User talk:Noetica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1: everything before July 2007

Archive 2: July to November 2007

---

Contents 1 Takemitsu 2 non-breaking spaces 2.1 What markup to use? 3 Hard-space campaign at ActionMOSVP 4 Serial Comma 5 What is going on? (cross posted from Talk:Afternoon of a Faun (ballet)) 6 Re: ActionMOSVP 7 Sonatas and Interludes 8 Sonatas and Interludes & MOS 9 Pentimento 10 Among/Between 11 Among/Between 12 Happy New Year 13 meninas 14 Hard space proposal 15 Hamlet FAC 16 Hamlet 17 Prior to 18 Las Meninas 19 Commas 20 subsection at MOS 21 Hats off! 22 Appositive / Oppositive 23 Em Dash / En Dash 24 Notification of absence 25 {{inuse}} tag 26 Apostrophes and MOS 27 Template:MoS-guideline 28 Strumming and rolling 29 Regarding Mallarmé 30 Meninas 31 Thank you 32 Olla Podrida 33 Hey, Noetica, are you alive? 34 Apostrophe 35 Greetings from Maffra 36 WikiProject Manual of Style 37 WP:MOS#Latin phrases 38 Ordinal centuries in WP:MOSNUM 39 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language 40 April Fools 41 Do not attack people on wikipedia 42 FYI: Meaningful titles 43 Formatting your name 44 No-break spaces 45 The word "Beastorn" 46 Waterboarding 47 Soup of the day 48 The hunting of the Beastorn 49 Maintain civility in waterboarding discussion 50 Rokeby Venus 51 Beastly weapons 52 Hyphenation question 53 Tone cluster 54 Request: The Third of May 1808 55 FAC 56 If you've time on your hands... 57 The Garden of Earthly Delights 58 Ref desk help... 59 Impressed 60 Welcome back 61 Re:Echinodermata and Romantics [if I spelled the former correctly] 62 Welcome back 63 Silence

[edit] Takemitsu

Hey Noetica - I just thought you'd like to know that this article has now been promoted to FA! Thanks for all your help with it.

Matt.kaner (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-breaking spaces

Hi Noetica,

First off, thank you for picking the matter up again and notifying me.

I had an edit conflict with you in WT:MOS; at the moment, it seems not really relevant to add it again. Since you might set up a page in your user space, I'll put my text here; feel free to move it (in any form) to the subpage when you create it. Phaunt (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What markup to use?

added heading to keep this separate from the mini-poll; also made Dan's suggestion stand out more Phaunt (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would &; be suitable for markup? I just did a search in the current HTML spec and that doesn't appear to be used, it's in some sense the closest thing to what people use already, and HTML-savvy people probably have not carelessly thrown around &; characters in articles already written. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Noetica earlier proposed `~. Also, ~, _ and ` (or multiple of these characters) were proposed earlier before; some of them may be less suitable because they're in use as wiki syntax somewhere. In the interest of brainstorming, let's first gather some proposals before we dismiss any of them; even if a proposal clearly seems not to be viable, it may inspire others. Phaunt (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[Answered at User talk:Phaunt.]

---

Sorry guys, I think I spoke out of turn in making a specific suggestion. Again, I'm new here...I've been participating in MOS discussions lately because they have been surprisingly relevant to my recent editing work. I will endeavor to keep quiet when I get the sense that I'm out of my depth. Bearing in mind "let's first gather some proposals", I nevertheless feel strongly that anything that doesn't take significantly less time to type than   has some downsides, so I hope no one will be offended if I go ahead and try to make the argument.

If I understand correctly, you are are looking for an argument that will overcome some expected resistance. Knowing nothing more than I know now, I would try this. The more Wikipedia succeeds, the more careful we have to be not to give journalists, web designers, and even serious bloggers excuses to disparage us. Appropriate use of hard spaces is a well-known typographic convention, and consistent omission might be held up (unfairly) as evidence that our editors don't really know their job. Most Wikipedians aren't using them, and the most common reason given is that it's just too annoying to type   every time. We would like to promote the use of non-breaking spaces, but experience suggests that our pleas will fall on deaf ears unless we make it easier. We propose that "[non-breaking space]" be added after the last character in the "insert" line in the edit box, and that [whatever] be added as a markup for a non-breaking space. The conventions Home-space, Ctl-Shft-space, aliasing  , or selecting from a menu don't fix the problem we're trying to address.

If that's the argument, then my opinion is that I don't like `~ or various combinations of 3 characters for the the markup, because I expect the time savings wouldn't usually be more than a tenth of a second over  . Same argument for any 3 characters...just not enough time saved compared with  , and we've already established from experience that   doesn't seem to be doing the job. If you're expecting resistance, my feeling is that these suggestions would make it too easy for TPTB to say "no". I like &; for the reasons I gave above, and also because it's a reasonable mnemonic to have "nothing" between & and ; represent "space", and also because it looks a little less ad-hoc. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[Answered at User_talk:Dank55.]

---

[Section removed. It concerned an erroneous speedy-deletion tag applied to one of my sub-pages. Fixed now.]

---

[edit] Hard-space campaign at ActionMOSVP

I have started a page (a sub-page to User:Noetica) to centralise the campaign to get Wikipedia markup for the hard space. Why not take a look? All editors welcome.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serial Comma

Noetica quoted, 22:12, 12 December 2007, here: "Given that the final comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate the need to pause and gauge each enumeration on the likelihood of its being misunderstood – especially since that likelihood is often more obvious to the reader than the writer." Very nice choice on a difficult issue! The number of people who want to write articles right is a tiny fraction of the number who want to keep up-to-speed on all relevant MOS issues...it's great advice to say: "If you're asking my opinion, it's a big world out there and the number of ways to misconstrue a sentence that omits the serial comma is greater than you know, so minimize brain strain and include it by default." — Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on? (cross posted from Talk:Afternoon of a Faun (ballet))

I am surprised to find that there has been a move of some sort from Afternoon of a Faun (ballet) (AFB) to Afternoon of a Faun (Nijinsky) (AFN). Some questions:

• Wasn't there considerable content at AFB? I seem to recall that there was; but the history comes up blank! Why is this? It looks as if most of the history has been deleted by an administrator. Did this happen? If so, why?
• Where is the discussion that should precede any such action, and any such move? Where is the evidence that the appropriate tag for potentially controversial moves ({{move|NewName}}) was applied, and discussion allowed for? (see Wikipedia:Requested_moves).
• Why has the talk from AFB been moved, and a redirect applied? This is highly irregular, and denies the opportunity for discussion of the article AFB, and of its status as a mere redirect. I shall now remove that redirect. Every article has its own talk page, even if the article is just a redirect.
• An anonymous editor earlier removed content referring to other choreographies than Nijinsky's, saying in the edit summaries that the article was not about those choreographies, just Nijinsky's. If this is so, why is there not some "See also" mention of those others? If there is no article like AFB, where is it proposed that other choreographies of AF be treated in Wikipedia?

I'm posting these questions at the talk page of AFB and AFN. Please leave the talk page for AFN in place; and if you do want to put a redirect there, DISCUSS that action first. This is the correct procedure at Wikipedia.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the party who moved Afternoon of a Faun (ballet) to Afternoon of a Faun (Nijinsky) and did so because the anonymous Wikipedian you mention deleted my mention of Tim Rushton's new Afternoon of a Faun on Johan Kobborg. Another Wikipedian of kindly disposition attempted to restore my (rather short) note concerning the Rushton/Kobborg Faun, but the anonymous user deleted it again.

The party in question (if it is always the same anonymous person connecting from the same IP) appears to have no knowledge of ballet judging by the other edits they've made. I hope that moving this entry to Afternoon of a Faun (Nijinsky) will make space for a currently non-existent Afternoon of a Faun (Rushton) entry (there are other Fauns worthy of mention) and hope you understand my reason for doing so (as far as I can tell the move did not result in anything being deleted, though there may've been earlier deletions; the history goes back to 2004.) Robert Greer (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[Answered at User talk:Robertgreer.]

Mea maxima culpa! The only other move I've ever made was of a page of my own creation and was strictly uncontroversial. The only potentially controversial change I've suggested otherwise is on Danish Wikipedia, where I proposed last week on the discussion page (as you admonish me to do and under ordinary circumstances would do whether it was part of Wiki. etiquette or not) the elimination of dk:Kategori:Ballerinaer, ballerinas and moving of its one and only entry into dk:Kategori:Balletdansere, male ballet dancers (we don't have a convenient word for it in English and are reduced to using the French danseur.)

It is a delight to make the acquaintance of an administrator (I assume you are such; I am not one nor have any desire to become one.) You will reside in place of pride in my Wikipedia Rolodex; i.e., your User talk:Noetica page on my watchlist. Whatever happened was my own fault; I had no accomplices.

Fortunately ballet -- and contemporary dance -- are so little documented on Wikipedia that hardly anything rises to the level of consultative (occasionally there is a certain amount of self-defense required when an over-eager over-active Wikipedian proposes deletion of a new ballet article where they don't know any of the names. In most cases it's clear from what they've written about that they've never been to the ballet and in at least one case probably don't know how to pronounce the word (in all but the last mentioned I've been very gentle in my writing back to them, and they have reciprocated.) I will cross-post a redaction of what we've discussed later today.

Seasons greetings, Robert Greer (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Robert. I understand your good intentions, and fully accept your explanation. Myself, I am more concerned with the music, and especially the literary underpinnings in Mallarmé's poem (of which I have made my own metred and rhymed translation). So I don't follow all of the political manoeuvres and entrechats in identifying the various choreographies. I can only watch in fascination.

No, I am not an administrator. Just a conscientious editor.

All the best for your work with the ballet articles. I'll have a look from time to time.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I started as a singer, went back to theatre school to study directing, learned Swedish as one of my two foreign languages, and have taken ballet class for twenty years (tap before that) but never worked as a dancer. I'll be on vacation (in Sweden and Denmark) from the 5th to the 25th of January and Wikipedia will be far from my thoughts during that period. Do you work exclusively on Mallarmé or other French poets as well? Robert Greer (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ActionMOSVP

Err.. only admins can delete pages. : - ) There's also an icon at the top of my userpage indicating that I'm one. As for the page, it was deleted under WP:CSD#R2. I do a lot of deletions, almost exclusively candidates for speedy deletion, and as such, I simply refuse to clutter the database with long edit summaries when a short one will suffice. Unless there is an incredibly important reason to do so, redirects should never go from the article namespace to the User: or User_talk: namespaces, thus the deletion under WP:CSD#R2. In this particular case, it seems the page should have never been in the article namespace to begin with. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be patronising, MZMcBride. I presume you mean that broom icon, at the top of your page? You need to document things better! Not everyone will know what you had in mind with that unlabelled image, and neither the word administrator or the word sysop anywhere to be seen. I know that only admins can delete pages; but I have never had a page deleted before. That's why I asked about the name that I found in the delete log. You would do better to read, rather than swiftly delete with poor documentation. Where there is an annotation, someone has put it there exactly for you to read it, and act appropriately. In this particular case, you have caused inconvenience and complication by your undue haste. I accept that the page is legitimately deleted, now that you have explained; but it would have been good for you to respect the purpose for which we had the page, and notify us. Less haste, more consideration, please.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[Posted also at User talk:MZMcBride.]

I don't mean to intrude, but are you aware of this page? It can be found via "Special pages" → "Users". Phaunt (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonatas and Interludes

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for the tone you used for your comments at the FAC page. I had a horrible day yesterday, and if it weren't for your "Don't let me discourage you!" comments style, I'd feel even worse after seeing how many things were wrong in the article, and I would in fact be very discouraged. You made these things seem a little bit brighter, thanks :) Jashiin (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you probably already saw, the article got promoted today! :) Thank you so much for all your help and the amount of effort you put into this; the article would've never made it without you. I really appreciate it. Jashiin (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and of course, lets keep in touch! It was great working with you. I was planning to rewrite John Cage in near future - in fact, I've already started a while back (the lead and the first two sections are more or less "ready", although now - after the FA nomination of Sonatas.. - I feel I'll have to rewrite all of them :). There are some articles about his works, too, as I'm sure you saw on my user page. Johann Pachelbel is another project - almost the entire article was written by me, but that was a very long time ago and everything there needs rewriting. Johann Jakob Froberger is yet another article I'd like to tackle someday. During the summer I wrote a semi-decent Biography section for it and a less-than-decent Works section; but back then I had very few sources I could use. Now I've got some books and dissertations, so hopefully after Cage and Pachelbel I will start working on Froberger. It'd be a pleasure to work with you on any of those, and if you have any article suggestions of your own, I'd be very happy to help with whatever I can offer.

Happy holidays,

--Jashiin (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonatas and Interludes & MOS

Hi. I agree with most of your reverts, but are you sure the "twenty" in the opening sentence should be spelled out? Thanks Epbr123 (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pentimento

Faulty in what resepect? These seem very much in line with it. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Among/Between

I hope you don't think I was trying to argue with you regarding the "among/between" issue. I was honestly just trying to understand. I accepted your explanation (except for the Austen part - I don't think that a 200-year-old example holds much weight for the reasons I explained). I wasn't disputing your point - only mentioning that the example wasn't the best evidence for it. :) As a side point, I also think that it is good for other editors to know the reasons for the requested changes (perhaps they and I won't make the same errors again if we understand the error). Awadewit | talk 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Among/Between

I hope you don't think I was trying to argue with you regarding the "among/between" issue. I was honestly just trying to understand. I accepted your explanation (except for the Austen part - I don't think that a 200-year-old example holds much weight for the reasons I explained). I wasn't disputing your point - only mentioning that the example wasn't the best evidence for it. :) As a side point, I also think that it is good for other editors to know the reasons for the requested changes (perhaps they and I won't make the same errors again if we understand the error). Awadewit | talk 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

O, that's all fine Awadewit. As I have said, the Austen part was a mere aside. But it does show the basic traditional difference between among and between rather neatly. In fact, the usage it shows is also unimpeachable today. OED and sources that cite OED are at pains to make the case against a simplistic and invariable alignment of between with two and among with more; and they are right to do this, because it is an error to think the matter was ever that straightforward. But there are converse errors to avoid, too. A nuanced and careful search with Google will reveal that the basic distinction is still very much in play. A quick and dirty corpus search that I conducted, of literature up to mid-20C, shows this also. (Yes, I do research these things!)

As I have said to you, there is a good final criterion for deciding between two usages: if you can, choose the one that draws practically no dissent among literate speakers of English or among "authorites". Luckily, that applies in this case.

Best wishes to you!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

[edit] meninas

sorry about the biblio stuff but I have been under anaesthetics for most of the intervening period, and Couil seems to have vanished too. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes,thanks Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hard space proposal

Better markup for the hard space, using ,,

Summary

The hard space is an important but neglected element in good Wikipedia editing. It stops an unwanted line break, so it is also called no-break space, or non-breaking space. An example (one sort from very many): no line break should occur in "17 sq ft". At present there are two ways to achieve this: first, with the raw HTML   code (17 sq ft); second, with the {{nowrap}} template ({{nowrap|17 sq ft}}). These options are hard to remember, hard to input, and hard to interpret on the screen. Some cases are far more complex.

The solution? Introduce simple new Wikipedia markup, similar to the existing markup for italic (''italic text'') and bold ('''bold text'''). Although these are converted by the system into HTML code (<i>italic text</i> and <b>bold text</b> respectively), the text always appears in the edit box with the markup '' or '''.

The proposal simply adapts this useful and accepted idea, to include the hard space. Extensive discussion among interested editors, followed by a poll, shows that ,, (two ordinary commas) is the best markup. When it is implemented, one could type 17,,sq,,ft in the edit box, which would be converted internally to 17&nbsp;sq&nbsp;ft, so that the reader of the article always sees an unbroken "17 sq ft". Editing, we would always still see 17,,sq,,ft. This innovation is easy for experienced editors and welcoming to Wikipedia newcomers, since it is the same style as markup for bold and italics.

Analysis shows that comma-based markup could be extended for other formatting and punctuation; but that is beyond the present simple proposal.

[Last revision: 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC). See and discuss the full proposal here.]

[edit] Hamlet FAC

Just a quick note to mention that I have left a comment for you at the Hamlet FAC asking whether you are yet able to endorse this article. All the best,--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support at FAC and for the eleventh-hour copy edit. Yes, the copy did need fresh eyes and yours found many things. I chuckled at the edit summary (particularly the bits that owed more to chutzpah than to scholarly consensus) but, hey, I pulled your leg there too so why not? :) As regards neither/nor, Fowler (I forget which one, Bob Burchfield, I think) is illuminative on plural concordance and sentence thrust. Anyhow, I appreciate what you did. Thanks again, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For many significant improvements to Hamlet during its featured article candidacy, please accept this Copy Editor's Barnstar --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your excellent copy-edit at Hamlet, I award you this Minor Barnstar! AndyJones (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I didn't realise the logo would look so diddy on your page, compared to the full-size one above it! (Not a reflection on the size of your contribution!) AndyJones (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prior to

Greetings from the (very hot) Riverina. I am sure it is a lot cooler up Olinda way. I can't claim "prior to" as a pet hate of mine; that distinction belongs to User:Tony1, the ubiquitous and thorough terror of FAC. :-) My problem with the word is that I use it habitually and without thought and he called me on it! Listing articles at FAC is always fun, despite the sometimes merciless criticism as it helps improve my writing skills. I work in a bureaucracy and my writing tends to be passive, wordy and dense if I am not careful. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I live in a little town not far from the Murray. Not much happens here, so we are all rather excited about the dust storm bearing down on us now. With any luck, a cool change will follow. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Las Meninas

Thanks for your note, and I've been meaning to thank you for your edits for a while. I got distracted over x-mas and neglected the FAC; pity, but I was pleased to see that it was left in very capable hands - Johnbod, JNW, you, Awadewit, and Tony. Its encouraging to be involved in team work like that. Ceoil (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, I'll look through the page and give an openion if I have one ;-). Anyway, look, good copy editors are hard to come by around here-I'm working with Johnbod on this, and slowly on this, and if its ok with you, I might ask for a glance and help before I submit each to FAC. Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll build up in my semiliterate way, Johnbod and JNW will fact check, tidy and expand. And if you could polish and make elegant, that would be great. Best. Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen RedRabbit's essay, by the way.[1] Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commas

I'm beginning to think that you somehow failed to notice that the OP provided a link to the page where the sentence in question resides. We have all the context in the world. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] subsection at MOS

hey Noetica, I just converted your section into a subsection; feel free to revert that, as it may have been specifically your intention to make a new top-level section. I'm a bit tired, so my judgement could be off. Phaunt (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hats off!

Hello Noetica,
I've followed your painstaking efforts at the "Diatonic and Chromatic" article. Your contributions are consistently relevant, concise, and well-researched. Such work has led to one of Wikipedia's finest articles. BRAVO!
Best, Prof.rick (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Noetica,

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I had already looked at your very useful work on "mark up", and I hope it progresses well. Having my own website, I am quite comfortable writing html, but I am sure, for the average editor your concepts will prove to be very useful. I understand your comments about "certain editors"; in fact this issue has driven me from contributing to some articles. Thank goodness there are also many helpful editors.

Best, Prof.rick (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appositive / Oppositive

Hi Noetica,

I hope it's clear that I'm not disputing your use of the word appositive. I'm quite sure that you are right and Fowler is wrong. Oppositive is a rare word and obviously not appropriate in this context.

My edition is "The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, Third Edition, Edited by R. W. Burchfield". The snippet I quoted is from section 10 (of 12) of the entry comma, on page 162. There is no possibility of confusing a and o in the typeface used in this book. I bought this copy, a paperback, from a book club called TSP, whose logo is printed on the spine. The printing may or may not be identified by the lines "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3" and "Printed in Great Britain by Mackays of Chatham" on the copyright page.

Regards, --Heron (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Em Dash / En Dash

Hello,

In the Australia article you have included: "... and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash... "

What do you mean by this?
Are you saying that spaced em dashes are to be used and unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes are not to be used, or do we have a choice in using either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, but only *one* style throughout the article. The statement seems ambiguous and not very clear on what is to be used? – Axman (☏) 13:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have answered this at Talk:Australia, Axman. And anyway, the statement is not ambiguous if you pay attention to its punctuation. I did not write this:

...and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash, or spaced en dash...

THAT would have been ambiguous.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of absence

Moved from my talk page to keep the thread unfragmented Phaunt (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[Before I saw your post at my talkpage:]

Phaunt, I see that you'll be away from Wikipedia at the end of January. What's the topic of your thesis? And you're with an orchestra. What instrument do you play? I'm a musician myself: piano is my main instrument, but I'm more involved with theory and composition than performance.

You have made especially valuable contributions to the hard space campaign, with your precision and your technical knowledge. Soon we'll need to widen the push to involve many more editors, and get general support for it. But we'll always need people who stay committed to it for the duration. I'll try to do that, of course. And I hope you will, too. Strangely hard work, with so much unknown about how things will be processed and received: but strangely engaging for that reason, yes?

Hi Noetica, this is to notify you, as secretary of the hard space movement, of my absence from 30 january till about 28 february. I'll defend my MSc thesis in Computer Science in a week and a half; then, I'm going to conclude my student years with a nearly month-long project with the Netherlands Student Orchestra, including two weeks of intensive rehearsals—and partying; a ten-day tour with daily concerts in some big concert halls in the Netherlands; and a tour to St. Petersburg, Russia. Whee!

Anyway, I'll look into the progress here once I'm back, and maybe things will have moved to a point where I can help with the coding; or maybe they'll have long since progressed to that point, and somebody else has implemented it already :-)

Just so you know where I'll been, and if there's something you feel I could help with before I leave, by all means ask me (though of course I'm sort of busy the coming two weeks...)

Finally, something I meant to ask you—you don't have to tell me of course, and from a rational point of view it's not important—but my poor human mind keeps wondering if you are male or female... The final 'a' in your name gives me the idea that you're female, but technically speaking, a single vowel is not a really accurate way to determine somebody's gender :-) Phaunt (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page to keep the thread unfragmented Phaunt (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[After I saw your post at my talkpage:]

Ha ha! A coincidence indeed.

A good question, about gender. Many have wondered, and not known how to ask. I give no information about my life on my empty userpage, and I like being a featureless and genderless cyberentity. But it really isn't convenient, is it? People have to know which pronouns to use! My username was not, however, chosen with the intention of concealing gender. It is from Greek: νοητικά. It may look like a feminine adjective, made into a noun: a variant of νοητική. But it is intended as a neuter plural, and it is well-formed as one. It means "things of the intellect", related to νοῦς ("intellect"), like the neuter plural φυσικά, which as I think you know means "things of nature", and therefore "physics". I am an academic philosopher, though that is not my current work, so νοητικά seemed appropriate.

Awkward, these things. Never mind! I will in fact make a proper userpage soon. And I will include the information that I am male.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your discussion back here. In the future, it's okay to reply here, as I keep talk pages I post to on my watchlist.

My Greek is a little rusty, but I did read Homeros' Odysseia in grammar school, and νοῦς appears in the third line, in accusative form, right? I still know the first six-odd lines by heart.

The title of my Master's thesis is "New Algorithms for the Simple Temporal Problem". As the title suggests, I've come up with a few new algorithms for this nice little problem, that I both prove theoretically and show empirically to perform much better than their precursors, which I'm quite excited about. I'll probably put it online some time in March. Currently preparing my presentation and dealing with some odds and ends.

I play the french horn, and the programme of the Netherlands Student Orchestra (as yet only in Dutch, sorry) will include Brahms' double concerto, Bruckner's seventh symphony and a new composition (by a young and promising Dutch composer, as is the tradition with this orchestra). Last year, I experienced the high point of my horn 'career' so far, by playing the corno obbligato in Mahler's 5th symphony (with our local student orchestra). I don't mean to brag, or hmm, maybe I do, just a bit.

I'm not gone just yet, but I wish you good luck with the hard space movement while I'm away, and I'll certainly check back when I return. Phaunt (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Greek is rusty? At least you have some. I taught myself what I could, but it is nowhere near enough. My copy of the Odyssey is a Dutch edition. It seems that there is much more interest in the classics there than almost anywhere else. Should we blame Erasmus for this?

Your thesis topic is beyond my comprehension, since I am not familiar with the simple temporal problem. Is there something on this in WP? It does seem suitably abstracted, having to do with algorithms, and yet applied. Good move.

French horn? Love it! Over the years I had never listened Bruckner, except for the wunderschön little motet Os Justi. Do you know it? Anyway, I have recently started appreciating the symphonies. The 4th, of course, has fantastic writing for brass; and so does the 8th, which another editor steered me towards. Now I must try the 5th and 7th, and all the rest. As for the Brahms concerto, it's superb too. What about his 4th symphony? Some fine horn passages there. Love that slow movement.

Good to chat. More later?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I myself live in the Netherlands, I guess it's hard to compare classical education here with that abroad. From reading The Secret History, I got the idea that it may be alive in the U.S., too. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know all that much about Erasmus... he was in the race for the title of De Grootste Nederlander, though I, being more of a science type, preferred Antonie van Leeuwenhoek or Hendrik Lorentz.

I'm not sure if the STP is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe it is, I'll think on it. If you know the basic concepts of graphs, I can explain a bit about it, if you like. I'll also put my thesis online at some point (it's written in English), but not just yet. Ah, I wrote that already above.

Perhaps surprisingly, and probably atypically for musicians, I don't listen to or know all that much "classical" music. I know mostly stuff I've performed at some point, which has by now also become quite a little list, and which I find a nice way to get acquainted with a piece. From the inside, as it were. Of Bruckner's work, I've only performed his third Mass. Looking forward to get to know his seventh symphony quite intimately. His fourth I have on a CD here, should maybe listen to it some more.

Since you mentioned Bruckner's 5th, I wonder if you misread my text above: I played the obligato horn in Mahler's 5th symphony. Now there's another monumental composer. I also played his sixth symphony, and some of his songs are also wonderful, wunderschön indeed.

I've played a Brahms symphony, but I can't recall which at this moment. I also played his first serenade for orchestra (written when Beethoven's memory was still very fresh and nobody dared to write symphonies anymore), which has a lovely first horn part, as I know from experience :-) Currently, our Delft student orchestra is performing Ein deutsches Requiem.

It is nice to chat. What kind of composing do you do? Phaunt (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did mix up Mahler's and Bruckner's, in what you said. Not operating at my best this weekend, as I say below. I want to listen to more Mahler, too. I've been neglecting these later composers for too long, having always taken more interest in the 18th century and the early romantics.

Composing? I do a bit in classical and romantic styles, but not much. And only as an amateur. I want to get more deeply into it when I have sorted out a few other matters.

I do know something about graph theory, but only intuitively. Don't explain your thesis to me right now, since we both have other concerns for a while. Some other time would be good.

More later!!!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{inuse}} tag

It can be removed now, no? Phaunt (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it can, I'll just boldly do it. Phaunt (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not, as there's still an empty section, maybe sitting in editorial limbo on your computer somewhere... I've restored the tag and will go shopping first. Phaunt (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arghhh! Fixed now, sorry. Distracted by trying to sell a house, here in Australia.

What empty section is that? In the proposal, do you mean? Note that there is no abstract: just a single-line subtitle (as I explain in the note below the working version). Or have I omitted something else? I wouldn't be surprised!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would probably be done already, but better to be safe than sorry, I thought.

The empty section is User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP#Current_development_work. Maybe that heading should've been removed already, I'm not sure. Phaunt (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I have now demoted a subsection so that this makes more sense. I wanted User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP#Current_development_work to be consistent, and its contents to change.

Not operating at my best this weekend.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophes and MOS

You wrote on my talk:

Jerzy, thanks for fixing that wikilink at MOS. Yes, I accidentally altered the link. There was a system anomaly that upset my editing at the time, and I did not correct it properly. Considering that I wrote a good deal of both affected sections at Apostrophe, I should have checked better. :)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Shit happens, and i hope my summary sounded thorough rather than snarky.
I'll be making a thorough presententation re the mnemonic, where you suggested, and i look forward to further collaboration.
Thanks
--Jerzy•t 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MoS-guideline

Hello! Please see the new talk page discussion. There appear to be only minor differences of opinion, and I'm eager to arrive at an agreement. Thanks! —David Levy 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. See my reply there. Don't worry, I'm watching it!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noetica, this is just a quick edit to remove the link to the template from pages that don't actually use the template, to make it a little easier to patrol. Hope to see you again at FAC soon. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strumming and rolling

Hi, Noetica. Thanks for adding this about rolled chords. I wasn't sure of the precise terminology, but I was fairly sure that a passage in eighth notes (like the famous ending of Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring) ought to be distinguished from a ukelele strum (bum-bum-bum-pah!). --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I upload an image of an arpeggio in eight notes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Mallarmé

Regarding Stéphane Mallarmé assessment from WP Poetry. I hesitated on assessing that one... I wouldn't mind bumping him up to Mid-level importance - these kinds of questions, though, should probably go on the Poetry project talk page. Remember not to take it personally either: the ratings are solely for the use of the project, not for Wikipedia in general, so it really only affects the dozen or so members of WP:Poetry. I would presume that Mallarme should be of a higher rating for a Wikiproject relating to France but I'm not a member of one. Either way, I always say this to people: ignore the assessment. It's hardly relevant to anyone besides the handful of us in the Wikiproject. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meninas

Yes thanks - I thought it was as you say. Does the quote come from the referenced dictionary? I suppose so - I think it was you who added that bit. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Noetica, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

[edit] Olla Podrida

My revisions to [Olla Podrida] were all edited out, aside from removing the fake etymology. It was worth a shot, anyway. Some discussion ended up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xueexueg (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Hey, Noetica, are you alive?

The hard space discussion certainly isn't. What is happening? All the momentum we had is suddenly gone. Either I am missing something here, or we have bumped on an invisible wall. In this case, my nose hurts. Waltham, The Duke of 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, young Ουάλθαμ, I am alive. You have finished your exams? All's well, I trust?

The hard-space push is only in temporary abeyance. There are some who would like instant action and immediate success. But it can't be like that. You can see from the protracted discussions on this and other matters at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM that change happens only when properly primed. If we are to achieve anything, we must wait for the right moment to take the matter up again. People need to experience for themselves the inadequacy of present arrangements. And they will not accept a move for change if they think it is an imposition by a clique of zealots.

A great deal of hard work has been done on this little matter, and you have been part of it. That ,, is your suggestion! We have raised awareness among other editors, and we have learned a lot from responses at WT:MOS. Soon we'll get back to it, yes?

Meanwhile, I might email you. There are one or two other matters to discuss.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want the genuine, old-style Greek transliteration, I think you'd better go with Ουώλθαμ. You see, omega is a long vowel, and they used to take pronunciation much more seriously until a few decades ago (katharevousa and all); now they just use the simpler vowels available for transliteration: omikron all "o" sounds, iota for all "ee" sounds, and so on.

The exams could have gone much, much better, but I suppose there's no use whining about it. I shall be done with it in a week's time. Until then, and afterwards, please refrain from bringing up the subject. It is painful. :-/

As far as the hard space movement is concerned, I was only concerned because I saw no action whatsoever in any relevant page and wondered why we had suddenly dropped all discussion on the subject. It looks strange, you know. I suppose a pause is good, so that we (and "they") can draw a breath, but we certainly oughtn't to leave too much time pass, or our progress will evaporate.

Other than that, there is nothing more to say. I shall continue to be busy in other areas, and wait for anything new from the hard space front. Whatever you send my way is welcome, of course. Until then, bye. Waltham, The Duke of 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I know about those old distinctions, since I am far more familiar with the old tongue than the modern. But I wanted to give the pronunciation of Waltham that would be typical in the demotic of Australians of Greek origin. They would pronounce an α for each a in Waltham, I think. Both languages have their strange conventions, so the intersection of them is bound to be a locus of vexations. Just as well you are not the Duke of Derbyshire, in which case the Greek would be quite difficult, yes? Ντάρμπιςιηρ? Who knows! Would you represent those /r/ sounds? We wouldn't pronounce them, in standard British or Australian speech. And to get the /sh/ sound, you might need ςι; but then, what to follow that with, for the /i/ sound?

Right, no more talk about exams.

The hard-space campaign will be resumed soon. You will note that there a great deal of discussion about the use of &nbsp; in citations, which brought excellent publicity for our cause, and I suggested that we resume the discussion later. I expect to raise it all again in the middle of next week.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe

Hello. Sorry but the typographic apostrophe is the preferred form of apostrophe. Open any book, you will see it uses the typographic apostrophe. I have just seen that the MOS recommends this ugly straight apostrophe. But this is for Wikipedia and Wikipedia only, which departs itself from correct typography (it is unfortunately not the only stupidity in the MOS). Typographers use the typographic apostrophe, which has this name for a reason. Even softwares like MS Word or OOo use the typographic apostrophe, not even speaking about LaTeX in which you never see a straight apostrophe. Regards, Med (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference for the preferred apostrophe form on apostrophe, citing the Unicode standard. Med (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Med, that's OK now that you give a reference and qualify your sentence in the way you have. But the original sweeping statement was misleading and contentious. There are excellent reasons for preferring the straight apostrophe and quote marks at sites like Wikipedia, the way the system currently works. Such sites, and Wikipedia in particular, represent a large body of practice on the web, and should not be lightly dismissed as you do above. Outside of such sites, and in print especially, of course the "typographic" versions are generally preferred. I prefer them myself! But not here.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from Maffra

Hi Noetica. You may have misunderstood my post, which would mean that I left it open to misinterpretation, for which I take full responsiblity. The "linguistic problem" I was referring to was no longer about first/ly etc, but about the Dandenongs vs Dandenong. Should I explain further? I'm more than happy to. Cheers. Oh, and what's this about fighting? Such a thing never crossed my mind.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC) [Answered chez JackofOz]

Why, thank you, sir or madam, or whichever the case may be. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Manual of Style

I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style. Geometry guy 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOS#Latin phrases

The main point behind my edit was to address the general (use of Latin phrases/abbreviations) before the specific (use of Latin in quotations). Is there a reason that you've changed the order back? I don't have any other issues with your edit, but the order seems illogical to me, and other subsections typically address the topic in general before covering applicability to quotations. Maralia (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

O, thanks for your note, Maralia. A bit of a coincidence that we turned our attention to that subsection at the same time. You're right, of course; I have now reordered things as you suggest, while retaining new and restored content.

As it happens, I don't like that particular guideline much. But it reflects some shaky sort of consensus.

Too many hot issues at WT:MOS right now, I fear. I'm not optimistic about the whole process.

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't say that I wholeheartedly agree with it either, but at least it's clearer now. I am trying not to submerge myself in the MOS debates—it seems like such a time sink, when I could be working on articles instead—but it's getting difficult to keep my mouth shut. Maralia (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ordinal centuries in WP:MOSNUM

Where is the discussion regarding this? As I noted in the edit summary, the edit that made this change was based on the mistaken assumption that the spelling out of century numbers was disfavored prior to the re-organization of the page, but this is incorrect: prior to the re-organization the MOS allowed for either "17th" or "seventeenth", which was the long-standing consensus for several years over numerous discussions. —Centrx→talk • 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember where the discussion was, or even whether it was at WT:MOS or WT:MOSNUM. That's a consequence of the present chaotic way in which MOS discussions are conducted. (Join the push for coordination! See Wikipedia_talk:MOS#WikiProject_Manual_of_Style.) But note this wording, from the current provisions of WP:MOSNUM:

Ordinal numbers are spelled out using the same rules as for cardinal numbers. The exception is ordinals for centuries, which may be expressed in digits (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting).

That is vague! And it is replicated at WP:MOS. What is the force of that may, exactly?

I suggest you raise the matter for discussion at WT:MOSNUM, once more. Never mind that there may have been a spurious consensus one way of the other in the past. Just about every such consensus turns out to be equivocal. With respect, if you want to change a current provision, do it with current discussion.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 08:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "may" is the same here as its English definition, and the same as used in every other recommendation, regulation, RFC, legal document, etc. See, for example RFC 2119. "May" does not mean "must" or "must not". There is nothing vague about it.

The MOS has never disclaimed the use of spelled-out numbers for centuries, in all its seven years. There was no discussion to have it do so, as you can see in the archives around that time period; the change to have it do so was made as a result of a misunderstanding, in this edit. —Centrx→talk • 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied to WT:MOSNUM. —Centrx→talk • 09:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I already told you yesterday and gave you the link: That sentence was added in August 2007; for years prior, both forms were explicitly allowed. So don't add a blatantly false "at least" when the evidence is right before you, which you can verify by a cursory inspection. In addition, edits based only on rules-lawyering, as there is no support for the added text in the discussion, is completely pointless. —Centrx→talk • 23:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In my edit summaries I said, quite conservatively, that the guideline was in place "for months". There is nothing "blatantly false" about adding at least. From 6 August 2007 is already more than six months, right? We disagree about how things were before that: but you have no warrant to change a guideline that has been even for six months unless the change is discussed, and until a consensus is reached.

Unless we have some more personal matter to deal with, please now confine the discussion to the public arena at WT:MOS.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Demi-years or financial quarters would not be an ordinary unit of time in this context. The previous change was not discussed; and this reversal of it has been discussed with no objection to its merits. —Centrx→talk • 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to your change for the reasons I have laid out clearly already. It is a question of what both WP:MOSNUM and WP:MOS should now have as a coordinated guideline, based on current discussion and current consensus. I have said all that, and I don't want to keep repeating it.

I don't understand why you are quibbling about "demi-years or financial quarters", but I don't need any more talk about that. I'll thank you not to accuse me of lying. Unless we have some more personal matter to deal with, please now confine the discussion to the public arena at WT:MOS.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Hi. You seem to participate on the Language Help Desk quite a bit. I was wondering if you could weigh in on my latest posts, and offer your expertise? Thanks. There are two. The first is: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Which versus that ... and the second is:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Possessive case. Thanks. I would really appreciate your input, feedback, expertise on these two Language questions of mine. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Sorry Joseph. Tied up with things in The World for the moment. I'll get back to those questions in a day or so, if no one else has given you satisfaction by the time I get there.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do -- at your convenience. I have also been tied up, myself. That "real world" sometimes gets in the way, huh? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] April Fools

Noetica, I know Tony is swamped so I'm not bugging him with this on his talk page, but do you 'spose any music folks can work on Leck mich im Arsch per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches? It could be fun, but the clock is ticking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, Sandy. But because Mozart is one of my major deities, I'm a little reluctant to get involved with such a desecration! : )

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Mozart had fun with it, why can't we? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not attack people on wikipedia

I've removed your attack on the anon poster asking the stamp question. 1) I understand the question, it makes perfect sense to me & is a good question. 2) if you do not like a question, do not attack the questioner on the RD. Ho on earth do you think that makes the RD look? Friendly? 3) Never screw with the question title to suggest it is meaningless - that's just way out of line. Bottom line: calm down. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, good for you. However, it was not an "attack". It was a forthright request for clarification so that we can help the enquirer. How many editors had their time wasted because of this unclarity? What have you done, in your own response to the question, to make things any clearer?

Your colourful language ("Never screw with the question title to suggest it is meaningless - that's just way out of line") prejudges things in a most unhelpful way. Altering a title so that it gives the information we need if we are to help the poster is not "screwing" with it; nor does any policy prohibit it. If I am wrong, show me the policy! Bottom line: think first, and take a few slow deep breaths. It just might turn out that you are the one who needs to calm down, and to respect the helpful (and ultimately friendly) intervention of an editor who takes the reference desk seriously. See my reply at the talkpage (as mentioned below).

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: Meaningful titles

Reference desk#Amending question titles to "Meaningful_titles" --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks, T.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting your name

Hi Noetica,

How do you display your name upside down? kwami (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Like this, you mean ^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ? Cute, isn't it?!? Go to this site, and type in some text. Use the results in Preferences (top of your screen) to do interesting things with your signature.

Have fun!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T 10:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's IPA! I didn't even notice. I was imagining all sorts of neat things we could do if we could actually rotate letters. Thanks for the link! kwami (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly IPA. Various Unicode entities. I think I'll change my signature back soon, anyway. Makes a huge long string of code.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For all it's worth, your signature is 167 characters long, which is well within the acceptable limit. My signature is much simpler yet comprises a surprising 102 characters; yours, at least, is quite interesting. I shouldn't like to see it changed, especially if it is because of size concerns. Waltham, The Duke of 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No-break spaces

I saw your note on the Duke's page that you're going to give no-break spaces a go again. In line with my new realization that I've been irrational about trying to head off conflict, I'm sorry I was giving resistance to the campaign before ... I was afraid of what would happen when MoS folks came in conflict with Wikia folks, who don't seem to like the idea. Let me know if I can help. Perhaps we can avoid conflict with Wikia folks by pointing to Version 1.0: we have a need to look good as a product on DVD and paper, they don't, so perhaps this is something the tech folks would be willing to apply just to Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I have been monitoring the new dialogue at WT:MOSCO with interest, but keeping a low profile myself, for now. There have been enough problems at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM to keep me occupied. Those places are so poisonous right now that I have held off on hard spaces. We did get some really useful suggestions in recent weeks though, and soon I want us to get back to it. See my note about this. Perhaps you now have a more acute understanding of the difficulties we face!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer! I'm adding my comment as we speak. Let's get it done! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The word "Beastorn"

Hello, my friend. Have you seen my question (6.6) at the Humanities desk?

(and how serendipitous that fate has given a question that looks like it relates to a beast, although it doesn't, a number with the digits 6 and 6). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Jack! Great to see you here. A grey day in the Dandenongs – just as I like it. How's Maffra treating you?

I'll have a good hard look at your Beastorn soon, but right now The World calls me away. I see Clio has weighed in, which must be a good thing. Meanwhile, you might like to peruse this. Sad, really. If only they'd read Confucius!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Maffra! Maffra Felix! To have us dwelling amongst them must be something the Maffradites could only ever have dreamt of.

Some say it's better to give than receive, so it's good to see you giving as good as you can take - in the great traditions of responses such as this, for example. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding

I for one would be happy for any help you could give this article, you see why its on probation. When such notable "pinko commie scum" as the US Army and the DIA and virtually every senior JAG past and pressent says its torture and violates the GCIII to do it, you would think they would stop buying the spindoctored version. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypno, I'm happy to hear from you. None of that bigoted refusal to acknowledge plain facts at Waterboarding's FAC is surprising, of course. Disappointing at Wikipedia: but nothing much can be done about it. It is nevertheless worthwhile to put on record a rational response to unreason.

I'll try to find time to go through the article for the odd point of punctuation, and the like. It's not in bad shape at all. The lead could be changed, by the way, to make it even more obviously reasonable.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soup of the day

Thanks for your help. Cyrusc (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The hunting of the Beastorn

Dearest anonymous cyber-editor-without-qualities, thank-you for my very fine revolving ball; a superb non-Valentine's day gift! I do apologise for lurking amongst the undergrowth while you quested and hunted that fine creature, but having failed to find it within my Bestiary, I had to confirm its existence with my own eyes. The dew-clad nymphs of Lexicomania were marvelous company while we awaited events. By all means, email me. In the meantime, accept this damsel's token in recognition of your gallant deeds. Gwinva (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Maintain civility in waterboarding discussion

Please try to keep a cool head when discussing this topic. I found your comment here [2] to be outside the realm of common civility that I expect from all wikipedia editors. If you choose not to abide by standards of common civility, you may be blocked from editing on this topic per the policy specifically decided upon here. Thank you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cdogsimmons, thank you for your note. Here is the reply I have made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waterboarding:

Thank you for your remark, Gdogsimmons. It, along with the message you left at my talkpage, raises some procedural concerns. I may decide to take those up separately, elsewhere. Meanwhile, Judgesurreal (who interestingly enough agrees with your position on the article), has more than once accused me of bias. The supposed grounds for that accusation seem to be these: (1) that I regard those who disagree with me as "psychos"; (2) that I irrationally take it as demonstrable fact that waterboarding (as defined by everyone) is torture (as defined by every disinterested party); and (3) that I say a minority must not be right. Those are the claims he or she made against me, in effect; but all three are ill-founded. As I pointed out, it was uncivil of him or her to accuse me of bias; I suggested a retraction or a justification. But I got neither. Nevertheless, I now retract what I suppose you have objected to in the post I made before this one (see above). Again I call on Judgesurreal to withdraw the accusation of bias against me, and not to take every opportunity to counter a fresh comment supporting the article by repeating what... some may consider to be a militantly biased push on her or his part. Such stridency risks intimidating newcomers to the discussion, and is entirely unproductive. We have heard him or her; let's now encourage others to have a say, rather than browbeating them with blunt repetition.

If any of that is uncivil, I it put to editors here that I have been provoked by serious misrepresentation of the points I have made. Let me know precisely which phrasing you don't like, and again I'll consider striking it. (And then, please treat others the same!)

Finally, I have "censored" no one. There has, to my knowledge, been no overt or covert censoring in this discussion. Yet.

If you were an admin, you might have authority and judgement in these matters. Since you are not one, you may consider yourself well treated indeed to have such a polite response from me.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Rokeby Venus

Hi again, Noetica. The venus is almost over the line at FAC, but a once or twice over from you would be greatly appreciated. Best and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[Answered chez Ceoil.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T–]

My hope is that you will live to regret this offer ;) Take care. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beastly weapons

[3] Yr. obt. servt. Gwinva (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most Noble Sir, Thank you! Had a bit of a laugh at how inept I was. Franch souces?! Ever your most humble (etc) Gwinva (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenation question

Hello, Noetica. I have been asked which is the correct way to hyphenate Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, and I must admit that I am a little confused. I initially thought of Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War and Polish-Lithuanian–Teutonic War; although Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth should be have an en dash (I am trying to move the article at the moment), perhaps that ought to be changed to a hyphen here in order to help distinguishing the different sides (Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Teutonic Knights). Then Tony suggested the option of the second em en dash being spaced, given that the first element comprises two words, but he was not quite sure himself. I had not thought of that because there was no space in the first element, but it makes sense. In any case, nobody seems to be sure, and your input would be most appreciated. Waltham, The Duke of 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This example presents a genuine difficulty, and is at the edge of what can be accomplished with the available resources. Let me analyse this for running text, rather than for headings.

The simplest case

I do think (pace CMOS) that an en dash is good in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and that this is in accord with current MOS principles. That political entity is formed from a bilateral alliance between two subsidiaries, for which MOS favours the en dash:

As a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions.

And nothing in what follows immediately in MOS forces substitution of a hyphen.

A more complex case

While we don't say so at MOS, it is common to mark a more salient or logically prior relation with an en dash if any of the related elements is itself hyphenated.

Such a ruling would permit or encourage Indo-European–Semitic contact linguistics. We do see such constructions.

The present complex case

No guide that I know of covers the present case. But following the same general principles, I like this solution that you have canvassed: Polish-Lithuanian–Teutonic War. The cleavage between {Polish, Lithuanian} and {Teutonic} is the first logical cut we would make, so it deserves an en dash more than that between Polish and Lithuanian. I say that it overrules or trumps the claims of this latter pair. Force majeure, in the language of our military-minded forebears. With two applications of the en dash, the intention of neither application is clear to the reader. That consideration is decisive, I say. I can see why Tony would suggest a spaced en dash. But so far MOS has that only for spaced elements:

All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items

I think that we included hyphenated elements at some stage, but this was dropped. Anyway, I don't think that cases like the present one are helped by spacing the [last] en dash:

Polish-Lithuanian – Teutonic War or Polish–Lithuanian – Teutonic War

Either of these would confuse the eye, I think. It is as if there were a cleavage between Polish-Lithuanian and Teutonic War, and while this could be dismissed after a little reflection, such distractions are best avoided.

As for headings, there may be separate considerations for those that trump all of these claims: but not according to MOS. There should be redirects from forms with every half-likely combination of hyphens, en dashes, and spaces. Even from this: Polish–Lithuanian Teutonic War. The article links to Polish-Lithuanian union, which redirects to Polish–Lithuanian union. Why is there no en dash in the link itself? Why is Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not linked (is there a difference between those political entities?), and why does that article use a hyphen, not an en dash? All a bit mixed up.

I hope that helps.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire topic is messed up; I have only now started to unravel the tangled skein of titles, links, categories, redirects, and navboxes which must be corrected if some order is to be brought about in this article group, dash-wise. I think I'll have to work on it for quite some time, one little thing at a time.

Well, thank you very much for your input on this; you have been most helpful. I shall go with the hyphen – en dash solution, and, who knows, it might even set a precedent. I will treat it as such, in any event.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need pass the answer to the inquirer. We'll stay in touch... Waltham, The Duke of 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone cluster

Hi. This is an article I've been working on for a while. Aside from the possible addition of a couple more audio clips, my work's about complete (I remain frustrated by the apparent lack of material on tone clusters in Indian classical music). Tony suggested I contact you about reviewing the theory-oriented part of the coverage. If you have the time to take a look at that, it would be greatly appreciated. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, DCGeist. I have been monitoring your fine work at Tone cluster. I think that there are some conceptual issues involving the diverse uses of the term diatonic (see Diatonic and chromatic for background). The particular application to your article is quite interesting, and I'll have something to say about it. I regret that I can't do anything about the lack of Indian material. I see that the article names centuries with words in running text, but figures in headings. Are you happy with that? I'm not! The relevant guidelines are under dispute at WP:MOS. The discussion is stalled, in fact. I will not be participating in such disputes in the coming months, since they are typically futile. Thank you for your coruscating admonitions at WT:MOS some weeks ago when this futility was most apparent, by the way.

I'll do something at Tone cluster within the next few days. Good to hear from you!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the update. I look forward to your insights. All the best, D.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request: The Third of May 1808

Hey again Noetica. I know I only turn up when I need something, but as you have proven your self as a skilled ce editor a few times before, here is me again asking for help. The Third of May 1808 is at FAC, and seems grand, but it is sloppy on prose, it seems. Any work from you would be hugely appreciated. Best, Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. Yes, I'll be happy to lend a hand. I've done some now, and will do more later when others are not also editing there.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, very much! Ceoil (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: these edits. You have no idea how much that is appreciated. There is a team behind the page, and I think on behalf of us all, it is extreamly gratifying to benifit form you edits. Best. Ceoil (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, Ceoil. Glad to be able to help. More tomorrow. It's bedtime for me in Australia, right now.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Gluck. Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, wrong, see earlier edit summary. He was the Supreme Allied Commander, as they call it nowadays. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

O sorry. Fixed now. I didn't check all of the earlier summaries!

No problem! Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all from me for now, I think: but I'll come back later and review things, then make a comment at the FAC itself.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

		The careful copy editor's barnstar of High Culture
		Thanks Noetica, for effort above the beyond. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, I just might take you up on that. Good writers are like gold dust on WP, and the team work aspect of this site appeals to me greatly. She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways‎, Saturn Devouring His Son, and Mona Lisa, are all in view; after Outiggr's Caspar David Friedrich. If you could watchlist thoes, that would be great. My best. Ceoil (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Hey, Noetica, in case you aren't aware, there are lots of articles at FAC with real prose problems, not just pgs in place of pp. It would sure be appreciated if you'd put your talent to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that, Sandy. I would like to find a way to contribute efficiently in a way that suits my style. Generally, I am distracted with big real-life issues that have a call on my time, so I am not doing much at all at WP. And then, to swing to the very specific, referencing style is abominably handled at the MOSpages. WP:CITATION and its associated pages are in a deplorable state. Nowhere in these guidelines is the abbreviation of page numbers even addressed, as far as I can tell. And the citation templates assume various practices, apparently without ever examining the issue. What to do? I have decided that enlightened dialogue on these matters takes far too much time, and any sustained effort to reform brings nothing but calumny on the head of the reformer.

I'm watching, and thinking what to do. Meanwhile, I do respond to serious specific requests for help where the effort is genuinely appreciated, as with The Third of May 1808‎. If your FAC applicants want such help, and are genuinely concerned to get things right themselves, I will help.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well. I agree with consistency, and correctly formatted and consistent citations has always "been my thing". But I'm embarrassed for FAC when we focus on pgs vs pp when I know how many articles garner support with serious prose and fundamental grammar errors and blatant ce needs. And since the MoS discussions over italics on et al ended in a huge ridiculous fight with no conclusion, I don't see how we can ask any editor do anything with et al; we give absolutely no guidance on its use. I can't ask you to help on specific articles, because it wouldn't be fair for me to point out the real prose issues, but we've got more to deal with than pgs vs. pp. so it just makes me sad to see that kind of oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the only guidance I have on Wiki as to how to handle et al is from Diberri's template filler, which most of the bio/med authors use. I just checked it, and it returns et al (italics, no period), so perhaps I should remove the full stops I added to Raul's article. But when I raised this on MoS, I only got resistance and disagreement and no conclusion. So, it's troubling to see an Oppose on an issue we've not been able to resolve on any guideline because of the acrimony at MoS. You and Tony may be familiar with Chicago MoS, and whatever and whoever copyediting manuals of style, but most Wiki editors aren't, we rely on Wiki pages for style guidelines, and if Wiki MoS doesn't address something, we shouldn't be held accountable. (Yes, I'm still frustrated that MoS is such a mess, and sorry to see it come to FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[After edit conflict, but in fact finding nothing to add:]

I understand, Sandy, and have always sympathised. The FAC task is enormous, and an important part of the whole WP project. You do a heroic job.

Let me say it again about "et al.": even if they have no ruling from MOS, let editors at least be consistent.

I'm embarrassed on behalf of FAC editors when these things are not commented on in an article. In the present case, others had already remarked on the general prose problems; I therefore didn't feel the need to say more about that.

I was embarrassed for the MOSpages, dealing so poorly with many of these matters. If I thought the thing could be durably fixed, or patched up without a further disproportionate dedication of time and effort, I would have stayed in dialogue at WT:MOS. But it can't be: not in the near future, anyway, with certain counterproductive influences at work there.

I'll stay ready to help with specific requests from FAC candidates, as always.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what do we do with this article? Is what I did in there OK? Would you mind looking, since I have no guideline upon which to judge your Oppose? I'd be happy if you'd glance over some of the prose that garners support in other articles, and see whether you think pgs or pp. is the best place to spend your time :-) Ultimately, any gnome like me can clean that sort of thing up easily, but few of us can fix prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why did you add all that weird white space between paragraphs to the article; looks really bad on my screen ?? (And what is that image at the bottom of your page; am I supposed to leave it at the bottom when I post ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, something is going drastically wrong with your edits; you're introducing more and more huge patches of white space between paragraphs with every edit. Huge. Does that not show on your browser? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been using wikEd. Recent changes in it seem to introduce errors – the way I use it anyway. I've disabled it for the time being, and will now replicate the changes that I made: but safely. Then I'll stop for now. No time! And that weird thing is a "conversation weird thing". Make of it what you will.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That was weird; what a shame! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If you've time on your hands...

Dearest anonymous-cyber-editor-with-marvellous-qualities, I have a favour to ask! If you have time on your hands, I would be delighted if you could cast your eye (or even, both eyes) over James Graham (soldier). No doubt it could do with copyediting (I spot something every time I look), but it could also do with critical comment. I have been working on it off and on for a while, and have lost all objectivity. Does it make any sense at all? Does it say enough about Graham? In response to a suggestion from another editor, I have provided historical context for the battles at Quatre Bras and Waterloo; now, I wonder if there is too much. Being an NCO, there is little recorded about Graham's specific actions (apart from those at Hougoumont), so I have provided more general battalion history. On a more specific note, I don't know what to do with my times. 0300? 3 a.m.? 3 AM? 3am?

Any comments would be gratefully received. Depending on your mood, or the length of your comments, you can reply (if you wish to) here, my talk page, article talk page, or even at the peer review! Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Most worthy Lady Gwinva, benedicite. In my hall right welcome art thou ever. Know thy liegeman to have taken the field already on sundry quests this week of Ascensiontide, but eke that he herewith doth plight and bind himself in thy service this morning of Saturday of Our Lady, the fair third day of May. Knight James will lack no perscrutation that I shall find wit to furnish on that bright morrow, an Heaven will it so.

And a message to thee by engines other than these present, anon.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your pledge, most gallant and noble of knights. As a mark of my esteem, might I offer you words from the very fine (!) translation of Frauendienst I have beside me. I am sure it will gladden your poetic soul.

When she had read it to the end

she went at once back to my friend

and spoke, "I always shall accord

my thanks, and rightly, to your lord

because he thinks so well of me

that he will do and eagerly

whate'er I ask. That does him good

and I'll reward him as I should."

– Gwinva (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! A little late; and there wasn't a lot to do, really. See the peer review.

A ta service, ma p'tite.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dearest Noetica: your edit summaries do make me laugh! Thank you for your fine efforts on Wellingtod's [sic] NCO. I think I've taken our friend Graham as far as I can with the resources available to me, so he shall remain without any childhood, family (I have no idea how many brothers he had) or likeness. While I have grown quite attached to him, our affair is only recent in nature: I came across him while reading a history of Waterloo, and felt the poor chap deserved some wiki-recognition, since he saved the world as we know it. I will try my luck at GA, afterwhich, since he lacks depth of character, I shall abandon him and move on. Many thanks again, Eat Coin. – Gwinva (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Having dispatched my young soldier to the parade ground all polished and shining, I expected to hear no more for some time due to the backlog at GAN. However, his recent grilling by Sergeant-Major Noetica corrected his worst faults, and he has become a model soldier indeed. He has now joined the ranks at WP:GA#History. Many thanks, sir. But, now I have a dilemma: having posted twice, I have interrupted the ball's progress. I shall have to set another one rolling. – Gwinva (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Captain Waving. Excellent. I can't say much right now, since I am on covert operations deep behind enemy lines and have only an old kerosene-fired dial-up system at my disposal. Back at HQ by the weekend, and we can debrief. Meanwhile, do take care with the ball. I've done what I can to patch things. I think it will hold till the sappers get here. –Tea Icon

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for the French sappers; they do strange things with balls.

By the way, nice oat. – Gwinva (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice coat → nice oat? A  t acit one? Yes, easy to miss such duplicoats. –O'Cantie

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Garden of Earthly Delights

Hullo Notica. I have to develop the left hand panel and influences section in the above article yet, but more or less the page is ready for a skilled copy edit. I'm asking you early so that you are not rushed if you would like to help out. If you are tied up, that is no problem. Best wishes. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. O, how I love that painting! I gazed at it in wonderment, when I was in Spain a couple of years ago – no easy thing for an Australian. Painfully slow Internet access for a few days now, and I owe Tone cluster some discussion, which I have been researching; then I'll get into the Garden. Should be this coming weekend.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! There is no hurry with this though, so whenever. A few heavies like yourself expected within the next two weeks, so take your time. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

At FAC, going well so far. A few copy editors have worked through it, and its seems "grand" overall, though I notice the master (ie you) has not yet raised its imperial quill. No worries, this is just a gentle nudge. How are things otherwise? Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref desk help...

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		I was just going through the archives here and was absolutely befuddled as to why you didn't get one of these. Thanks for all your help, though I was never lucky enough to get one of my questions answered by the Noetica. Cheers! LaPianista! 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[Answered chez LaPianista.]

[edit] Impressed

Hungarian?? Is there anything you don't know? Gwinva (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a little Hungarian from my acquaintance with street European. Beyond that, it's shrewd detective work and bluffing. Good to hear from you! More when I overcome my generalised apathy.

() –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

The Noetica, I see ... I think they like you. TONY (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Tony. Welcome to my humble bothy. I'll get back to you too, anon.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I should like to give you my regards as well, Noetica. Nice to see you back. Waltham, The Duke of 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

His Grace has just pointed out that "the" is common before a person's name in Greek. Needs explication. TONY (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Echinodermata and Romantics [if I spelled the former correctly]

Hellow [sic, really] there, Noetica! Unfortunately, I lack the knack of writing light-spiritedly and beautifully in response to a question as witty as that (pardon moi), and so I will skip to the point in due course.

I do agree that the prelude is one of the most beautiful pieces in creation, and am equally puzzled as to why it is not performed as often as I we would like. Perhaps it is largely rivaled by the immediate attractiveness of the nocturnes (the E-flat Op. 9 No. 2 being one of the most famous). To carry that idea further, it is also rivaled by many of the études, concerti, and polonaises (the "Étude Op. 25, No. 7," "Piano Concerto No. 2," and "Polonaise-Fantaisie" in particular are profound). In short, there is just TOO MUCH BEAUTIFUL CHOPIN to throw about that performers are incapable of making up their minds.

But that's just my theory. I'll scrutinize your page in due time. --^LaPianista! 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

From me too. I'm looking at tags in WP:MOS; your cleanup tag from Feb 24 in Ellipses is still there. I agree; there are sentence fragments, for one thing. No one else seems to have taken an interest; do you want to take a whack at it? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. If not, do you want to tell me what you disliked? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silence

Where are you, my friend? Cyberspace seems a little emptier without you. Gwinva (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing, Noetica. Drop in for a visit once in a while. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)