User talk:Pfistermeister

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pfistermeister, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try our tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• Keep the Five Pillars of Wikipedia in mind, and remember to write from a neutral point of view.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~, or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!

-- Kirill Lokshin 00:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mahler 2 CAPITALS 3 Edit summary 4 Mussorgsky 5 Mahler's 10th 6 Ambivalence 7 Jeremy Thorpe 8 Civility 9 Also about Mahler 6 10 Pictures at an Exhibition 11 Schönberg 12 Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov 13 Alma Problem 14 Your edit summaries 15 Edwin Stein 16 Your edit summaries 17 Charles Marowitz

[edit] Mahler

Appreciating your contribution to the Mahler article and discussion. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering where you found your information on the Bruno Walter arrangements, since I cannot find a recording of Symphony No. 2 for piano duet or for that matter the 2 piano version; please point me in a good direction for finding this recording since I think it is out of print. 64bytes 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAPITALS

A word to the wise. Putting messages in CAPITALS is equivalent to shouting, and is not appreciated amongst Wikipedians. Cheers JackofOz 11:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

In reference to your edit summary

• 16:17 Pictures at an Exhibition (diff; hist) . . Pfistermeister (Talk | block) (Rubbish! Rimsky's edition leaves the 5th Promenade *exactly where Mussorgsky put it*. Keep your stupid and uninformed fantasies to yourself.)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks, Hyacinth 10:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mussorgsky

Hello. I read with interest your expansion of the article on Mussorgsky. Any chance you could add a references section to the article, please? - as you obviously have good sources. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I see that Robert was here first to say something similar! I also wanted to compliment you on your work on Mussorgsky, which I have been wishing to see expanded for a long time now. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahler's 10th

Hi. I removed the detail about the key changing from B flat to F sharp as it did not seem to be relevant to the point you were making. He revised the scoring, and he included the marginalia in the new version, that's the point. The fact that it went from B flat to F sharp or any other key is surely not the issue. JackofOz 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And I don't consider it vandalism to make a serious-minded and conscientious edit to existing articles. This whole project is about continuously improving the quality of articles, which in some cases means removing unnecessary words. Cheers JackofOz 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambivalence

An encyclopaedia isn't about what "term"s "refer to". It is about what things are. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use_of_.27refers_to.27. Uncle G 15:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Thorpe

Hi. Thanks for your correction to the opening paragraph. I had attempted to change the sentence around to indicate that both Thorpe's involvement in the conspiracy and the his gay relationship with Scott were alleged rather than matters of record, but your edit was evidence that this hadn't worked.

Given the resultant allegations of alleged conspiracies, I thought I'd have a stab at a total rewrite of the sentence to try to get the idea across in a more pithy manner. If you feel the edit does not achieve this, I'd welcome your suggestions. Yours, in a spirit of improvement rather than reversion, Hairybottle 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Edit summaries with language such as "you should get yourself off wikipedia" are uncivil, and as such constitute a blatant violation of community policy. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIV. Thanks, Dr U 19:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also about Mahler 6

Considering just replacing this with a bracketed comment for now, but what is

• I have no evidence that this statement is in fact true Pf.

doing in the middle of the Mahler 6 article (did a vandal add it, did you, .. - why is it there in such an obtrusive form...) Clarification appreciated in advance! Schissel-nonLop! 11:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! Sorry about that! I put that note in when I sent the text to a wiki-friend to look it over: I forgot to take it out when I pasted the text into the article window! Please do with the note as you see fit: I still haven't got a definitive answer about the latest Mahler Society edition. Pfistermeister 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures at an Exhibition

Hi. I will try to handle this maturely, but would you please not call me "clueless"? I gave good reasons for my edits in that article and I have very good sources for that. I even explained that on the articles talk page and what you called "long-corrected errors" were proven with phrases like "seems to be" on that very talk page. I am ready to start a discussion about this, I have spent some time researching the topic and want to contribute helpfully, so I think you can understand my indignant attitude. Mütze 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, instead of simply calling Mütze's contribution clueless it might be worth looking at the reason he has given on the discussion page. I am having a discussion with the same user on German Wikipedia, and I must say his reason sounds convincing to me. Unfortunately I have not enough information at hand to clear up the matter, so if there is anything you can contribute to this discussion, we would all be grateful. Greetings --FordPrefect42 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, almost synchronously ;-) FordPrefect42 13:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote: It is un-encyclopaedic to fantasise about what you think it's 'obvious' that an 'early editor' might have done. The *fact* is that *Mussorgsky himself* wrote 'Con mortuis...' as the title. – Oh no, Pfistermeister, it is even more un-encyclopaedic to fantasise about what Mussorgsky wrote, when the *facts* show, that he himself did not write any of the title versions, and it is most un-encyclopaedic to completely ignore facts stated on the discussion page --FordPrefect42 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schönberg

Hi, Pfistermeister: I appreciate that you corrected me. I just didn't like your tone. :-) (You're most probably my senior...) Back to civilised exchange of information? (I see you have had problems with that earlier... I can understand.) Selfinformation 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov

Hello Pfistermeister. I am "Ivan Veliki". I have made quite a few edits to the Mussorgsky articles over the last month. I scanned, uploaded, and linked all the photos of the composer you see in each article (Hartmann too). You might remember something about this, as you praised my work when I relocated the Repin painting to the end of the biography and added a fine photo of Mussorgsky to the top. However, you might later have forgotten as you also asked "Why is this Ivan V removing pictures (vandalistic deletion)." To answer your question, I was concerned about copyright infringement. I felt I was entitled to remove what I had taken the trouble to add. After reading more about Wikipedia policy and observing other articles, I restored the photos. I also created the Mussorgsky works list. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about Mussorgsky and his works. Currently, I am expanding the Boris Godunov (opera) article. I have put a lot of work into it. I'm sure you can tell, even if you don't agree with all I have said. Imagine my reaction when you made reference to one of my statements as a "ludicrously sub-sophomoric falsehood". I believe you were referring to "However, it [the RK version of Boris] is not technically Mussorgsky, but rather a composition by Rimsky-Korsakov based on Mussorgsky (just as the Ravel orchestration of Pictures at an Exhibition is a Ravel composition)." I don't necessarily expect agreement on such a controversial issue. I don't expect Wikipedians are going to contact me before making edits to my work. I do expect (and I believe Wikipedia policy supports me) that you should show the same level of objectivity, respect, and professionalism in your remarks that you should show in your edits. I don't believe my statement was factually incorrect. I believe any musicologist (I know Wikipedia readers are not musicologists) will admit that arrangements and orchestrations (in academic, or "classical" music) are the product of the arranger or orchestrator, particularly alterations of finished works. If you consult the Grove Dictionary of Music, you will find (correct me if wrong) RK's Boris and Ravel's Pictures listed under THEIR Works Lists, and under Mussorgsky's Works List you will find little or no reference to RK's Boris among Mussorgsky's other operas, and you will find Pictures listed among M's piano works, not among his Orchestral Works. My Mussorgsky Works List, based on M.D. Calvocoressi and Gerald Abraham (who are among the foremost Mussorgsky experts), concurs on this issue. Anyway, you could have shown some restraint in your remarks. I can see that this is an ongoing issue with you, as others have taken offense at your ill-considered ad hominem remarks. ````

[edit] Alma Problem

You have now created 3 separate articles on this subject and I can find only one trace of it on google which is not reliable per WP:RS. Please indicate which article you want to keep and source it quickly as I will otherwise put it up for deletion. If you let me know which article is staying, I will redirect the others to that. Thank you --Spartaz 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the duplications -- I had a problem getting the title right! The correct one is the most recently created and modified one: I have much more information to add in the next few days derived from the books by Donald Mitchell, Jonathan Carr, and Peter Franklin. Regards, Pf.

Thank you. The redirects will follow shortly. Please can you quickly reference the article by mentioning the sources even if you are going to add to it shortly. I'll add a stub tag to show everyone that it is a work in progress. Cheers --Spartaz 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects now in place. I'm not sure whether the title is correct under the manual of style. Please let me know if you need me to change the redirects round. I also saw that you had referenced the article - that was quick! Thanks. --Spartaz 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summaries

Re: this and other edit summaries. Please try to use civil language, even (or especially) when reverting vandalism, so as to avoid feeding the trolls. That way we leave the childish behaviour to the vandals, and maintain the appearance that wikipedia is the product of thoughtful adults. --Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Stein

I set up a article deletion template for Edwin Stein and used your reason in the discussion page for the reason why the article should be deleted. I just wanted to let you know. -Tickkid

[edit] Your edit summaries

I see you have already been contacted several times about incivil edit summaries. Calling editors' contributions "excruciatingly maladroit," "iliterate" [sic], and "inept" are in violation of WP:CIVIL. Continued incivility of this sort can lead to blocking. There's no need to disparage other editors like that. Everyone can make a mistake, so please assume good faith and adjust your tone accordingly. Thanks. Jokestress 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha! I'd think you'd have learned to spell "illiterate" by now, since it seems to be a favourite word. Bobanny 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Marowitz

Just a request. The people who do new articles patrol are deluged by articles about people whose notability is not asserted. You could help by fleshing out your articles a bit before submitting them. In this case, there was no option but to nominate this article for speedy deletion - there are quite literally millions of authors and playwrights in the world. What can you do to demonstrate that this particular person is notable? Denni^talk 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)