narrow field? He is curator of the Sorabji Archive, hsparticipatedin editing the music, and has written on Sorabji. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is something of a bordeline case. However, due to the high degree of specialisation in his case, it may be better for the article to just state the extent of his involvement in Sorabjian scholarship and score editing. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Cello Suites?[edit]

Britten: I wondered about that, looked at the article, thought they are a set, then capital Suites. If suites, then move ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that they are not meant to constitute one big piece, since they have different opus numbers. The article makes the "series" claim, but this may not be supported by sources. See for instance [35]. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For continually working to improve the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work! —Eustress talk 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Saw you making some helpful improvements lately! —Eustress talk 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Britten, and spacing[edit]

Thanks for your tweaks to the work in progress on the Britten article. Is a double space (inadvertent when I perpetrate one, though some seem to favour them between sentences) something one needs to look out for? That is, does it have bad effects on some screens etc? Always glad to add to my technical knowledge. Best, Tim riley (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS:PUNCTSPACE says, "the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page". Nevertheless I prefer to remove double, triple, etc. spaces (although usually when my edit includes some other change), since 1) it saves space, and 2) one browser that I used to visit Wikipedia with did display double spaces. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you. I'll remember that. (Incidentally, my raising that small technical point doesn't mean I'm unappreciative of your other additions to the Britten article!) Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mark Elder[edit]

I must admit confusion about the reverted text:

Is a living person's age not suitable material for the lead section? Otherwise I'm not sure what the link to WP:LEAD is trying to tell me. Apparently WikiProject Classical music has decided no infobox is allowed, so I'm not sure where else this should go. If the answer is nowhere, I will struggle to calculate 2013-1947 in my head. --WikiWikiPhil (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not show any example of a person's calculated page being part of the lead. You may also have a look at WP:FA to see that is the standard practice on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem citing WP:FA is that almost all biographies of living people, especially those which are developed enough to make "featured article", have an infobox, where the age template is not at issue. For whatever reason infoboxes are not desired for classical music biogs, so the information which would go there has to be placed in the main article body (or omitted). Is your understanding of WP:OPENPARA that everything not explicitly recommended is prohibited? The dates of birth and death are suggested, so for people not-yet-dead, is the age template not appropriate? --WikiWikiPhil (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia[edit]

Circa can be abbreviated to either c. or ca. Either is correct. I wrote much of the original article and thought ca. was correct. Article summaries are not required; I find your claiming an edit was "vandalism" rather offensive. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the MOS: is not very clear about this; it says "the unitalicized abbreviation c. (followed by a space) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx", but there's no clarification of whether "preferred" means "better", "more popular" or something else. I did not claim that your revert was vandalism; on the contrary, I pointed out that that was the claim implied by your edit summary, since it contained no text by you. Whenever I click on "Undo", I get the message "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." Toccata quarta (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

King's Gambit[edit]

Hi, you removed these lines about the April Fools' prank on the King's Gambit article citing WP:DUE. Could you clarify? It was a story that apparently had the chess and techie internet talking, not to mention the only notable event concerning the opening in years. As someone duped by the prank who came to WP for more information, it seems worthwhile to have it here. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's significant enough to merit an inclusion in the article, especially since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of pranks. I can't recall seeing coverage of any other April 1 ChessBase joke here. And, for what it's worth, Wikipedians tend to dislike April Fools' jokes on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


I don't agree with you, but I am not in the reverting game either. I did not say anything about recordings. He is considered to be one of the greatest of all time. It is said some separate recordings of Karajan were sometimes spliced together for better effect. Hmm. In any case, it is better to say he is considered 'to be' rather than 'to have been', as he is still considered to be ...! At the mpment, I am more interested in the 24-year-old blind Japanese pianist Nobuyuki Tsujii. Have a good morning, day or evening, wherever you are.--Zananiri (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Thanks so much for weighing in on this. I am trying to knock the article into shape but as you see it is a major task. Apart from cutting the crap and then completely rewriting, virtually all the references need to be replaced. This will probably be a long haul. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem; usually I end up wherever there is activity on my watchlist. Do you think the external links have already been cleaned up enough? The "Recordings" section is another unsourced magnet for spam, and it contradicts the list given in the section "Influence" (where neither list should be). Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I agree, there is still a lot more cleaning up to do. Also to chuck out a lot of sentimentality, 'Polishism', and general droning in the text.--Smerus (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit[edit]

I'm curious about your edit comment when removing a sample game from the BGD article. (I'm not arguing that the game should be kept; I don't really have a strong feeling about that either way.) "If it is a draw in objective terms, then this doesn't belong here." I don't understand that reasoning. A sample game in a chess opening article can only be objectively won? Quale (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the game was introduced with the text "Below is a sample game that features the unusual feat of Grandmaster Efim Bogoljubov beating Diemer with his own favorite opening". If he won the game on time then the introduction is inadequate. I have no problem with using draws to illustrate how an opening has been played. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to hassle you, but I almost always understand your reasons even on the occasions when I don't agree with them. I don't agree or disagree with this, it just doesn't make sense. If there is a problem with the introduction, then the usual way to fix it is by editing it, not deletion. Also, last I checked winning on time is a legitimate way to win a tournament game. If the victory had been awarded by the arbiter for a cell phone violation or the like I would see your point as that would have nothing to do with the choice of opening, but part of the game of chess is to make your moves in the allotted time. The amount of time a player takes is very often directly connected to the opening, and most losses on time are caused by spending too much time on the opening phase. I don't see how the introduction was inadequate, but even if it was, are you saying you wouldn't have deleted the game if the sentence explaining that the loss may have been on time had appeared before the game score? That's how we know that the position was objectively drawn, because it was stated directly in the article. Your logic here escapes me completely. Anyway, I don't have anything more to say about it. Quale (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not calling the win illegitimate or anything. But the point is that, while such a win could be used as a "time management lesson", it's not an example of one of the opening's proponents getting outplayed in it, just losing on time. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ponziani Opening[edit]

I am David Taylor co author of Play the Ponziani. In Wikipedia there is no source for the statements that the Ponziani is inferior to the Ruy Lopez and Giuocco Piano. There is a source of statistics. It is from 500,000 games played since 1991.

Chess opening statistics:

The Ten Best Chess Openings for White is a video where I found the link above. is possibly the online chess site which has the most members. Over 7 million. There are hundreds of teams which play Vote chess.

Playing vote chess is team vs team. The members of each team vote for each separate move. The Ponziani Power Vote Chess Team has been playing other very strong teams. Teams with players rated 2200 and up to above 2400. Ponziani Power has played some beautiful Ponziani games and has won against 13 teams in a row with no losses or draws. This is a remarkable achievement considering an individual game can be won or lost or drawn and there is no opening in chess where you have a 50% chess of winning. [as there are draws]

To win 13 such matches in a row by luck alone would be one chance in more than 100,000 [Ponziani Opening win 41% Loss 29% draw 30%] so 41% times itself 13 times is less than one in 100,000. There are hundreds of vote chess teams in but not one has such a amazing record. This says a lot about the playability of the opening.

The remarks about the various opening variants are not correct at all. Why give them without adequate references? Why give quotes from more than 100 years ago when the theory of the opening was not developed?

Now, super grandmasters are playing the Ponziani. Why the super negative when I can provide much positive?

Sincerely, David C Taylor co author of Play the Ponziani author of Ponziani Power co author of Center Counter Uprising. 7th United States Correspondence Chess Champion.

Ponz111 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, what you did was promote a random Internet game in the article Ponziani Opening. Such a game might have some encyclopedic value—after all, Wikipedia has the article Kasparov versus the World—, but you did not assert the importance of the game in any way. For relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines on this, see WP:N, WP:DUE, WP:V and WP:RS. Regarding your identity, please take notice of WP:COI. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Chess World Cup 2013[edit]

In response to your comment on my talk page, the reason I did it is because the final rating calculation for the event will be based on August ratings, and months/years after the event is over, it would be more "correct" to look at the August ratings rather than the July ones in order to see the rating difference between opponents (and possibly do your own ELO calculations). Secondly, it's consistent with every other chess event page wikipedia has: every chess tournament page always lists the FIDE ratings (provided they exist) of the month the rating change calculation for the event will be based on. With that said, I see the problems you have with this, and I even thought about leaving both July and August ratings, but without a proper table this would look messy. If you're in charge of these pages, it's up to you to decide what to do, and if you know how to make the participant list look like a numbered table, you could create a template, and I would be even willing to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtwz (talkcontribs) 21:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Please note that I'm not in charge of any page—see WP:OWN. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Halloween analysis consensus[edit]

The wikipedia page on the Halloween is outdated and biased. It claims the Pinski line is a refutation and that is not true. is not the only source. A simple search on google can show other supported links. There used to be a pdf ebook from UON on the Halloween however nobody hosts it anymore. Therefore Zimbeck will be one of the only people on the internet with the theory on this. I challenge you to find theory that covers every line elsewhere. Zimbeck is a senior master with a rating of 2350 he has published books which have sold and database which have sold and recently won 1st prize in Strategems for one of his puzzles. His analysis is done with a supercomputer that has several clusters of processors that was orignially used to proof highly comlex puzzles. The analysis is good and the entry on the Halloween is simply curt. The Zimbeck site is a result of a lifetime of chess experience as a master and analyst of gambits and therefore enhances the page on Halloween which is very biased. The line with Euwe was pre-computer and is very out dated almost 100 years old. Theory has changed since 100 years ago. Kaufman did not analyse his line with a computer he is not an expert on the Halloween. The comment on Kaufman is simply something he made in passing he has no book on the subject. Zimbeck does have a book on the subject which has been purchased over 100 times (his database). Therefore, Zimbeck and IM Wind are more qualified than Kaufman. Kaufman only recently made grandmaster. To say Zimbeck is unknown is offensive if you lived in the USA you would know who he was. He is in the top 50 in the usa for speed chess. And top 100 players in the usa. Zimbeck in fact has beaten Kaufman in traditional time contols. He is not unknown. He is one of the only sites that offer databases exclusively for gambits. The Halloween was ONLY studied by coorespondence players such as IM Wind. Wind deserves credit since he was one of the only ones to develop the theory. Brause was the first public appearance of the opening however it was played by Gregor Minchev who has beated the likes of Topalov and IM Tim Taylor(who Minchev defeated in the Euwe d5 line which your page lists as refuted). This is not the case and analysis using Houdini is evidence of that especially with the aid of Zimbeck and Winds theory. Kaufmans line drops a pawn for white. It is a mistake that literally falls for a one move tactic. Its an egregious error. He clearly missed Qb4 Qxb4 cxb7! which regains the pawn and is clearly equal. Your page contains a one move blunder and it NEEDs to be corrected. The second game featured has white trading on d7 which just loses immediately. No resource anywhere on the internet would recommend that against f5. The blunder is below the 1800 level. You can analyse the material with Houdini if you wish we can send it for free. The databases have sold. Davids analysis was almost exclusively used for Scheerers new book on the Blackmar Diemer gambit which he was credited for. David is one of the only people who analyses these unorthodox lines with the computer. Some of the lines many unintuitive moves needed to be made that the computer itself can not find without the assistance of a strong master. I dont want to comment war. I have removed the self-aggrandizing comment about Zimbeck as well as the "modern theory" comment however the Pinksi line needs to be changed its misleading and incorrect. Chess is not such a simple game that a line such as this can be refuted within 5 moves. Chess is far more complicated than this and the entry here inserts heavy bias that the line is somehow easily refuted. Also, it pushes a line that gives back the piece which only makes for boring chess and is not recommend by Houdini. f5 is met with Bd3 where houdini lists within +0.00 hovering about dead even. You can say black hold the advantage if you wish (although I also believe this to be untrue) but to state that a line that drops a pawn is and is refuted within a couple moves is simply wrong. If you are a decent player I am sure you have Houdini or fritz we can send the lines and you are more than free to look at them but please stop inhibiting developement. This is why content on wikipedia is so low in the first place. At a minimum we do not want to feature lines as refutations that drop pawns to one move tactics. Again, look at it with Fritz or houdini we can send Zimbeck analysis for review using a computer. If you find errors within Zimbecks analysis then by all means send to us we would like to know. But since Zimbeck is one of the only people who have a full database on the openings it would be bad form to not allow it on the page. The database on his site is also 3 times the size of the material featured on the page. Please discuss for resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

French Quebecer[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Toccata quarta. You have new messages at Talk:Marc-André Hamelin#French Quebecer?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


[36] I don't know how familiar you are with academic processes, but there is nothing very unusual with putting your PhD thesis, or a synopsis of it, on a website. It's not like anyone else usually wants to publish them. What is odd is he doesn't seem to give a proper full citation, despite a video of his public defence. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not claim that those two things are exclusive. However, if his thesis was defended successfully, then I would expect him to provide a link to a webpage at EThOS, for instance. Besides, the video may not qualify as a reliable source. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance template[edit]

it said it needed additional citations, I thought the two citations (to chessgames and fide) would be enough to remove that problem, sorry if it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with as a source for biographical information (not chess games) is that it is to a large degree user-generated, and thus not an optimal source (see WP:RS). Toccata quarta (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi TQ! Sorry to be boring but if you would e-mail me your question I will give you a detailed reply. Unfortunately a number of uncivil editors watch my talk page and I would prefer not to discuss these issues before their eyes.--Smerus (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've sent you a message (not through e-mail, though). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Olivia Palermo[edit]

I am legal counsel to Ms. Palermo. Please note that the celebrity Olivia Palermo's legal middle name is Butterfield. The use of Toledo is an imposter highjacking a celebrity profile. I would like to request that this profile be locked so that edits are approved by a Wikipedia administrator.

The citations to Toledo are based on companies pulling information from this incorrect Wikipedia information and various imposter profiles that we are also working to remove.

The following citations will hopefully satisfy you: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amytecko (talkcontribs) 17:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, neither of those two references is adequate, since both are user-generated. What other sources do you have? If you wish to request page protection, see WP:RPP. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

She does not use her middlename in her celebrity so there will not be stories with her middle name. Obviously I am not going to post birth certificate or drivers license. I can send a lawyer letter on letterhead if that would suffice (please send me an address for this). Please provide any legal record that "Toledo" is in fact her correct middle name. The 2000 entries out there are self referential, i.e., rely on Wikipedia or are also user-generated / imposter posts. The website states that it owned and operated by Butterfield Global LLC see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amytecko (talkcontribs) 18:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon[edit]


I presume you did not like my reference to theis music being used in funerals as it was unsourced? I can give you my references for making this statement. It may be simpler just to clairfy the statment as being for funerals "in Great Britain".

I did not challenge th existing statment: "It is frequently played at weddings" as it may be used at weddings and I have no knowledge of that. That statment is not sourced.

Let me know a private email and I can send you information that proves how I can make the statement about this music in UK funerals.

Rgds, Heysford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heysford (talkcontribs) 20:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

When you add material to Wikipedia, you should support it by citing a reliable source. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. For basics on how to do referencing, see WP:REF. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your revert on the Riccardo Muti Salzburg concert[edit]

Hi Toccata quarta, I partially understand your revert due to WP:WTA but why not delete the relevant words and leave the essence of that short paragraph ? רסטיניאק (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

That was indeed an option, but there is an important question to be asked: why single out those concerts? I'm sure Muti has and will conduct many concerts in his career. Why are those three concerts significant enough to be mentioned in the article? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You are asking the most important question, and I'll try to supply a few answers. Anyone whom I encountered who was at one of these concerts in Salzburg (and I attended the August 18 one) commented on the rarity of that performance, and this comes from people who are very well acquainted with performances of the Requiem, including the 1951 famous recording of Toscanini with NBC orchestra. The Israeli conductor Noam Sheriff commented to a friend that the August 17 concert was the best Requiem he ever heard. I believe that there will be more written about this production of the Requiem, the equisite leading of the orchestra and the choir, and the wonderful Mezzo (Elina Garanca), the Soprano and Mezzo duets, the final Libera Me of Soprano Stoyanova.... We could wait for more reports to be convinced of the special character and impact of that production, or change the WP:WTA to a milder description, possibly using quotes from which used "impressive" in the title...רסטיניאק (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
Using quotes from reviews would indeed be the best idea. By all means feel free to add those (and re-add the deleted paragraph) to the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Maria Callas[edit]

Hi Toccata quarta. I support the statement that Maria Callas was a "Greek soprano", which unfortunately is seen as not appropriate according to a user who behaves as the article is in his ownership and states that "American-born Greek" is a better solution (albeit not allowed according to WP:OPENPARA). Your thoughts are welcome on the talk page, where you can find an ongoing discussion about the issue. The only reason for my change to drop any mention of the citizenships or natinalities was to keep it neutral until the issue is resolved. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Spem in Alium: Renditions : list of modern 40-part works inspired by Tallis.[edit]

Dear Toccata Quarta, In the Renditions paragraph of the Tallis "Spem in Alium" page there is a short list of modern 40-part works inspired by Spem In Alium , together with the names of their composers and the dates of composition. I added to this list a reference to a 40-part work entitled "And There Shall Be No Night There", composed in 2002 by Dr. Robert Hanson (of Dartington and Morley College). This work has enjoyed more than one London performance, the most recent being on Thursday March 22nd 2012 at St. Martin in the Fields, as part of a Borough Chamber Choir concert within the 2012 Brandenberg Series. The above concert also included a performance of "Spem in Alium". As you have undone my addition I assume you do not agree that the work deserves a place in the above list. I am not sure what might qualify a work for inclusion, but I suggest that a well-received performance of a substantial 40-part work by a serious (if not widely-known) composer in a respected London venue as part of a major London concert series must go some way towards justifying its place ! If you decide to undo this addition a second time, could you please let me know the reasons ? Thanks, Dillettante (yes - two "ll"s!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillettante (talkcontribs) 22:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I undid the addition since Wikipedia does not have an article about the composer. However, if the piece in question has received significant coverage (in the form of reviews, for instance), then I would see no problem in having it mentioned in the article (as long as there are WP:REFerences to justify its presence). Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Factual errors[edit]

Dear Toccata quarta,

I realise that I should not write an autobiographical article. However, I did not do so - I merely corrected some gross factual errors in the article you left. I have no idea who you are, or whether or not you, in fact, wrote the article. I urge you, though, to verify the information you have written about me WITH ME, if possible, or otherwise with someone who has access to the facts about my life. I am not the son of my ex-wife. My accident was not in the Greek Islands, and I recorded the Strauss Duett-Concertino with Kim Walker, and not with Kim Hunt. Thank you, and best wishes, Dimitri Ashkenazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimclarinet (talkcontribs) 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The main reason why I reverted your edits is that you removed multiple references from the article, which is a big problem (see WP:BLP). If there are any other errors in the article, feel free to list them here (or at Talk:Dimitri Ashkenazy), and I will gladly look at the issue and change the article as may be necessary. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Facebook criticisms[edit]

I moved the section inward so it wouldn't be confused as unrelated. It could be confused as a different dispute the way you have it because in every other section, every time there's a new paragraph, it starts with a different matter. There needs to be some indication that the two sections are related.AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the indenting? It seemed to me that your goal was to merge the paragraphs, but that hasn't been achieved. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

article about Dimitri Ashkenazy[edit]

Dear Toccata quarta, Thank you for your reply. I am not opposed to leaving the references as they were (I simply thought them unnecessary in view of the fact that I was, myself, correcting the article and therefore needed none). Would you be open to having the article as I wrote it, while leaving the references intact? Thank you again for your quick response, and best wishes, Dimitri Ashkenazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimclarinet (talkcontribs) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

further errors[edit]

Dear Toccata quarta,

Thank you for removing the most egregious errors in the article about me. There are more: The accident when I was 9 years old was in Greece, but not in the Greek Islands. Not my father, but my mother accompanied me to Sydney thereafter in order for Earl Owen to rebuild my leg. I have had one concert with my father in Canada, so to write that I have toured there with him is not accurate. I have premiered four clarinet concertos, so if you wish to list only two, the wording should reflect that. I do not consider myself primarily Russian, so putting Icelandic (my only passport is Icelandic) first would more accurately reflect my nationality. My family did not move to Meggen in 1978, but to Luzern. We only moved to Meggen in 1989. I subsequently moved back to Luzern in 1992, then to Neuchâtel in 1997, to Corcelles in 2000, back to Luzern in 2003, and finally to Basel in 2012. To state that I moved to Meggen in 1978 and have lived there since is inaccurate. I did not join the Conservatory of Luzern in 1989 - I entered it. It is not a club, it is a school. Finally, I performed with my father with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, not at it. We performed at the Sydney Opera House. Thank you for your help, and best wishes, Dimitri Ashkenazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimclarinet (talkcontribs) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Claude Debussy[edit]

Hello, can you enlighten me about the reasons why the article on Claude Debussy does not need an infobox? -- Rohini (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

History of chess[edit]

“No improvement?” Really? I deliberated over a lot of different ways to structure/phrase it, but you do know a # symbol is essentially meaningless to anybody who doesn’t know HTML, right? —Wiki Wikardo 00:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)



Hi TQ - as you will see, this page has now been semi-protected at my request, which should stop the IP editor carrying out his edit war. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem with that; the protection is most welcome. Did you receive my message, by the way? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't receive it, I'm afraid. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't e-mail it to you, I used one of the Internet's most visited sites to send it. You should be able to find it there. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Outline of Chess[edit]

Please discuss your revert to my edits on the talk page, I raised some points there, thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the feedback, I wasn't too sure what constituted a minor edit!Mfrm123 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Hi Toccata, can I solicit your advice (you're pretty good with article names) ... What title would you say is best for the Fischer–Spassky 1992 rematch? (I suppose that itself is an option!? I'd like to minimize need for rename later after throwing up a basic article containing the games.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:UCN covers this. Since the event is generally not considered a World Chess Championship, the names "Fischer–Spassky, 1992" and "Fischer–Spassky (1992 match)" seem fine to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Refs in List articles[edit]

Hi Toccata, it's my understanding that refs are still needed in Lists articles. (I know it seems redundant, but one explanation given to me was, if a subset of WP articles is ever printed for resale, all the articles referenced in the List article might not get printed in the same volume so the List items would lack references then. I must admit that seems like a lot of work to me and I doubt editors would ever complete that kind of effort, so even though duplicate referencing might be technically correct policy it seems a hard idea to get behind.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was actually unaware of WP:LISTN, and thought that the references were there to support the inclusion of the links in the list, rather than the list's existence. Thus I don't mind the state of affairs. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That confuses me. It's my understanding each item in the list needs a reference (even though there is a corresponding WP article). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
In most lists it seems that requirement is more honored in the breach than the observance, but I believe that is correct. It is my understanding that lists have the same WP:V requirements that regular articles have. The ugly appearance of list of chess grandmasters is partially due to a (in my view somewhat faulty) application of that requirement. Quale (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that explain. (Made me laugh, too!: more honored in the breach.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Köchel edit[edit]

Wanted to let you know that the "–" added to between the dates of "July and August" in K. 167a, and 167b should still be an "and", as this is listed in the NMA. Thanks for the other edits, though, as I was not aware there was an "MOS". If you still believe it should be "–", please explain, as this is, from what I have read on the MOS page, is correct. I could be wrong, though, so please do correct me if I am. Thanks --ZSNES (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATESNO covers this. Which part of the MoS are you referring to? Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
This is what I was referring to, as the pieces were supposedly written/completed on both July, and August, not July through August. Regards, --ZSNES (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
If there are distinct dates in the months where WAM worked on the compositions, as opposed to a time range covering the work, I think using "and" in the Köchel catalogue adds that information at very little cost and I agree with that usage. I would however advise User:ZSNES to avoid using season names instead of month names – antipodeans are sometimes miffed by the perceived arrogant use of northerners. ZNES should also be more careful not to remove the hidden sort terms ({{hs}}) in that table. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
My goal is to convey the dates as accurately as possible, the problem is some of the works composed by W.A. Mozart do not have precise dates, only estimates, this is why a few are only given a date range in a specific season. If there is a way that I could give an accurate date range, without using season names, please tell me, as I do not wish to be perceived as arrogant with said terms for the seasons. Regards, --ZSNES (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


Do you understand the difference between the geographical name and the political name? If not, look here, how awfully are political names used in the wrong context: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Czechia is an official English geographical name of the Czech Republic. Czechia was in English first used in 1866. If You have any problem with th word Czechia, please write it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin[edit]

I would like to know how you can consider Chopin Polish and not French-Polish while Chopin held french citizenship ? It seems quite silly to consider Stravinsky and Offenbach French, or Händel British, but Chopin only Polish and not French-Polish ! --Ghislain Montvernay (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2013 (CEST)

Have you looked at the archives at Talk:Frédéric Chopin? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
In these archives you have linked WP:OPENPARA, and this paragraph says :
"Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident..."
The Napoleonic Code of 1804 said "is French a child born from a French father" so even although he was born in Poland he was still French. Furthermore, he held a French passport since the 1st August 1835.
Thus by applying WP:OPENPARA, his French nationality must be quoted.
--Ghislain Montvernay (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2013 (CEST)

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge[edit]

Baltijos kelyje ties Šeškine.jpg

Hello, Toccata quarta! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of top chess players throughout history[edit]

I don't want to start an edit war with you, and I will not touch that article again, but my discussions with the new user have led me to the conclusion that I can't stop him from adding his own table any more than I can justify including yours. If you insist on keeping both tables without any justification as to why they are encyclopedic content and necessary for the article (and one of them still requires citations, and any editor has the right to remove uncited material), I can't stop him from adding his own. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Martinů[edit]

I notice you've deleted bohuslav Martinu as among the greatest of Czech composers. I can only assume that either you've not heard much Martinu or have have poor taste in music to believe Smetana to be a great composer ! Never mind, Wikipedia is not the fount of all knowledge whatsoever and a general consensus among those who do know something about music invariably concur Martinu is a great Czech composer, i suggest you listen to some of his music sometime !Norwikian (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of any particular claim in Wikipedia depends on whether or not it is verifiable; see WP:V. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca Clarke[edit]

Thanks. I forgot we have to use American solecisms in articles about US composers. Deb (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Gwyn Pritchard for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gwyn Pritchard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwyn Pritchard until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Notification added on behalf of the editor who nominated the file for deletion, which was not me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have recommended on the AFD page that it be speedily deleted as a copyright violation in 24 hours unless it is re-written as an acceptable, copyright-free, article which uses reliable sources to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I also summarily removed all obvious copyright violations from the primary source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Borislav Ivanov for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Borislav Ivanov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borislav Ivanov until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Frédéric Chopin". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Gary Kasparov Article[edit]

Hey, I'm sorry I reverted your edits on the Garry Kasparov Article; I was acting rather hastily and I didn't intend to revert the edits back to my own. I'm working to add some new information to this page and I see that you have a history of edits related to his bio. Should I run some future edits by you? I found a few more sources related to his career.


Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 01:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem with that. WP:BB covers the rest of the issue, but if you want feedback on something then I'll gladly provide you with it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


I wanted to run some material by you that I am interested in adding to Mr. Kasparov's biography if thats ok? The politics section fails to mention that Mr. Kasparov was elected as Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation in early 2012, after the passing of Vaclav Havel in December of 2011. I propose adding the following sentence and reference to the third-to-last paragraph of the Poltics section. The paragraph would read like this:

Kasparov was named Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation in 2011, succeeding the recently deceased author, activist, and former Czech president Vaclav Havel.[67] On 31 January 2012, Kasparov hosted a meeting of opposition leaders planning a mass march on 4 February 2012, the third major opposition rally held since the disputed State Duma elections of December 2011. Among other opposition leaders attending were Alexey Navalny and Yevgenia Chirikova.

Source: (obviously I will put this in the correct inline citation format)

Let me know what you think!


Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 00:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


I have made two more additions to the Garry Kasparov article that I thought you might be interested in:

Kasparov wrote in February 2013 that “fascism has come to Russia....Project Putin, just like the old Project Hitler, is but the fruit of a conspiracy by the ruling elite. Fascist rule was never the result of the free will of the people. It was always the fruit of a conspiracy by the ruling elites!”

In April 2013, Kasparov joined in an HRF condemnation of Kanye West for having performed for the leader of Kazakhstan in exchange for a $3 million paycheck, saying that West “has entertained a brutal killer and his entourage” and that his fee “came from the loot stolen from the Kazakhstan treasury.”

I have found a good deal of sources relating to his recent work with the HRF and would like to continue adding them to his biography, do you think that would be ok? Best, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 07:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I do not see anything wrong with it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again!

I have added another paragraph to Gary Kasparov's page and I wanted to see if you had any feedback for me. The paragraph covers Kasparov's commentary on the cooperation (or lack thereof) of Putin and the FSB after the Boston bombings. The new paragraph reads as follows:

In a May 12, 2013, op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Kasparov questioned reports that the Russian security agency, the FSB, had fully cooperated with the FBI in the matter of the Boston bombers. He noted that the elder bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had reportedly met in Russia with two known jihadists who “were killed in Dagestan by the Russian military just days before Tamerlan left Russia for the U.S.” Kasparov argued that “If no intelligence was sent from Moscow to Washington” about this meeting, “all this talk of FSB cooperation cannot be taken seriously.” He further observed that “This would not be the first time Russian security forces seemed strangely impotent in the face of an impending terror attack,” pointing out that in both the 2002 Moscow theater siege and the 2004 Beslan school attack, “there were FSB informants in both terror groups—yet the attacks went ahead unimpeded.” Given this history, he wrote, “it is impossible to overlook that the Boston bombing took place just days after the U.S. Magnitsky List was published, creating the first serious external threat to the Putin power structure by penalizing Russian officials complicit in human-rights crimes.” In sum, Putin's “dubious record on counterterrorism and its continued support of terror sponsors Iran and Syria mean only one thing: common ground zero.”


Let me know what you think!Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 07:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Kasparov on the Anand-Carlsen Chess Match Kasparov recently commented on what is being called, "the most anticipated chess match in decades" on Business Insider. The match is between Viswanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen, two of the highest ranking chess players in the world. Here is what Kasparov had to say about the match:

Anand is a fantastic chessplayer who brings honor to the sport and to his nation with his skill and his boundless good nature. If he wins this match his high place on chess Olympus is assured. I am predicting a Carlsen victory because of his talent, his results, and the tides of chess history. I am rooting for a Carlsen victory because a new generation deserves a new champion. Most of all, I am hoping for big games, a hard fight, and a great boost for chess around the world as a legend and a legend in the making do battle in Chennai. Would it be ok to add this to Kasparov's bio? He is cited in the article as "probably the most famous chess player of all time."Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 22:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on my paragraph that you reverted tonight. I wrote on your talk page and on the Garry Kasparov talk page what I was interested in adding a week ago. Had you have told me "no you cannot add this" I would not have added it. I will keep an eye out for his post-chess-match comments and let you know what I find. I still have a few other sources I am interested in adding, and I will be sure to run them by you before adding them to the page. Best, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 07:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting addition of piano piece to List of longest non-repetitive piano pieces[edit]

Hi, I notice your quick reverting of my addition. I'm not sure I understand why. At two hour it one of the shortest pieces on the list but I thought that the spirit of this article is to list unusually long piano pieces and two hours is longer than most pieces I know. Should more specific parameters be listed? Can we discuss this? Canticle (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are no criteria on how long the pieces included in that list should be. I wouldn't mind input from members of WP:CM to settle this issue. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


--Dtoub (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Please stop reverting Canticle's edit. There is a two-hour work by Sorabji listed on this page. It seems a bit incongruous to then disallow a 2 hour, 8 minute work of mine.

  1. By your own admission, you have a WP:COI.
  2. You may have noticed that when you are reverting an edit, you get the message "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."
  3. Sorabji's Symphonic Nocturne for Piano Alone is included there because it is a single-movement piece lasting two hours. Not many, if any movements in piano works are that long. Obviously it could be deleted, along with your work. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Grosse Fuge (Beethoven) edit revert[edit]

Could you please explain me why you reverted my additions from Nov 3rd to the reception section?

I wrote in the edit comment Citation following soon. I edited late in the evening, and had no time to add the sources, since, as you may imagine, some people have to go to work the other morning. I also won´t support your edit comment too much WP:OR The reception section is not adequate to the opus imho, since the citation from "Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung" is out of context somehow, for it, besides calling the piece "chinese", also pays some respect to it and admits it possibly being easier to understand any time in the future.

Big part ("Reception") of the section only relies to de Marliave, and thus makes it somehow unbalanced or biased. Reception of the Fugue is wider and should not be limited to only a single point of view. I just tried to spread the angle a bit wider. For example the view of the first musicians (Schuppanzigh Quartett) to perform it.

I cant find any OR in that. Neither do I find the information is too much for such an important late opus of B.-- (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I was fairly careless when reverting your edit. I just saw a big edit without references, and decided to revert it after seeing the sentence "These difficulties may not have made reception easier.", which is WP:OR. Feel free to restore your text in the article, although I might tweak its wording a little bit. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


I share your dislike of the linking of words so basic they add nothing. In particular, for JS Bach, a link to Germany (or German people or whateveritwas) will probably tell you less about where he lived (etc) than the Bach article itself. Particularly as the modern German state is only distantly related to the mishmash of protectorates and whathaveyou of Bach's time. However, it does seem illogical to have: "German composer, organist, harpsichordist, violist, and violinist", where all but one of his occupations are linked. I think either all should be linked or none... no? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

War Requiem thanks[edit]

determining/decided -> deciding/chose - better! David Brooks (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a hello[edit]

Just so I know you know my view on it, I don't think with spacing (1. e4 c5) and without spacing (1.e4 c5) in the same article is inconsistent. I see it as "method". (When bold, space; when not bold, don't space. [Why? No space after dot is what's prevalent on the Wiki {that was weird to me actually, but I've adjusted to it}, and it *does* save on horizontal space in a full block of game score. But for me that doesn't work when the moves are in bold. {Too crowded, jammed, and hard to read then.} I know my own view is probably unique, and means more maintenance. I would just say always have space for total consistency, but again that's not how most articles are.]) But I know there isn't any accepted convention on same.

On another matter (personal), how do you avoid burn-out? You're a medicine the encyclopedia needs. (I see you dealing w/ a lot of crap rather consistently, and don't believe I could last it. Is there a pill for that?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't find it too crowded, although that might have changed had I spent more time looking at it.
As for dealing with tedious editors ... in the past, I occasionally behaved less civilly than I do nowadays. Ultimately I concluded that it's better to reduce the heat in a discussion, since that's what furthers Wikipedia's growth. WP:DENY can be applied not only to obvious vandals and trolls. Feeding edit warriors and POV-pushers is sometimes comparable to feeding a vandal; you end up looking bad, and the other editor becomes even more vicious. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

John Tavener article.[edit]

Stop your contentious editing. As I have made clear, references are NOT included with headings. This should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not make anything clear, as you made no reference to any relevant Wikipedia policy/guideline (or even an essay). Neither MOS:, WP:REF, Help:Section nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings forbid references in headings, as far as I can see.
But then again, you did put a redundant period at the end of the heading of this section, so you are surely an authority on such matters, aren't you? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
An obvious formatting reason why references are not included in headings is that the reference numbers are then included in the headings in content boxes. Your petty personal remarks are best ignored. Afterwriting (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. "An obvious formatting reason"—so you admit there's no Wikipedia policy/guideline backing you on this.
  2. "Your petty personal remarks are best ignored." But then, what shall one say of the statement "I do not suffer fools gladly and have a low tolerance for the many nutters and fanatics", which is found on your user page? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) TQ, the place you're looking for is MOS:HEAD, part of MOS: where it is stated that "Citations should not be placed within or on the same line as section and subsection headings." Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I didn't find that part, since I did a CTRL+F search only for "ref". Toccata quarta (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Chopin's nationality[edit]

What primary source? You think I talked to Chopin personally? Ravpapa (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't template me[edit]

Your comment on the talk page constitutes a personal attack and has no place in wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence that my post constitutes a personal attack (and please also provide a definition of a "personal attack"), rather than a critique of your behaviour? It is interesting that you went out of your way to violate WP:TPO and remove an alleged personal attack, even though you had previously called me "anal" ([37]). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Namah[edit]

Hello Toccata quarta. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Namah, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Invalid CSD criterion. You are extrapolating from A7, which does not apply to musical recordings, and A9 does not apply because the artist has an article. Take to AfD. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


thanks for that,made it on a few others, I'll get onto correcting them all. Waacstats (talk)

Ooops... De ludo scachorum[edit]

Sorry about that [38]...

Rapidly changing the subject (ahem...), I don't know whether I can enlist your interest (or that of any of your chess stalkers) in this. It seems to me that some rather tenuous historical claims are being given undue weight here based on a likely oops. Although I've tried to nuance the writing somewhat, I'm not too sure on the next move. (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


I thought I heard quacking. Dlohcierekim 13:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Telugu films of 2001 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (director)|Suresh Krishna]] ||[[Chiranjeevi]], [[Simran (actress)|Simran]], [[Ashima Bhalla]] || [Family ||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erik Kislik (chess player) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • IM tournament in October 2008<ref></ref> and April 2009.<ref></ref> He also won the Caissa GM tournament in February 2012<ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Izabel Goulart[edit]

Thank you for your note regarding the sourcing of information relating to living persons. I actually acquired this information from the Portuguese version of Wikipedia regarding the same person, which was also unsourced. In the circumstances, I thought it best to leave the amendment unsourced too, rather than paste a link to the Portuguese version.

If you still consider that an alternative source is necessary, I will do my best to locate one.

EmmaWindsor (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The material in the article should indeed be supported by sources independent of Wikipedia, per WP:BLP. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help Toccata

EmmaWindsor (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nina Stemme[edit]

You seem to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia matters and I need some advise. I am thinking of deleting paragraphs 2-4 in the Career section ... is that a good idea? As it is now these paragraphs seem to describe a small and not fantastically interesting fraction of Nina's busy career. Less is more sometimes. Andersneld (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy for writing about the careers of musicians, and I agree that the risk of WP:UNDUE weight being placed on some events is present. To be honest, operatic music and articles are not my specialty, so you may like to request feedback/help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera or Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, in the Nina Stemme article I recently added a table in the Repertoire section, where I included the info I was certain of but left many cells blank, hoping that others might be able to fill in the blanks. So far that has not happened. What should I do about this, just leave it as it is or try to enlist help? If so, how? Andersneld (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned the Opera WikiProject previously. Just leave a message at WT:OPERA, and interested editors will take note of your request. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Tocatta, I can not exactly follow the rules you suggested for the changing of the placement of the logo/signature in the article about Bernardo Mario Kuczer. I read that the "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." What I have understood from Kuczer is that this logo/signature has become a very important part of his Identity, in general and is present in everything he does. He explained, in a mail, that, for him, today, his logo is even more representative than his photograph. I think this is a good reason to make it visible at top, and to put it where it had been till now, also, accepted by all other contributors (like Jerry, etc). You seemed to be very experienced, and I would like to respect that, but I think this is a good case in which the exceptions part of "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions" should be considered and be applied. I would therefore ask you kindly , if you could restore the signature to its previous position. Thanks and greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammero (talkcontribs) 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Mozart's nationality[edit]

Thanks for spotting my unintentional edit to this article and fixing it. Opus33 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Deborah Voigt[edit]

As has already been explained, WP:PEA is a guideline, not a policy. However, as you claimed on my talk page that you believe the word "legendary" is personal analysis regarding Leontyne Price, I have added several reliable sources to the article that use that exact word in describing Price, in order to inform your knowledge on the subject. Also, as you should know, edit-warring is not only uncivil, but it violates an actual policy. (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen. Some statements will always be opinions. "Nomen Nescio called Maria Callas the 'greatest operatic singer of the 20th century'" is not synonymous with "Maria Callas was the greatest operatic singer of the 20th century". Besides, the article isn't about Leontyne Price, and her reception by music critics should be covered in the article on her. However, if you insist on adding an assessment of Price's operatic skills into the other article, use something like "critically acclaimed", which is factual and more concrete than a vague word like "legendary". Toccata quarta (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Clearly your only interest is in being disruptive. Not only have you consistently reverted to a version that is factually incorrect, e.g. Price is not just an American soprano, but an international one; but you appear ignorant of the very policy you keep touting. You have also removed several reliable sources! Apparently you have also not actually read WP:PEA, which simply requires attribution. Instead you have arbitrarily tried to enforce your own POV then arrogantly and uncivilly accused me of POV, despite the fact that only I - not you - had posted reliable sources. Plus you post false not to mention hypocritical 3RR warnings on my talk page? Enough of your trolling nonsense. You are being reported. (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Happy to let bygones be bygones MaxBrowne (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

List of longest piano pieces[edit]

OK, I'm not understanding why the addition of David Toub's piano work was deleted. Do we in fact have criteria for this article or is the decision subjective? I don't want an editing war but I think I am making reasonable assertions here and am well within wikipedia guidelines. Please advise.Canticle (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, your edit is too selective. Let me give an example:
This is a list of the longest symphonies ever composed.
  • Composer 1, Symphony No. 1, 4 hours
  • Composer 2, Symphony No. 1, 4 hours
  • Composer 3, Symphony No. 1, 3 hours
  • Composer 4, Symphony No. 1, 5 minutes
Admittedly my example is extreme, but it makes sense. If you insist on adding that piece to the list, you should also include works longer than Toub's piece (such as Andrew Violette's Piano Sonata No. 7). Toccata quarta (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Does the above user generate confusion with you? George8211 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, and it certainly doesn't appear to be an attempt at impersonation. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov[edit]

Can we continue our discussion on Talk:Garry Kasparov? --causa sui (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm a user of Wikipedia from the Italian one. I see you are interested in classical music like me. Today I've just wrote a big analysis of the Opus Clavicembalisticum, an half-forgotten piece, in the Italian Wiki. If the Rollbackers don't cancel it, do you want to translate it in English? It can be useful. (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the English Wikipedia cannot accept original research, so any content added would have to be based on what has already been published about the piece. That being said, if you have an interest in Sorabji research, you may like to join the Sorabji Forum (which numbers Sorabji scholars and performers among its members) and share your findings there. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic: I have used some Internet sites that you can find in the end of the page. Nothing is invented and there is no violation of copyright. A very good analysis is on (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


Happy New Year, and all that! Many thanks for your consistent care with the Chopin article. I think it could be close to putting up for GA now - what do you think? Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Have a happy new year too! :-) The article looks much better than it did just a few months ago, and I think it is close to GA quality. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Old move[edit]

Hey Toccata quarta. Per your revert edit summary, where did you see an error notice? Note that if you're talking about the error message in the template itself, it's supposed to display there, since it's not on a talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was the error message that I referred to. I will revert my edit now that I know better. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Great. Basically, if it's not clear, that code will only show that error message on a page if the template is placed and it's not a talk page. It is confusing that the template (and this is not the only one) will display the error message in the template itself, but I don't know of any workaround for that. The point of the code I added is so that the template doesn't say "On DATE it was proposed that this article be moved..." when it is placed on the talk page of templates, files, Wikipedia project pages and so on. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Marian Dawkins[edit]

Why are you tidying up entries written by a disruptive troll on Talk:Marian Dawkins? Are you trying to give them an air of respectability? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, and I have no dog in whatever fight is going on there. I did a little bit of talk-page cleanup; that's all there is to my edit there. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Short[edit]

Hello, thank you for your recent correction to this article. Is it possible you can update two tournament results in the international team section please? Short's results at the previous two European Team Chess Championships are as follows: Porto Carras 2011, Board 2, 3/7 Warsaw 2013, Board 3, 4.5/7

I look forward to working alongside you on further chess articles. Best, Kaygrub (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Toccata quarta, I do not understand your message to me about "private research" not being allowed. (1) I made some simple calculations and added a comment to a Wiki about Water Waves and those seem have been accepted .. at least they are still there. (2) I once corrected a wedding date of my friend Vic Schoen, and that is still there. (3) Now I have added some personal knowledge about Vic and you tell me that is NOT accpted.

Apparently, if I had published my remarks about Vic somewhere else I could have posted that on Wikipedia and given a reference.

Please explain this policy to me.

Chuck bodeen (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of the WP:OR page appears to be on the right track. Content on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources, which are generally understood to be peer-reviewed publications (such as Der Spiegel or The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians). All unsourced content may be challenged. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Victoria's Secret Fashion Show may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [The CW]]: 1.11)<ref>]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for copy editing the article on Music of the Spheres (Langgaard). It is much appreciated. --Danmuz (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Mario Lanza[edit]

Isn't Mario Lanza an Italian-American from Philadelphia, and one of the most recognized of them? The Mario Lanza Museum is located in South Philadelphia. Therefore History of the Italian Americans in Philadelphia would be very much germane, would it not?

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In light of this edit, let's read Wikipedia:OVERLINK which leads to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking:
  • "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. In particular, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, the following are not usually linked:"
  • It states that one should not link: "everyday words understood by most readers in context;, the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations; and pre- and post-nominals;Common units of measurement, e.g. relating to area, length, temperature, time or volume (if both non-metric and metric equivalents are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), usually neither unit need be linked because almost all readers will understand at least one or the other unit);dates (see below)."
  • also avoiding pages that "redirect back to the page the link is on" except if it is a "redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article"
  • It also states that a link should generally appear once in the article
Since the see also only had a single link, the providing of that single link does not seem excessive. Therefore, your removal of History of the Italian Americans in Philadelphia does not seem to fit any of these reasons unless it has been already linked elsewhere in the article. If this is the case, please tell me where it's being linked from. If this is not the case, please restore the see also or provide another expalanation.
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have tons of time on my hands, but since you appear to be struggling with this, let me give you an explanation:
WP:LINK says, among other things, the following:
  • In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the knowledge tree. Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles [emphasis added]. Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"
So, how is Lanza relevant to the history of Italian Americans in Philadelphia? The fact that he was one of them doesn't justify the inclusion of that link in the article. For example, the article Ludwig van Beethoven does not link to either History of Germany or Germans, and its lead does not wikilink the word "German".
Hence, please remove the barely relevant wikilink, or submit evidence that Lanza's ancestry is germane to the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BWV 102[edit]

I don't understand your changes. Part (music) covers too many things and is therefore misleading, the sections (German: Teile) of a larger composition here, the single voices or players there. A four-part choir is not necessarily SATB, but for Bach cantatas it is. Please adjust. The easiest is a revert. More complex: different links to different sections in the Part article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Toccata,

You told me "You can add categories to an article just by editing it." Could you show me an example of this, and answer on my talk page (rleplin)? Thank you. Rleplin (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

See the complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Mishae (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your objections to the Vadim Repin article[edit]

Hello! I commented on your objections on my talk page.

--Surano (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Music for Millions page[edit]

Hi Toccata - you keep reverting my updates on the Music for Millions page, telling me I haven't cited or referenced, but you don't tell me WHAT I didn't cite or reference. Please enlighten me so I can correct this apparent fault. Your emails are very vague. Thanks. Zabadu (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

See the result of WP:AN3#User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Zabadu (Result: Submitter warned). It seems you were not notified of the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Interested in commenting?[edit]

Hey, Toccata, would you care to comment on the use/nonuse of the Bar Refaeli photo in the Supermodel article (Talk:Supermodel#Photo use)? I hate when I start a talk section and it only ends up being me and the one editor I'm in a dispute with. If you care to, thanks! If not, don't sweat it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Andrej Hoteev - Infobox[edit]

Hi Toccara, why in the article on musician Andrej Hoteev - have you Infobox musical artist deleted? It is not true parameters wiki Template:Infobox musical artist Best wishes 123ax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Apropos (talkcontribs) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC) as example: Yefim Bronfman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Apropos (talkcontribs) 14:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yefim Bronfman[edit]

What happened with the infobox in the article about Yefim Bronfman? — Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  With Yefim Bronfman everything is OK: Template: Infobox musical artist.

But with pianist Andrei Hoteev was deleted from Toccata, and old infobox person reset. My question - why?. I beg Andrej HoteevInfobox musical artist new install. 123Apropos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Apropos (talkcontribs) 00:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ann Millikan[edit]

Hi, Toccata. Why the revert? She looks to be fairly successful and well established. Pkeets (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the link because at that time Wikipedia didn't have an article on her. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Liszt Sonata for Cello[edit]

Dear Toccata quarta, I noticed that you had changed some of my recent additions on 2 pages. Both pages were in fact requesting that there be some sort of citation needed to verify that what is stated is in fact true. And I was linking to the relevant web sites that prove what is written on this Wikipedia page is in fact true. I had not done very many citations before so if you find a better way to write it (I did some research on how to do it which includes what kind of information to include and I did what I thought was correct) please feel free to change it to a better format. I don't know about deleting it as it does in fact show information about what was written. Thanks for your kind consideration. All the best... Swanstone (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Although references are indeed a vital component of Wikipedia, the ones that you added linked to commercial sites, and as such constituted spam. (For more details, see WP:SPAM.) If you have links to non-commercial sites to support currently unsourced statements, feel free to add them to articles. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand now I think. Thanks for the help. All the best. Swanstone (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for edits to Quintet for Piano, Strings and Horn (Draeseke)[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the page. I do try and get these things as right as I can before posting, but obviously a few things got through, especially in the post upload phase of editing. Graham1973 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello there! I'm currently rewriting (read: trying to rewrite) Aram Khachaturian article and I have a few question I hope you can help me with. Is there a standard way of organizing articles of classic composers, especially those of Khachaturian's generation? If so, how much should I write about his works in the biography section? How do I organize the "Works" ("Music" in Shostakovich) section? Is there a GA or an FA of a modern classic composer that I can use as an example? As someone who is familiar with the field, do you consider Dmitri Shostakovich an exemplary article? Thanks in advance. --Երևանցի talk 04:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

These things can vary widely from one article to the next, and I'm not aware of any guideline on this. The article on Shostakovich, although a WP:FA, contains many issues with citations and unsourced paragraphs, so I wouldn't use it as a model for other articles on composers. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it seems a little outdated in terms of quality, that's why I asked specifically about it. Would you mind doing a quick review of Khachaturian's article when I'm done? I'm pretty sure I wont be able to make it a GA, because of lack of good, detailed sources online and lack of comprehensive published books in English on Khachaturian, but I do wanna make it a decent article. --Երևանցի talk 17:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'd like to help! Toccata quarta (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:NuparuMahnika[edit]

Thanks for weighing in on User:NuparuMahnika's contributions. Unfortunately, judging by his/her talk page, it doesn't seem to have worked. Don't you think a block is warranted now? – PeeJay 12:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave the editor a final warning. If they make another personal attack in the near future, they should be reported at ANI. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
No more personal attacks in the last week, but the user has resumed their disruptive editing to List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals, and their edit summary ("Hehe") indicates they have nothing but negative intentions here. A block would be much appreciated now. – PeeJay 16:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an administrator, so you'll have to post at ANI, if you believe he should be blocked. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Translations of titles[edit]

Ligeti: Idegen földön (Far from Home) (1945–46), for example. If the English is a title, it should be italic, if not, it should be "home", not "Home". (Compare Bach's cantatas and a related MoS discussion.) Thanks for your gnomish work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Good morning, Toccata quarta, there are 2228 articles in this category, so why not my article, please ? Cote d'Azur 09:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SUBCAT? If you have and are looking for an explanation of the categorisation of those other articles, see WP:OSE. Category:1989 operas is a subcategory of Category:Operas, so the latter is not necessary. For example, the article Ludwig van Beethoven contains the categories "18th-century composers", "Classical-period composers", "German classical composers", "Opera composers", "Romantic composers" and "Viennese composers", but does not contain the category "Composers". Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Toccata quarta, that's not true. Please see the blue information box at the top of Category:Operas. All operas go in that general category in addition to their various sub-categories (WP:DUPCAT). If you have removed that category from articles on other individual operas, please restore it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Diana Ross intro[edit]

Just happened to check back on the Diana Ross page (I came across the article originally via the "random article" link), and saw the intro had been tagged as being inadequate. Any suggestions on what needs to be added? GRUcrule (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The best solution would be to restore the lead that the article had before a well-meaning but misguided editor came along and made it overlong. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you willing to edit the intro, then? I have no qualms about having an attempt I took at it reverted...I just don't want it to be left alone as it is/was because nobody else seemed to want to take the time to edit. I legitimately tried to summarize (my TV script writing experience of brevity-is-best appears to have been used too liberally here), but certainly welcome anyone to improve it. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


How do you know when it's appropriate to remove a category because this was the case in the past, but not any more?. George Washington is in a few categories such as American cartographers, and although this was the case in the past, I'm pretty sure he isn't a cartographer today. Quale (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would you include the article in that category, since the event is not held every three years? The Washington issue is inconsequential, as that category does not imply that somebody was a cartographer for their whole life, let alone beyond it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't respond sooner. So the American cartographers category means that the members were at some point in their lives an American cartographer, but the Triennial events category is only for events that are currently held every three years? How do you know which categories describe a historical fact (was an American cartographer) and which ones describe news (currently triennial)? Sylvester Medal is an example of an event that was triennial for its first 108 years, but apparently now is biennial, although it isn't currently in the biennial events category. Perhaps an oversight, although both the biennial and triennial categories are very sparsely populated. Quale (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we could create an RfC regarding this? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sentimiento latino (Juan Diego Flórez album) restore[edit]

Considering that the title of the album uses "Latino" (and not "latino"), how do you justify your edit? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The source from Gramophone Magazine in the footnote - a cover is not a print source. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Then why did you claim that WP:UCN is irrelevant? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Why are you on my Talk page? because "Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)" has nothing to do with the Grammophone magazine. There are various guidelines relevant to caps but this isn't one. If I want to see further discussion I will check here. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I posted on your talk page because I wanted to ask you a question; surely I'm not going to post on my own, talking to myself. You are claiming that Gramophone magazine (which is certainly a reliable source) should be used to determine whether or not the title of the page should have "latino" or "Latino", but then you dismiss WP:UCN (which is based on the content of multiple reliable sources). What's up with that? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: do you realise that you have failed to make reference to a single Wikipedia policy or guideline, on top of claiming that Wikipedia's policy on article titles is not relevant to their use of capital letters? I don't mind being proven wrong, but I do object to not being shown any evidence. What are you trying to achieve? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:NCM, La bohème Category:Mélodies. For classical composition titles we follow the native capitalization, as does Gramophone, as does Grove. However this is an album - with 2 covers 2 capitalizations - I have moved it to L. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Since Sentimiento Latino is the title of the album—not a specific composition, down-casing the "L" per WP:NCM would be a complete a miss-application here. See also the use of upper case "L" in the 2009 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year [39]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Be Specific[edit]

In one of your recent comments you criticised an edit without citing the edit in question or even the article. Please be specific in future comments. Being specific is the difference between providing constructive criticism and useless pronouncements.

BTW, I've only modified a couple of articles in the last month or so, one fixed a broken table and the other added content. If you were a little more specific or had a clearer definition of "recent" then I might even pay attention. Until then, however, I'll just settle for saying, thanks ... bye. --BenM (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Toccata quarta,

Thanks for your recent edit on Mykola Leontovych. Sometimes WP:PEACOCK creeps through on the articles of people you look up to. Thanks for pointing it out. Can you also look at Viktor Kosenko, another article I had been working on a while back? I would like to possibly take it to GA as well.--BoguSlav 04:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added the page to my watchlist, and I hope I will find time to go through it. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Reverting is not a problem - it's the inconsistency in transliteration. I gave examples in the edit summary. If Рязань and Брянск are transliterated as Ryazan and Bryansk, which is correct, then Карякін/Карякин must be Karyakin. The letter я stands for the same phoneme in all three examples (phoneme ya, like in yard), so it should be transliterated in the same way. It has nothing to do with the sources - it's a phonetics issue (I am a language professor and any person who knows this subject would tell you the same). Karjakin would be correct if the original form was Карджaкин, which is not the case (дж stands for English J in Jack). But OK, I respect. Could you pass this explanation to the community at least? They don't have to change anything, just to see this. And thank you in any case. -- KWiki (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback is for vandals[edit]

Hello. Yesterday, someone with IP came to #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel and asked how to remove the refimprove tag. I told them to just delete the line if they thought it was fixed. See their earlier edits with a similar IP. I do not think rollback is a nice thing to do to new users who just want to help out. Maybe undo if you think it is not resolved. I respect your work on Wikipedia and understand how you might think this was a vandal, but it was a good faith user. Kind regards, πr2 (tc) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with "AGF" is that, in theory, any edit can be viewed as a test edit. It seems to me that going out of one's way to find out about an editor's background defeats the point of the rollback tool, which is to remove vandalism with a single click. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


I just won't be ce'ing any strict orthochess articles (for as long as Quale is here or is unreplaced, as explained why). (Of course I'd try my best to help out if needed or requested on any specific article no matter, out of respect for you as editor etc. [just ask -- no problemo].) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I understand (and appreciate your offer to help). That being said, I nevertheless hope that one day you will reconsider your decision. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Tocccata. (You're a scholar and a gentleman. And I'm totally amazed at your proficiency in English -- not your first language. And in your consistent and professional edits. [I trust for chessproject, you never get burned out or turned off.]) I really wanted to expand the Fischer-Spassky 1992 article (analysis, background), and totally try my hand at extensively expanding biography Carlos Torre Repetto (which would have been totally fun, and even FA potential because I think a very interesting story-tale re his life). Anyway I've had to make arbitrary decision to cut my participation to save my motivation here; thx again for understanding. Change of subject: What has happened to WC chess? (I mean, the World Chess Championship 1972 was riveting not only the politics but the games themselves and the clash of ideas -- e.g. Poison Pawn. Now we have Magnus, who is capable of Mozartian chess, eking out wins in rook-and-pawn endings based on Anand errors ... technical wins, not a lot of imagination in the middlegames. Something unfortunate seems to have happened. Maybe he's just a positional/pragmatic player like Karpov. That won't exactly usher in a new era of chess popularity. [What do you think of Chess960?]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Carlsen does have a very "quiet" style of play and likes to enter endgames, as there he often outplays his opponents. I don't have much experience with Chess960, but I find the elimination of opening theory a breath of fresh air (I'm a rather serious chess player, and find the study of openings exhausting and frustrating much of the time). Toccata quarta (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your suggestions, Emilio (Italy) Epessina (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mikhaïl Nossyrev[edit]

Greetings. If you do not like the proportion of linkage in the article when compared to its text, might I recommend adding more text to it, instead of reverting it to a state where it was tagged as a dead end? Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking Dmitri Shostakovich to FAR[edit]

Just to let you know that I would certainly back any process to take this article to FAR, as I've noted here. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior[edit]

Yes WP:STRONGNAT because Youtube is based in the United States. It's without a doubt an American company even though, like every internet company, it has worldwide appeal. Also read WP:DATERET the articles first date insertion was MDY. Your change exactly a year ago with was uncalled for. I suggest you revert yourself or this will be reported. Articles need to adhere to the MOS and clearly the current version does not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talkcontribs) 10:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your concern. You appear to believe that "national ties" is synonymous with "strong ties to a particular English-speaking country" [emphasis added]. However, this is not the case. If YouTube were a website focused primarily/exclusively on American culture, politics and other US-related topics, then WP:STRONGNAT would be relevant to this discussion. But I feel it is not; it's not like we are talking about the American Civil War or George Washington. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's the same as a film made in the United States or as any other company that sells its products worldwide wide. It's about where the company is based and where the film was made. Same goes for this article since Youtube is an American based company. Then there is WP:DATERET. The articles first date format was MDY, then you changed it with the cryptic edit summery or "Cleanup". The article should retain its original date format. Is there a reason why you changed it and why you feel that the article should be DMY over MDY? I'm not saying I agree with your logic, but by going by your logic alone, since Youtube has videos from all over the world, it would seem that MDY is just as acceptable as DMY. Why DMY over MDY?JOJ Hutton 11:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Many months ago I wasn't as knowledgeable about Wikipedia as I'm today; for instance, I mistakenly believed that en dashes should be replaced with "[ampersand]ndash;". Eventually I acquired a more thorough knowledge of the MoS and developed various editorial preferences. But that was a long time ago, and I must say I'm puzzled by your reference to the article's "original date format", as it used DMY when I created it. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It has been determined through discussion after discussion and long term consensus that date formats and spellings are attributed to the home country of the subject. This includes all pages related to the subject as well. It does not matter if the companies products are sold overseas, if a bands songs are sold in other countries, or if a website is viewed by people in other countries. This is backed up by the guidelines. Also a date inserted into the citations is not usually evidence of an "inserted date" the original date is the first date that is inserted into the body of the article. In this case it seems to have been MDY. You need to answer as to why you think that this article should use DMY over MDY, as you haven't given a reason yet. JOJ Hutton 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


I saw that you edited many times Magnus Carlsen. If you are interested in chess, maybe try the demo that prepared.

I attach the games of the World Chess Championship 2012. In the English wikipedia you had to write the games down, add diagrams and so on, on the Hebrew wikipedia there is a fantastic tool that was developped two years ago - have a look at the demo: HE:משתמש:Yoavd/chessdemo.

I am interested in your view. You can scroll down all the games, then the fast games. --Yoavd (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

music and chess
Thank you for your tireless work on the maintenance of composers' and chess lists and articles, and facts about composers known and less known, such as Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, - you are an Gerda Arendt awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 283rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 283 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - Would you know more about Hyo-Won Woo? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! - Today, it's de:Der Messias (Händel, arr. Mozart)Der Messias. What do you think about the English one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message (and nice to see you still around!). :) The English-language article looks OK-ish, but I'm inclined to say it needs more content (and especially references). Best regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Dating Timeline Correction of Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter[edit]

Just want to relay that Cumberbatch and Hunter have been seeing each other since late 2013 contrary to "early 2014" which the Daily Mail and other rags are reporting and is currently indicated in his personal life section.

NOTE: I know the Daily Mail is not reliable source that's the very reason why the info should be amended because that "until early 2014" was actually information from them. The scans are from People magazine where it says they got together late last year and have been together for a year now before getting engaged. He was even featured on the cover in this week's issue: One can always reference a print article here and in this case scans of the interview are available to prove it. That's already two non-tabloid publications referencing the "late 2013" timeline.

Thank you for improving both Hunter's and Cumberbatch's profiles! (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's a clearer iPad version. If the timeline is confusing it's safe to just indicate that they got engaged after a year of dating like indicated: (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

External Fashion Source[edit]

I have noticed your great influence on fashion sections and would like you opinion of how to go about the prevention of the instantnous destuction of links by other Wiki users regarding external links to a extremely relevant source website. The site I have linked to, of which I have no affiliation, has the most complete fashion archive of images and current relevant material in relation to many of the model articals on WikiPedia; In good faith I believe these links are extremely relevant, but would like to get your option regarding the introduction of this site into external links on existing articles before spinning my wheels any further. For the purpose of encyclopedic resource to imagery pertaining to a person in a article on Wiki, the link is invaluable as it presents a clear unbiased collection of published work larger and better than anything I've seen to date. Please, Let me know what you think. (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a bit spammy myself (having posted similar messages to the user talk pages of this IP editor and [User:Mbinebri], since I don't know where you'll be checking for replies), I suggest you contribute some cited text - especially since you say that some of these articles have factual errors - using this website as your reference. If it is so useful, use it. And do check User_talk:Mbinebri#External_Adriana_Lima_Link for his reply. Apparently, the reliability of the source is challenged by the fact that some of it is cut-and-paste from Wikipedia. In that case, whatever you write, write it referencing the highest-quality sources you can find, which might not be this one. Write it from upstream, using wherever this website steals from. If you're honestly trying to help, I wish you the best. --Anon423 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been particularly active here during the last few months, so it would be nice to mention what is the website that you are talking about. Naturally, if a source copies Wikipedia on a large scale, then its value is dubious. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor above hasn't been around since the 9th, but I found "Fashion Industry Archive" in this contribution --Anon423 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of compositions by Michael Finnissy[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of compositions by Michael Finnissy[edit]

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 List of compositions by Michael Finnissy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from,, and For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Smerus (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Toccata quarta. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

TFD notice[edit]

Since you have made at least 10 edits to Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, I thought you might want to comment on whether the accompanying templates should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Toccata quarta. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)