Melodia

Hi there, I just left a rather extensive comment in support of keeping the nominated category. Please take a look when you have a moment. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please don't respond to the troll. This is exactly what he wants - to restart the discussion. I have reverted your (and his) changes. SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Eh well, I calling him a troll is exactly what I was trying to prevent. But ah well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I notice you have just edited (most helpfully) the list of Fauré's compositions. I wonder if that means if I can interest you in the peer review of the above article, which I put forward a few days ago? Quite understand if not, but glad of any comments you might feel moved to make. Tim riley (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the type of person to keep a peer review, but I'll gladly help maintain it as needed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Right ho! Glad of any contributions you like to make in due course. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted 3 times without any logical cause, despite requests to discuss. Your 3rd revert was without any rationale. Please revert your recent deletions and discuss. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Spam is a pretty logical cause. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The recording of which you deleted the link is exactly the only public domain "reference" for the sound of original the lutheal. Its Samples are recorded from the last exsisting lutheal in the MiM in Brussel. Here is what Wiki Ntherlands thinks about: "niet fantastisch, wel vrij goed voor elektronische versie en geeft wel een indruk en is waarschijnlijk ok qua auteursrechten" so think about: To have no "reference of the piece in the original instrumentation does not really give a better impression.--Fahl5 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

With respect to your removal of the PROD on the List of albums with tracks hidden in the pregap. This list has been tagged as needing references for several months, since June 2011. The fact that no references have been added implies that verifiable references may not exist, in which case the list is patently non-notable per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and should be deleted. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia prides itself as an accurate source of information; that's why it has notability criteria that must be followed. If this list is truly notable, as your edit summary states, then it should be easy to add references to it. Failure to do that will ultimately doom this list to Articles for Deletion. Truthanado (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted, without any given reason, several edits I have done to the Khachaturian article: specifically a) my amending the claim that the Masquerade Suite has been recorded frequently to the fact it is the "Waltz" from the Masquerade Suite, as opposed to the entire suite, which has been recorded frequently. I stated quite clearly on the comment attached to my edit my reason for doing this, to which you haven't supplied any reason to demur. b) My attempt to establish Khachaturian's notability in the lede, for the benefit of those who wish to know from the outset that they have found the right article to get information about the composer of those works. My intention is simply to ensure that the article contains useful information. Unless you can give a valid reason for having reverted those edits in the next 24 hours, I shall reinstate them. Alfietucker (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The last one was an accidental click of the rollback which I did not see, which happened to catch your previous edit too. I apologize and have fixed it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. I accept your apology, though I am still in the dark about why the text I added to the lede has been removed. Also, I still think the tag you've removed, requesting citations for the "Legacy and Influence" section, is legitimate since there are no citations whatsoever for that section. I will reinstate this, but would be glad to hear from you how the lede might be improved. I do think that some mention in the lede of Khachaturian's best-known/most popular works is appropriate, along the lines of the ledes in, for example, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Edvard Grieg; I suggest this not merely for the sake of being 'in line' with those articles, but, as I said in the OP, for the benefit of those who know those works and wish to know from the outset that they have found the right article to get information about the composer of those works. Best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I guess you do not understand the word accident. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK - I was confused by your saying you'd 'fixed it'. I'll reinstate the lede, then. Alfietucker (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why you ask for a source for something that is settled, s. my talk and the discussion at Soli Deo Gloria. Do we need a source now for saying "Der Himmel ist blau" translates to "The sky is blue"? Please consider removing the tag on Bach cantata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why you think everyone is supposed to know that. I won't remove the tag, as the 'discussions' you point me to don't even seem to resolve anything anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(:ec) I added a ref for the obvious. I don't want to argue too much in the field of religion. Eternal Life was just enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Religion? I don't see how a translation has anything to do with that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not the translation. But go to the Soli Deo Gloria article and you will see what I mean. Btw, the German article was also full of that "Sola" stuff, which was removed as unsourced. The German article at least has now both, the translations and the interpretation, - perhaps you can do that for en? I really don't feel up to it, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, fair point. I removed her from List of female composers by birth year because her article made no mention of her as a composer. I've now added a short section to it on the two compositions on one of her albums. --Deskford (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for leaving your thoughtful observation. I always appreciate your dialogue. MistyMorn (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Melodia, you seem to support the move I proposed – if so, please state it explicitly on the talk page, since there are a few "oppose"s and not enough "support"s. Thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. I may be a little sensitive about this since I was chewed out by an admin lurking on a user talk page on which I commented a couple of weeks ago, so please bear with me. I qualified my statement about users w/o names and, considering all the vandalism that's happened on the Tchaik main article, not without some justification and I know I tend to be a bit blunt. But I also feel like I've got Big Brother breathing down my neck and I'm not comfortable working under such circumstances. I'd greatly appreciate any comments, thoughts, suggestions and so on so I am not encouraged any further to leave Wikipedia for good. Between this and the slams I've received over the course of revamping the Tcahik main article, I'm really feeling put-upon. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're going a great job with the Tchaik article. Only reason I could see to complain would be the sheer number of edits, but I assume it's easier that way for you. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the encouragement. More, smaller edits are the way I usually work, as when I went with fewer edits during my time in publishing, there were several times when I lost all the material on which I was working. So, when in doubt, save. I am still concerned, though, that I can't even comment on what I assumed was a private user talk page w/o an admin ready to pounce. (The admin's response, in my paraphrase: There is no such thing as private on Wikipedia. Accept we're benevolent and get over it.) I just passed on responding to an edit of mine on another article that was reverted because I didn't want to worry about having to defend myself over anything I might say, no matter how I phrased it. Where was that admin a couple of weeks ago when another editor demanded that I take some material out of the Tchaik article? Not asked—demanded, as in "Will you do it or shall I?" (Those were the editor's words.) I'm probably bending your ear quite a but and thanks for being patient but I hope you understand my concern. Jonyungk (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The main thing to remember is that everyone -- even admins -- are equals on WP. I assume you're referring to Smerus. His comments didn't really seem all that demanding, but one thing you always have to consider is that sexuality in general will always be a hotbed topic, and some people will get heated about anything they disagree with. But he should have removed it himself if he wanted it gone (at which point someone else probably would have reverted even if you let it slide). As for 'privacy', well I dunno what the admin said, but it's true that anyone can watch and comment on any user talk page. There's no privacy per se on WP (partly because anything you write is automatically granted a copyleft license), but I'm not sure what you were assuming? If you can go to a user talk page and see it, anyone else could as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd assumed user talk pages were none of my business to read unless I was either initiating a discussion with that person or responding to something he or she had left on my page, therefore private. The admin said she was a "friendly lurker" making sure everyone worked and played well and that nothing negative or abusive was going on. Granted, I can tend to be blunt (and I had prefaced the comment that encouraged this admin to surface with exactly that warning) but was trying to be helpful. The fact this happened on a page I'd assumed was no one else's business did not set well. Your point is a very good one, though. Just because I assume a conversation is private does not assure that anyone else is going to assume or respect that, especially on WP. Jonyungk (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. KarlB (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not quite sure what your problem is with a factual addition to this article, but without some explanation as to why you and the other insist on removing it, I'll insist on re-adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerrr (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because it's very point of view slanted. It'd be best to start a discussion of the talk page about it. And a forum is not a reliable source, especially for such an observational statement. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I added A DATE. The date of the cited review in question. How is that "point of view slanted?" Also added the FACT that a forum exists - not that it's a good source. The forum exists. Period. I provided a link (though probably did that part incorrectly. . . ) Hardly my "point of view" that there's an active Rocksmith forum when there's a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerrr (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The fact that the forum has active members from across the planet is easily seen. Not quite sure how I'd cite the evidence, but you don't really have to watch the forum long to see posts from Brazil, Ireland, Argentina, Australia. . . In short, I see nothing "point of view" oriented about the added information whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerrr (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching my mistake concerning "La Paloma." I meant to post an example of Joplin's "Solace." Sorry about that.Dr clave (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal. Since you participated in the earlier discussion about trivial hatnotes and what to do about them, your input is requested on a finalizing a proposal. KarlB (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

About my edit of the PSP WotL slowdown fix: "Not a reliable source, of course"

Seriously what the hell? Listen, I am the administrator of Final Fantasy Hacktics, it's my community, we hack FFT and WotL and guess what? Tons of people used the fix and heck no one's experiencing bugs anymore with the latest version. So, what exactly is unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.102.3 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you're not happy with it, report me then! The slowdown fix patches have been out for about 8 months now, which was plenty of time to have the patch thoroughly tested (especially given how small it is, it only affects 3 bytes). So if you want to deny my source as legitimate because of stupid rules that are only there to prevent abuse, then go ahead and report me. All I'm trying to do is offer people the possibility to play WotL without the stupid slowdown; something which should never have existed in the first place... and it's unlikely those people would be reached by other means than wikipedia unless they google for this particular issue. So yeah, report me for trying to help, lol. Xifanie (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia isn't for "reaching people" in such a way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw you reverted my addition of the classical music portal link and asked why it was being added. I'm really not sure why not, it seems to me that that's what portal links are for, being put in appropriate articles, like in this case. However, I'm interested to hear your opinion on the matter. AutomaticStrikeout 02:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm contacting you as you participated in the policy village pump discussion regarding ticker symbols in article leads.

I've posted a section here about next steps to take, specifically examining whether an RFC is needed to reach a clear consensus on this issue. If you have the time and/or inclination to weigh in, please do! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have removed {{The Tales of Hoffmann}}, {{Carmen}}, and {{The Magic Flute}}. For plays, novels and other multimedia franchise templates they are accepted on the authors page. Why not for operas?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I presume you would revert {{Swan Lake navbox}} and {{Madama Butterfly}} too. Is this correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because they aren't directly related? I don't really understand all this navbox spam lately... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are saying that a template detailing multimedia developments of an opera that someone wrote should not be on his bio article. That does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, because the parent topic is the opera itself, not the composer. We shouldn't put every composer template on composer, which would be pretty much the same thing as what you're saying. You really think that potentially there should be, say, seven (or whatever it'd end up being) nav templates on Wagner's page on each individual opera? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

If editors create those templates. That is about the same amount that are at Oscar Wilde and H. G. Wells.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Opera_template_usage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw your revert here. The WikiProject discussion will likely impact/affect a large number of U.S. Supreme Court case articles (probably several thousand). A colleague suggested using Template:Centralized discussion as a means of advertising the discussion to ensure that a proper consensus would/could form.

Clearly you disagree with the inclusion of the entry and that's fine. I'm curious whether you think this particular discussion should be advertised anywhere else, though. I'd considered posting to a village pump or two. I don't want to reach a situation where editors are claiming they weren't informed of the upcoming changes (standardization) of U.S. Supreme Court articles. I want to give any/all interested parties the opportunity to participate in discussion about the style guide before it's more broadly applied.

Thanks for any help or guidance you can provide. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have no real interest in the discussion, I just know that specific guides like that are no supposed to be on CENT. I've seen them plenty of times at Village Pumps though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I've added a note on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

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) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is a book by Edward Macan, Rocking the Classics (cited, for example, in Electronic music), which might prove helpful in sourcing your list of popular works based on classical music, just in case you're still interested in working on it. I have not read the book, admittedly. However, just considering all the metal pieces with melodies borrowed from classical pieces, the list barely touches on that and the task to expand the list in order to give an adequate sample would seem daunting, even if you do not strive for completeness. It's a shame, though, it would be awesome to have such a list. Oh well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original Village Pump discussion about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I own the copyright and moral rights to my contributions.

I objected to your mis-citation of the idiotically named WP:Ownership at the Village Pump.

Please stop writing before you think and read. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think an infobox like this is not suitable for this article? I suggest you revert and discuss the matter on the article's talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Melodia, I think you've got the dialog etiquette right: both sides of the conversation go here. When trying to figure this out, I also found this:

If you reply to a comment on your page and put the reply on your page, not the page of the commentator, then you should go to the bottom of the commentator's talk page and put this Talkback Template there to let them know you said something about them . . . it gives them a hot link and a time stamp.

Thanks for all your work with classic music--treasures are waiting undiscovered for many. Jerry-VA (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of that, however I still prefer to keep everything on one page. It makes conversations easier to follow, not just for those participating, but others reading as well. Also, please put new talk sections on the bottom, no matter which page you are on. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This has got to be the best edit summary I have seen in recent memory! JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Heh. ^_^ ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Composers for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Before I've added the link to the wiki page, I've asked Max Keenlyside for permission:

Mail to Max Keenlyside, 1 March 2013: "Hello Max, Is it okay for you if I add a link to your sheet music to the Wikipedia page about the Silver Swan Rag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Swan_Rag)? Regards Rolf" Answer, 3 March 2013: "I'd be honoured - thanks! All the best, Max"

Do you need more information?

Vaslovag (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I couldn't find it on the website -- where is it? It's best to link to the webpage that hosts it instead of directly, as that way any issues of copyright are cleared up (in THIS case), AND it keeps in line with Wikipedia:EL#Rich_media (granted a PDF isn't a huge deal, but in the case of ELs it's still better to be more universal). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Obviously it's not on the website, but you can find the link to it on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy92VSkSTf4. So would you prefer to add an EL to Youtube? Vaslovag (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm.....I guess for now just use the direct link. Though perhaps asking on WP:EL might be good....because a random email like that isn't nessesarily good for an EL. It IS good to have some link to the score, but again, there's no indication just by the EL it's ok. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm sure sooner or later Max will add a link to the website itself. Then we can update the entry. Vaslovag (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not a good idea to revert edits by administrators as "vandalism". I am removing these media files because of complaints about the very poor quality; the media are made by a single singer multitracking all the parts, something which is virtually impossible to do to a high standard. The result is that there is a very strained quality to the upper parts, a lack of quality in the lower parts, and an overall amateurish production quality. Oh, and all of them were uploaded and linked by the performer himself. So he's using Wikipedia as a vanity project. He has never made any substantive improvements to content, all he's done is self-promotion. I sat back for some time but every single comment I have seen on a talk page about the quality of these recordings is unanimous: they are terrible. I agree. I have sung most of them in various choirs, I know how they should sound, and these recordings do not sound like they should.

There are some college choirs who are uploading much higher quality recordings, which is good. I would like to encourage my own choir (Reading Bach Choir) to do this but the effort and cost involved in making a proper studio recording is non-trivial. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Circus music
Thank you for quality contribution to articles and interesting discussions, for creating Circus music, and for adding music to this place, a melody on the bass clarinet and a chaconne for celesta, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

[1]

 

Precious and missed

A year ago, you were the 447th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 447 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Six years now, and nice to have you back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

... seven ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do not modify The Planet of the Apes (novel) discussion at the External links/Noticeboard as you did here. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to the discussion. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you kidding? Did you even read my edit summary? I didn't "modify the discussion", I reverted the closure because despite what you said it was pretty clear that there wasn't consensus to allow it...and why should it be closed anyway? Does it hurt anyone to let it die naturally? Just because you decided to close it doesn't give you power to stop anyone from disagreeing with you. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, In the past couple of days I have spent a considerable amount of my time trying ton contribute to a few pages relating to cello music (Elgar cello concerto, Saint Saens cello concerto n1, Vivaldi etc..) as I noticed important information was missing, particularly about a Brit Award   winning recording of Elgar's cello concerto by Julian Lloyd Webber with Yehudi Menuhin. I took the tutorial and referenced my contribution. However, the text I added was taken down. After contacting Wikipedia, they replied by saying you had reverted my text and video links. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me why, as the text was not opinionated and referenced and the videos were not copyrighted. Regards, Michela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolinmichela (talk • contribs) 03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Random YouTube links are not 'important information'. There's hundreds of performances of these works on video, there's nothing special about what you added, even though JLW may be more well known than most. I apologize about removing the info from the Elgar Concerto article as I assumed it like the other three. But your contributions make it seem as if you're pushing JLW for whatever reason, so please read up on WP:Conflict of Interest if you're somehow related to him. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am an amateur cellist and therefore interested in cello works, performances etc. If you think a Brit Award is not important information I don't honestly know what is! The 1985 recording of the Elgar, conducted by Sir Yehudi Menuhin (who had previously recorded the violin concerto with Elgar himself) was awarded a Brit Award for best classical recording and is still considered by Geamophone as "the finest ever" and IMO cannot be omitted from a Wiki page. The text I added was unopinionated. I also don't think Lloyd Webber needs any "pushing", his reputation is well established. I noticed that Steven Isserlis is mentioned in several cello concerto pages but not because of this I would dare to take the mentions down nor think he's being promoted. All the great cellists' achievements deserve to be mentioned. Wiki is a free encyclopaedia and therefore anyone should be allowed to add relevant information. The You Tube links were not "random" but an extract from the piece of music discussed on the page. Regards, Michela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolinmichela (talk • contribs)

The link of the Sains-Saens concerto page was a copyright violation being ripped from a CD. There's also no idndication the Haydn one is legal either. Both were also made into refs, which YouTube videos can't be outside of special situations. The one on the Vivaldi page was very misplaced -- can you imagine if everyone put a link to a random Vivaldi piece many ELs there would be? Again, the info on the Elgar concerto page was probably fine, so go ahead and re-add it if you wish. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see, ok, thanks, will put the text on the Elgar page, as that's what I think is the most important piece of information missing. I won't add any links or reference, just a couple of sentences in the text, mentioning the award winning recording. Please don't take it down thus time! Regards, Michela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolinmichela (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I happened to visit the Elgar Cello page and noticed that, once again, my contribution has disappeared...have you removed it, please? I was confident we had agreed to leave it as it was unopinionated, referenced, etc. I wanted to add the YouTube link to a video of the award ceremony related to the Elgar recording as well but wonder whether that would be taken down too. Regards, Michela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolinmichela (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to answer that. You figured out who removed the info before, you can do it again. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  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) 16:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

'tis the season

Did you know ...

• ... that the song "Ermutigung" by Wolf Biermann, encouraging people not to become hardened in hard times, was written for Peter Huchel, then under house arrest?
• that Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Tal Brenev. I've recently left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, in an attempt to revive the WikiProject. I will try to send a message to everyone on the list of participants, so as to get more suggestions and/or ideas. If you would like to participate, leave a message at the WikiProject Talk Page, or on my talk page. Thanks!

---Tal Brenev (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is now a checkbox to disable search suggestions in the gadget part of preferences. Sorry it took so long. Connor Behan (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping you remember where you got the claim that his original was found, as you did way back in 2009, not only for the sake of Wikipedia but so I can see the score myself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I doubt you'll be able to see the score yourself, but it was recorded on this disc (check the notes on the recording). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I was able to obtain the sound for free via my school, his orchestration sounds better than Kay's reconstruction!--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Melodia. We don't have a relationship yet, and I feel we got off on the wrong foot. I reacted poorly to your harsh criticism and was passive aggressive in my retort. So, I apologize, and I have edited the talk page accordingly. I would much rather us work together, as fellow classical music devotees, to form a consensus on our various ideas. Indeed, I have, in my isolation, been mulling over a few for some time now (mainly, a sortable table ala what GerdaArendt did for Nielsen, but with a few alterations to better suit the needs of Sibelius). Let's get a dialogue going rather than recrimination. Hope this message finds you well. Sgvrfjs (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Here's a quick example of a sortable table I have been considering. Maybe here the premiere dates are less cluttering, since they would have an assigned place in a column. I am also a proponent of having brief comments/notes where necessary, to give the reader a quick snapshot of important information or qualifiers or changes, without having to click on and wade through individual composition articles (if the focal piece even has one.) Please let me know what you think! Sgvrfjs (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ironically (or perhaps not) before I went semi-retired on here (as they call it) I was pondering doing the same for Sibelius. I'm pretty lazy though so never really did anything substantial. That said I do appreciate those who work on List of Compositions articles as it's a huge interest of mine -- I actually have over 60 of them (even excluding composers with multiples and almost every major composer) watchlisted. So I'm honestly really curious what other composers actually DO include first performance info as I can't say I've seen it otherwise, nor does a casual look through a bunch of them find any. The argument that "many do not have their pages" is EXACTLY the sort of argument that breeds cruftiness, which I still posit is inherent in the info. I've said it before occasionally -- if it were a popular subject (say, video games or movies) you can believe that there would be enough eyes that such things would be shot down quite quickly. I'll grant the comment I was responding to was actually about the solists (which even more so doesn't belong on the workslist). Also, the "scholarly sources" that have the performance info tend to be MUCH more comprehensive than a Wikipedia article (usually full books) and really cannot be compared. We also don't list incipits, full instrumentation info (for large ensemble works) or names of movements of singular works despite those being much more important to the music itself. Again, fantastic info for works with separate pages, not so much for a general overview of the compositions. As for the table itself, I'd change stuff around a bit -- the big one is putting Op. and JS in the same column since except in two cases (one of which is technically made up) they are mutually exclusive, and putting said column first -- and again, kill the first performance column. Also the general instrumentation should be added (orchestra, violin and piano, etc) with 'genre' for the more general type of composition (since Dvorak's list for a good example). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

This is still ongoing. My initial DRN request was ignored by the editor who seems adamantly opposed to any change to the article, and died on the vine. An RfC hasn't attracted any additional outside opinions. The opposing editor (who's been blocked 9 times for edit warring and disruptive editing) is trying to straw-man the argument to death and is ignoring the secondary sources he demanded early on. The page is locked, but that ends tomorrow. What next? Open a new DRN? I'm a writer and editor by trade in real life, but inexperienced with dealing with this sort of thing on Wikipedia. Thanks. Dharmabumstead (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Melodia! Say, how do we get an Admin to undo the mess those other two did? We need to get the Edit History back for all three pages (List, List by opus, List by genre), so this mess can be undone, and do it right this time. I have some backups in my sandbox and offline, but they're updates, not a full page, but even if we restore it, the edit histories need to be restored and I don't know how to do that. Who can we call?...

See my posting on Talk:List of compositions by Johannes Brahms for details on what happened.
Chuckstreet (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please remove the personal attack ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") which you posted a few moments ago on the Bach list talk page. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

A few months ago you launched a similar attack on another editor ([2]). Blanket statements where you reproach other editors that they "want" or "are trying" to "ruin" that page are poor contributions to a content discussion; furthermore, while the two editors on whom you commented with a fairly identical "ruin" accusation seem to have opposing views on the content it seems, to say the least, that both of your "ruin" comments cancel each other out, and are therefore little more than a non-contribution to the exchange of ideas. I'd recommend to adhere to the policy quoted above ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") if you want others to take your comments into account. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Melodia, many thanks for your page move revert of this article. I'm not sure if you had a look at the article itself, but it seems to me really quite problematic. Firstly it's extremely long (164 kbytes). It contains detailed descriptions of over 100 themes in the music, nearly all uncited. Much of the other material is also uncited. There's unusual markup, with extensive use of underscore for headings, not to mention bold italic with quotation marks for the names of themes. Oh, and there are images of five CDs, amazing they haven't been deleted as abuses of fair use; each of them with full track listings.

The main editor is basically an SPA, having done little except edit this article, along with Music of The Hobbit and Music of Star Wars. They didn't create the article (that was in 2005) but it had only grown to 50k by 4 March 2017; by the end of that year, it had grown to 150k, almost entirely through the SPA's edits. The material is almost all descriptive; there is hardly any analysis, criticism, or reception beyond details of awards. There are some 30 "listening examples" in "notes", with more in "references". The article has thus been pretty much a labour of love, with little connection to conventional editing. I tagged the article last month but nobody has commented or responded, why am I not surprised. As somebody familiar with music articles, what do you think should be done? One option would be to revert to the 4 March 2017 state, a drastic change but one that would put the article in a more typical state. Another option would be to split out the five CDs as separate album articles (that'd fix the NFUR issue...) and have a 'main' article with a whole lot of musicological and other analysis. Maybe.

Anyway, it's be good to know what you think. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Honestly I dunno. As far as LOTR goes, much of the stuff does seem to not be original research, but rather taken from either the annotated notes to the expanded OSTs (PDFs linked at the bottom of the page) or the book about the scores. Actually looking at it more I'd wager it's, if not plagiarized from those sources, at the least pretty much lifted from them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, probable copyvio. I'll see if I can prove that. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gerda, another Darth Tyrannus spam below (important). El_C 13:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Quite, and thanks for this. I was a little surprised to see someone with exactly two edits to their name ... and their latest was to begin to censor the encyclopaedia. I suppose I should admire their firmness of purpose and self-confidence, etc, but. Hmmm. I am not myself a massive fan of those words but I think I may have stumbled over some policy on this a decade or two ago ... cheers DBaK (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just for an explanation for why Talk:Speedrun sees so much disruption, it's not actually a "persistent troll", people are copying (or trying to copy) something a YouTuber did: [3]. I was confused myself for a while about it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeesh. Even more reason the page should be semi'd. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy of El_C, there'll be 3 months of respite at least. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Volteer1: When I first came to you, I was but the learner. Now I am a fucking dinosaur in Star Wars. Darth Tyrannus. El_C 13:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could you please stick to the topic, instead of an only personal remark? Did you look at the 2015 archive? ... or at the Kubrick discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Melodia, my dear friend, respectable registered User among us, know a lot about music, of all people it had to be you to raise questions and issues about my contribution. I did not do that for me. I did that for you man, for people like you. Every piece of information about her songs has been gathered in a single place man: Wikipedia. You won't find what you are looking for anywhere else. I did what I did because I wanted you to like it. It's my present for you man. And the best man, the very best, is that people like you are going to help me better that article, discuss the situation with me, enjoy our time together like old friends from distant countrys who work together to make this a much better place with more to offer, in a single place, I and haven't yet started man. That thing is now under Peer Review (we're here long enough to know that half-a-dozen of 3 or 4 (this is an expression in my language that means "only a small group") can't take hold of a field of the human knowledge. Everything you see there now, that you did before, is still there because her songs have the same tecnical issues like always before. Ritournelle bears the same title (there's no flute concertino, only Concertino, and its opus number is not a disambiguator, it just seemed the proper way once concertino leads the readers to another article! The designation of this concertino, if for flute, cello, viola, organ, whatever, is not part of the title, just the way that an opus number isn't part of the title either. You know, one thing is one thing, another thing is another thing (it's not stranger to call myself a "Gnome". I am smiling man, in joy, no anger, just amazed, in awe, because, as I said, of all people, you had to have come to my talk page, talked to me, get to know me better (I left wikipedia years ago. Father I have become! Since then it has just been for fun) and discuss what is bothering you there man. I think you are envious (in lack of a better word). That's why I said: You're much better than that man. Don't raise issues for nothing. You said: "a major work last night". No, I guess it is a "little bit more" than that. Hmmmmmm... I see now ! You're like this because I said in my essay on the talk page: two guys... oh....... go to Cristobal Oudrid talk page and see what happened there. I did that for Rose and Doctor Blofeld, because I like them no matter what. Don't make me say it man: C'mon, cheer up ! I know you can turn what I did into something even better for eveybody ! Don't disappoint me ! Let's work together, we have more to do. Krenakarore ^TK 18:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you rewrite that in comprehensible English? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Howdy - I saw your revert of my edit, and I see also the 15-year-old talk page discussion to which you refer. Even then there appears to have been some rather substantial disagreement over the piece's lack of unusual-ness, and the article then was far worse for wear than it is now. I think at the very least it would be worth having a discussion over why the article either ought or ought not to be included. AviationFreak💬 03:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)Reply

The reasoning is still the same (and perhaps, 15 years later, even more potent). It's not even about the fact there are other silent works (though that's certainly another factor) but like I said all those years ago, it's a very well known work. There's really a ton of articles that shouldn't be on the list(s) that are there (2005 United States Grand Prix for instance...about as 'usual' as it gets, it just happens that something weird happened during it). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

December songs

happy new year

It's his birthday again! - Today, I also learned that Yvonne Ciannella died, the soprano who impressed me in my first night at the opera. As she died in March, sadly no Main page reverence is possible, - at least she had a good DYK, at a time when opera singers were considered interesting. - I heard an excellent Christmas concert yesterday, by Tenebrae, and a short excerpt of them singing "Deo gracias" is also linked from my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Talia Or, in case of interest. - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply