Archives

Sorted by date: Jan-Dec 2007 Jan-Dec 2008 Jan-Jun 2009 Jul-Dec 2009 Jan-Feb 2010 Mar-Jun 2010 Jul 2010-Dec 2011

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message below and I will reply on your talk page. Thanks for stopping by. Jonyungk (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a nice surprise to see your greeting - I hope you have a great 2012 and to see more of you here this year (if that is what makes you happy). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the photographer is identified and died over 100 years ago, I think it is OK to use in the article as PD. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I read at the FAC was that Jappalang (who has unfortuantely retired from Wikipedia) was concerned that this might be taken by an unknown photographer and that the life plus 70 years term then was not certain to have run out. Since the photographer is now identified (and at least one version I found online shows the lower right corner of the picture is just gone, which is where most photgraphers mark their photos), I see no issues with saying this is PD (and the Commons discussion helped too). I will try to look at the Music section, but am very busy in real life and so do not have a lot of time here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I clocked Ruhrfisch's message and was relieved to see you still in the land of the living. I was really rather worried when you vanished off our Wiki-radar. I hope all is well with you. A bit late to wish you a Happy New Year with February at our throats tomorrow, but warmest greetings in any case. You have been much missed at peer review and FAC, and, I have not the slightest doubt, in many other WP places. Tim riley (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Any thoughts on the stuff about the early operas which I have (laboriously) inserted into the article so far? My intention is simply to log them while giving a small amount of detail which I hope will fill out the overall picture. Best. --GuillaumeTell 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your supportive comments. I was a bit miffed by Brian B's "restate strategy" piece, which seemed to imply that Life, on the one hand, and Works, on the other, should be kept separate - how does one do that? I'm just going to carry on adding short pieces about the rest of the operas as and when I can (I'm a slow worker). That might imply a bit more about Onegin and the Q of S, but not too much. I should have time to deal with Vakula the Smith tomorrow, but then I'm out of action until Sunday afternoon at the earliest - going to a concert performance of Dvorak's The Jacobin on Saturday. --GuillaumeTell 22:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very relaxed about people moving things around, but thanks for the heads-up (headsup?) anyway. I see, too, that my operatic pieces have reappeared. I'm not (yet) going to do anything (much) about Onegin, but will move on to Mazeppa if I can work out where to put it. As you know, I'm only adding the bare bones, especially because the operas all have their own pages (though some of them are rather skeletal). Anyway, keep up the good work. Best.--GuillaumeTell 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the Henry Zajaczkowski google books link. I'll see if there's anything there that would be useful for the article. (In passing, did you notice that someone yesterday attempted to delete quite a bit of the Sexuality stuff, with no edit summary to say why. I duly did a rollback, but I think that they did also add something else that might need a look - as usual, I was working late at night, so didn't go into it at the time).

Rimsky-Korsakov: I've seen The Golden Cockerel at least twice, plus May Night, The Snow Maiden and the Tsar's Bride, and have programme notes for all of them. I also have a recording of Kitezh but haven't seen it staged. I'm familiar with some of his orchestral works, too - but none of that makes me a R-K expert. Rubinstein: all I know is The Demon - programme notes and a recording, both from the Wexford Festival. I know absolutely nothing about his numerous other operas nor (I'm fairly sure) any of his other works. I'll be happy to help when you're ready, nevertheless. You might think about contacting the people who created or improved the various articles on either composer, if they're still around, and there may well be current members of WP:WPO who know more than I do. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to Pyotr - thanks for the note (I didn't know that Mars Needs Women). I'd noticed that my stuff had reappeared in the article but wasn't sure where (or when) to insert the remainder. I'll see what I can do over this weekend and will send you the results either in dribs and drabs or in bulk late on Sunday (then I'm out of action until Wednesday). With any luck, I'll manage at least an Eugene Onegin (1879) section (only four references in the current text - not nearly enough for his most-performed opera), plus The Maid of Orleans (1881), Mazepa (1884) and Cherevichki (1887), maybe (some of) the rest too if I don't get distracted. --GuillaumeTell 22:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realised last night that I misunderstood your last message. You wanted a couple of paragraphs on the operas for the Music section (which I now won't be able to furnish until Wednesday, sorry about that). Whereabouts in the section would they go? As things are at present, there aren't any paras on specific types of music - symphonies, song, chamber works, concertos, etc.... --GuillaumeTell 09:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're interested in Featured Article candidates at present, I'd be delighted to have your comments at FAC, assuming the subject is of interest, though of course I quite understand that it may not be. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the clarification on the Under Construction tag. I misunderstood, as the tag explanation was not extremely clear, but I am very sorry for the confusion that I caused. Sorry. 14jbella (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jonyungk,

I've taken a look at P.I. Tchaikovsky, specifically the section on Sexuality. That one section needs a bit of tweaking, as it seems disjointed. I'll try to put some time in it, and will probably broaden out to the entire "Emotional life" section. Thanks for your work on it, and I'll check in with you on any major changes - I'm not an expert on him, so I will probably need your input :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J, the section on sexuality is extremely WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Background about homosexuality in Russia is way over the top for an article on Tch, especially as there is a ref to the article in LGTB in Russia. Will you trim this or shall I?--Smerus (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear J, please don't look at my comments as a 'threat' - I was just writing to you informally on a personal basis. If I wanted to let rip, I wouldn't have written!! I would just add that if the LGBT Russia article is weak, the place to fix it is there, not in the Tch article.

First motto in Wikipedia - keep cool and carry on! With apologies if I have ruffled you ---Smerus (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Smerus, the article on Tchaikovsky is a Featured article and one of theFA criteria is that the article be comprehensive in its coverage of the subject. The article also has to use reliable, published sources and thus reflects what they say about this aspect of Tchaikovsky's life. I also think this conversation should be taking place on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jonyung, are you willing to move all this thread to the talk page? I would support this suggestion of Ruhrfisch. I also point out that being a Featured Article does not override WP:UNDUE (if other editors feel the latter to be relevant).--Smerus (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be fine with my comments being copied to the talk page - is that what was wanted? Or did I misunderstand? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jappalang wrote this Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches, which is pretty helpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes, sorry. In Google you can do a books search, then along the left hand side there is a heading "Any time" in red - under that you can check "Custom range". Choose to 1922 and then only works published before 1923 will appear. These will be PD in the US if published in the US before 1923. Here is a link to the search I did for Tchaikovsky in Google books limited to works published before 1923: here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, when you add a ((stub)) tag to an article like Henry Zajaczkowski, please remember to put it at the end, after everything except inter-language links - see WP:FOOTERS. It makes it easier for stub-sorters if the tag is in the right, predictable, place. Thanks. PamD 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jonyungk. You have new messages at PamD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

The section as a whole uses offensive and outdated language. For example: "He sought out the company of homosexuals in his circle for extended periods," rather than, "He sought out the company of gay men [or 'gays and lesbians'] in his circle for extended periods." Hyacinth (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User:Hyacinth/Style guide. Hyacinth (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must (as a homosexual/gay man/confirmed bachelor) respectfully disagree with Hyacinth. For a formal work like an encyclopaedia the term "homosexual" is preferable to "gay", which is still rather informal, and would jar if applied to an earlier era. "Homosexual" is not outdated or offensive, IMO. Context is all: "Queer theory" is part of university curricula nowadays, but in a wider context, "queer", like "gay" remains an informal term. Tim riley (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am reasonably certain that the view propounded by Hyacinth is not representative of WP editors. I should press on, if I were you, with the formal 20th century term "homosexual". It is as neutral as calling those of the contrary orientation "heterosexual". Tangentially, speaking of notorious heterosexuals, I have Georg Solti up for peer review here if you have time and disposition to look in. Tim riley (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left comments on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Roland John Wiley, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.music.umich.edu/departments/musicology/RolandJohnWiley.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In this edit, I've partially reverted this edit of yours. I think you misunderstood WP:CITELEAD, or posssibly interpret that guideline differently than I do. Please discuss on the article talk page if need be. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't think it was at sloppy or loose at all: I think it's a fine article, and I'm not surprised that it got featured. Pleased you liked my edits, though! Thanks for your message. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and I'm sorry the removal of that paragraph made you cross for a while. I understand your reaction very well, "all that effort wasted", and blame myself for inconsiderate editing. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jonyungk. You have new messages at RobertG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Now at peer review, if you have the time, will and inclination to comment. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am proud to announce that all your FA articles except one (Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev Circle) have been translated. Those six, five are now FA in the Spanish wikipedia, being Tchaikovski and The Five recently featured, and R-K is on the way. I have to say that I haven't translated all of them (Obelix83 helped with three of them). This is to acknowledge your work, as said in the musical barnstar granted some years ago. Looking forward from your next projects. OboeCrack (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At last, I have placed my final comments on the talkpage. I hope these are helpful. While I'm at it, the Carmen article will be on peer review all this week, if you wish to comment. It will then probably go to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are doing a tremendous job on the article, and I congratulate you! I have a tiny suggestion - where a sequence of sentences refers to the same sources, I think you do not need to give a note for each sentence. Example -

Tchaikovsky's collaborations on his three ballets proved more consistently positive and in Marius Petipa, who worked with him on the last two, the composer may have had an advocate.[258][a 16] Petipa and Tchaikovsky accorded each other the utmost respect and civility. When The Sleeping Beauty was seen by its dancers as needlessly complicated, Petipa went out of his way to convince them that the music was worth the extra effort.[259] For his part, Tchaikovsky understood he had to compromise to make his music as practical as possible for the dancers and otherwise had more creative freedom than ballet composers were usually accorded. He responded with scores that minimized the rhythmic subtleties normally present in his work but were inventive and rich in melody, with more refined and imaginative orchestration than in the average ballet score.[260]

You could just give one citation at the end e.g. <ref>Maes 146-148</ref>, thus doing away with refs 258 and 259 - and maybe even incorporate note a16 in the text.

There are several places where contiguous sentences use references close to each other, and reducing the number of notes in this way may make the article easier reading, without skimping on appropriate citation. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tchaikovsky thought him "adorable". I wonder if I could prevail on you to look in at the peer review I have just set up. No rush at all, if you are inclined. Tim riley (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means edit ad lib! Happy for all improvements, and I'll yell soon enough if I vigorously disagree with one of your changes. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent tweaks so far. More to come? Bring 'em on! Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed the peer review and put Fauré up for featured article, where any comments you cared to add would be most welcome. Tim riley (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have only just spotted your question my talk page about Ravel. The Ravel article is not incorrect, but nor is it inconsistent with the Fauré one. In 1905 Ravel tried a fourth time for the Prix de Rome. He didn't get it and there was a scandal when it emerged that the six finalists were all from the composition class of Charles Lenepveu, who, surprise surprise, happened to be on the jury. Fauré and Widor were not on the jury and their pupils were ignored. Tim riley (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your help desk question didn't get any responses. Try WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For you excellent work on Lexington class battlecruiser. Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work with this article - it's really interesting. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recall that some other editor made the comparison between armoured and heavy cruisers, due to the US Navy using the "CA" designation to denote both classes, and also because the article heavy cruiser made a point that the type was not related to armoured cruisers.MonkeyKingBar (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I see you're doing a lot of good work on battleship articles. I hightly recommend that you install this script to help with the ((harvnb)) and ((sfn)) citation techniques:

• importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

The script highlights problems with incorrect usage. I just fixed some issues in Colorado class battleship (most notably, missing definitions of the Breyer citation details) and just now saw that much the same is going on in Nevada class battleship. With the script installed, I see a sea of red error messages. I'm good at this; I'll help. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cg2p0B0u8m and I have put this article up for peer review. If you have time and inclination to look in we shall be grateful. There is not the least urgency. We hope to get the article up to FAC at some time in the future, but we have set no deadlines for ourselves. Any suggestions you might like to add will be gladly received. Tim riley (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 28, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 28, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's relations with the Belyayev circle, which lasted from 1887 until Tchaikovsky's death, influenced all of their music and briefly helped shape the next generation of Russian composers. This group was named after timber merchant Mitrofan Belyayev, an influential music patron and publisher. By 1887, Tchaikovsky was firmly established as one of the leading composers in Russia. A favorite of Tsar Alexander III, he was widely regarded as a national treasure. As a result of the time Tchaikovsky spent with the Belyayev circle's leading composers—Alexander Glazunov, Anatoly Lyadov and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov—the somewhat fraught relationship he had previously endured with The Five would eventually meld into something more harmonious. Over the long term, though, Tchaikovsky's influence over the Belyayev composers was not as great as his influence on The Five. They continued writing overall in a style more akin to Rimsky-Korsakov than to Tchaikovsky, falling back stylistically on their predecessors instead of developing their own individual voices. Even Glazunov backed away from echoing Tchaikovsky strongly in his mature work, instead amalgamating nationalistic and cosmopolitan styles in an eclectic approach. The Belyayev composers also spread the nationalist musical aesthetic to Russia on the whole and were themselves an influence on composers well into the Soviet era. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on making the Main Page! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	influential musical group
	Thank you for letting your ships sail to explore a group of composers who are strong as individuals, but stronger and more influential in contact with each other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 165th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you feel like a gentle reintroduction to music article reviewing (sort of), you could take a look at Cosiam at FAC. Any thoughts/comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the policies on the usage of non-free images on Wikipedia, non-free images are not allowed on pages outside of the article namespace, including userpages. An image on your user page is copyrighted and unlicensed, so I had to remove it. I'm sorry if you are upset by my editing your page without your permission, but this is a rule where Wikipedia allows no exceptions. I want to make sure you know that this isn't personal. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or to seek another editor's opinion at the WP:MCQ discussion board. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever, 'outgrowth' isn't the word. Do you mean a consequence? or a development from? If so, say so! And give a ref if you have one. Best - --Smerus (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like Tchaikovsky and the Five and suggested it for TFA, please feel free to join the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The prevailing view seemed to be that although the article was excellent, it was a little too soon after the last Tchaikovsky-related article for this one to run, and so the nomination was withdrawn from the page. I have no doubt that it will be suggested again in due course - if it isn't, you're more than welcome to put it forward yourself! Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 13:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shall read the article tomorrow and report back. (How very pleasing to be mingling with the Wikipedia cognoscenti again after months away.) Tim riley (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a few comments on the article talk page; very minor points. It's a fine article. Tim riley (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come.
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky I amended 'but musicologists now play down its importance', regarding Tchaikovsky's homosexuality, to 'but a number of musicologists now play down its importance'; you reverted this with the comment '"A number of" implies not all'. Er, quite - that was the point of my edit. Or did you want to imply that all musicologists today think Tchaikovsky's 'personal crises and depression' were quite unrelated to his homosexuality? Certainly that is not the line taken by Timothy L. Jackson (listed in the article's Sources, but not cited anywhere), not to mention David Brown who is already in the article, whether one agrees with them or not. You have invited me to 'take this issue to the talk page', but as it seems possible that there has been a misunderstanding which, if so, doesn't need to be aired there I thought I would raise the issue here first. Alfietucker (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message - I've reinstated 'a number of' as per our agreement. Alfietucker (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 24, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five argued about music in Russia in the 19th century. The Five, also known as The Mighty Handful, were composers Mily Balakirev, Alexander Borodin, César Cui, Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, who wanted to produce a specifically Russian kind of art music, rather than one that imitated older European music or relied on European-style conservatory training. Tchaikovsky wanted to write professional compositions of a quality that would stand up to Western scrutiny and thus transcend national barriers, yet remain distinctively Russian in melody, rhythm and other compositional characteristics. The Five also believed in using the melodic, harmonic, tonal and rhythmic properties of Russian folk song, along with exotic melodic, harmonic and rhythmic elements from music originating in the middle- and far-eastern parts of the Russian Empire (a practice that would become known as musical orientalism), as compositional devices in their own works. Tchaikovsky remained friendly but never intimate with most of The Five, ambivalent about their music. He took pains to ensure his musical independence from them as well as from the conservative faction at the Conservatory. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on yet another featured article! Made me remember with fondness the long gone era of daily editing and working with fantastic people like you. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  10:03 24 July, 2013 (UTC) 10:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jonyungk, it is always good to hear from you! Congratulations on the recent Main page appearance of Tchaikovsky and the Five.

When I looked at the Connotations (Copland) article history, I looked for removal of an image and found a link to File:Copeland Bernstein Connotations Rehearsak.jpg on Commons (which I assume is the photo in question). The deletion there referred to licensing problems, specifically "Non-free license, or license disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works." Can you please tell me what the exact license is that the York Philharmonic Archives released the photo under?

If they released it under a free license but only told you about it, then an email from them to WP:OTRS should do the trick. If they released under a license not allowed on Commons, it could still be uploaded locally (i.e. here on en) with a WP:FAIR USE rationale. I seem to recall that the Upload Wizard here has a "licensed for use on Wikipedia" only option, which might be useful. In any case, it sounds like the image can be used here (possibly as a fair use historic image), but more information is needed before we can proceed. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm doing a round-robin of WP classical music specialists, having posted a suggestion on the article talk page back in April to the effect that as orchestras, Grove, record companies, concert promoters and all comers refer to the piece as "Ein Heldenleben" it would make sense if WP followed suit. Since then no-one has added any comment, pro or con, and I'd be interested, if you have a few minutes, to see what you think about the suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say! You don't hang about. Thank you so much for your swift contribution. Tim riley (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall look in with great pleasure. I am, I confess, agnostic about Tippett, but will nevertheless gladly rummage in the archives if I can be of use to you or Brian in your Tippett researches. Tim riley (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grove has a couple of hundred words on the subject. If you haven't got convenient access I'll email you a copy with citation. Nothing much else leaps to mind, I'm afraid. Tim riley (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piano Concerto (Tippett), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Matthews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several years ago you inserted at Last battle of the battleship Bismarck a reference simply to ‘Barnett, 311.’ Would you please fill up the details?

―Lgfcd (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. There's a discussion started on the Rachmaninoff talk page which I thought you might be able to help with. Binksternet explained that the paraphrase (presumably) of Geoffrey Norris in the lede, characterizing Rachmaninoff's style, was originally added by you. I don't have the original Norris text to hand - could you perhaps present it to the talk page as this, I hope, will help resolve the question what the wording of the lede should be without either misrepresenting Norris or breaching WP:COPYVIO. Many thanks, Alfietucker (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piano Concerto (Tippett), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kaiser Darrin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MG TF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kaiser Darrin Rear Quarter View April 2013.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text ((di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>)) below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image was restored so you could add a licence to it but you haven't done so yet. Can you please add an appropriate licence as soon as possible, the file remains at risk of deletion until you do so. NtheP (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. NtheP (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jonyungk. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. A while ago you added [1] some incomplete short citations to D. Kern Holoman's work. Could you please provide more precise citations? --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

influential musical group
Thank you for letting your ships sail to explore a group of composers who are strong as individuals, but stronger and more influential in contact with each other, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 165th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice, your connotations! What do you think about an infobox, as in The Oceanides? (see the discussion on the talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. I can see the appeal of an infobox but was under the impression that classical music articles did not use them. Would love some elucidation. Thanks.Jonyungk (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 165 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - Classical music had no problem ever with orchestras and performers, was open for compositions, still debates composers (as if they were different from other artists), see Peter Maxwell Davies and Max Reger, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for today's Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, "the other great man of Russian classical music, after Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who was a tremendous influence on his peers and followers"! - More composers: Wilhelm Killmayer and his students Max Beckschäfer and Rudi Spring --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eight years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• On the Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symphonic poems (Liszt), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symphony No. 7. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Connotations (Copland) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Connotations (Copland) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Connotations (Copland) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jonyungk. Connotations (Copland), an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Connotations (Copland) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Connotations (Copland) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 29 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Connotations (Copland), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the premiere of Aaron Copland's Connotations, on September 23, 1962, "sent shock waves through the world of music"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Connotations (Copland). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for helping Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paterson (poem), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prosody. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dance Panels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dissonance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aaron Copland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Berger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

This is to let you know that the Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 29, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jonyungk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jonyungk! I have long admired your work silently, from afar. I found your piece on the choral symphony to be very illuminating and it has, at various point in time, inspired me to work even harder at my content creation. Primarily, I am a Sibelian, and so I work rather exclusively on articles about his music. One of my next projects is to completely overhaul the article on Kullervo, with the end goal being FA by the 130th anniversary of its premiere (28 April 2022). As you may know, modern Sibelius scholarship has moved away from the notion that Kullervo is a tone poem, a development that really seems to have occurred in the last decade or so, especially (i.e., after the choral symphony article achieved FA). Notable Sibelius musicologists Erik Tawaststjerna, Glenda Dawn Goss (in particular), Robert Layton, and Veijo Murtomäki have called it a symphony, as have the authors of popular biographies such as David Hurwitz, Guy Rickards, and Andrew Barnett. As I have written over at Discography of Sibelius symphony cycles (I've excised the references so as not to gunk-up your Talk page):

Additionally, the Sibelius cycle can, in its non-standard form, include Kullervo (Op. 7, 1892), a five-movement symphonic work for soprano, baritone, male choir, and orchestra. This piece, which predates the First Symphony by seven years and in 1893 launched the young Sibelius as an important composer for orchestra, features sung text from Runos XXXV–VI of the Kalevala, Finland's national epic. Notably, Kullervo eschews obvious categorization, in part due to Sibelius's own ambivalence: at the premiere, program and score each listed the piece as a "symphonic poem"; yet, Sibelius nevertheless referred to Kullervo as a symphony both while composing the piece and again in retirement when reflecting on his decades-long career.

Today, many commentators prefer to view Kullervo as a programmatic choral symphony, variously due to its deployment of sonata form in the first movement, its thematic unity and recurring material, and its massive scale. Such a perspective thus conceptualizes Kullervo as Sibelius's de facto "Symphony No. 0", thereby expanding his completed contributions to the symphonic canon from seven to eight. Eleven of the Sibelius complete cycles listed above also include Kullervo.

It's also relevant, in case you don't have access to his book (Sibelius: The Orchestral Works, An Owner's Manual), to quote Hurwitz at length:

p. 46: "The two men [Mahler and Sibelius] began their symphonic careers writing hybrid works in a rich, late-romantic style, unsure of whether to call them 'symphonies' or 'symphonic poems,' a distinction not terribly relevant today, but a major issue when their first efforts appeared in the early 1890s... Sibelius's first major orchestral work, the so-called Kullervo Symphony, similarly mixes vocal and orchestral movements, and actually predates Mahler's efforts in this field. There's no question, then, that the Finnish composer's conception of the symphony as he expressed it in 1907 had changed considerably from his early perspective, when both he and Mahler looked to the example of Beethoven (Ninth Symphony), Berlioz (Romeo et Juliet), and above all Liszt (A Faust Symphony) for inspiration."

p. 50: "Like Mahler's soon-to-be-written Second and Third Symphonies, Kullervo is a splendidly impractical piece, one that no sensible person in Sibelius's position should have written, and thank God for that. It may be his longest, most ambitious single conception... but not nearly as atypical from today's historical vantage point as it must have seemed to the composer himself or to his contemporaries. Ironically, it is the acceptance of Mahler's hybrid conception of the symphony that has given Kullervo its current lease on life."

p. 49: "Nevertheless, it was quite clear in 1892 that there was no market abroad for such a strange, large orchestral extravaganza by an unknown composer, requiring a chorus and soloists able to sing in Finnish.* And by the time Sibelius was secure in his fame, he had moved on stylistically beyond the point where he felt comfortable returning to this early effort. So it remained one of the very few of his major works that was not scrutinized and revised with eye toward publication."

Whoa, that's a lot of content, but I hope that (like me) you have found it a compelling read. My request is that you consider adding information about Kullervo to the choral symphony article, an effort that I would then complement with my overhaul of the Kullervo article. I would do it myself, but I don't want to upset the balance that the choral symphony article has achieved and I do believe in deferring initially (if possible) to the editor (even though s/he doesn't "own" it) who labored so hard to make an article possible. It would seem to me that the most appropriate place for the Kullervo content is a short paragraph between Mendelssohn's 1840/Liszt's 1854 + 1856 and Mahler's 1894 + 1896.

* I think this is a critical point: The provincial nature of Finland and the obscurity of the Finnish language meant that Kullervo was D.O.A., internationally-speaking. Up until this point, hadn't all the choral symphonies been sung in German (Beethoven 9, Mendelssohn 2, Liszt Faust, Mahler 2 & 3), Latin/Italian (Liszt Dante), and French (Berlioz Romeo & Grand funèbre)?—i.e., very common languages with established musical traditions. It wasn't a fair fight for a Finn! Warmly, Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Tchaikovsky.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Bad GIF, yellowish. Can be replaced with c:File:Porträt des Komponisten Pjotr I. Tschaikowski (1840-1893).jpg

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a happy birthday, Jonyungk! Supplied by the Wikipedia Birthday Committee, have one free cake! Enjoy! Best wishes to you on your special day! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I have a slice? Lol have a great birthday. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi Jonyungk! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! --Isro! chatter 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal from member list

You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.

Best wishes, --Isro! ^chatter 17:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I beg your pardon. I have been sporadically active on Wikipedia recently, so I do not understand what you mean by being inactive for more than six months. In any case, to wish me happy birthday one day and remove me two days after that is both petty and mean-spirited. I am greatly offended. Jonyungk (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jonyungk! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]