User talk:Hyacinth

1. Hello, you've reached User:Hyacinth, Mikhail Abraham.

Note: I currently do have reasonable access to computers. However, I may be away from Wikipedia.

Do not leave messages in archive as I am not notified automatically. Leave a message on the bottom of this page. Please remember civility and politeness, even if I haven't.

Archives

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8

---

You are the author of these two templates. What is the distinction between them? Do we need two templates? {{user pt-2}}, for example, uses {{user x}} but appears to work if I change it to use {{user x/doc}} which is used by the majority of language user templates. There are only a handful of these template that use {{user x}}; ok to switch them to {{user x/doc}}?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you changed both of {{user x}} and {{user x/doc}} but I don't think that those changes produce correct results. For example, compare:

{{user pt-2}} – this looks mor-or-less as I assume it should

{{user st-2}} – no documentation about the user st-2 template itself

{{user fr}} – also no doc

and, those changes blew-away the changes that I made yesterday to {{user x/doc}}. Yesterday I changed the parameters supplied to {{languages}} in {{user x/doc}} to use Module:ISO 639 name. There is a similar call to {{languages}} in {{user x}}; similar but not identical. Why?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see that you have reverted yourself which puts us back to where we were when I first asked about these templates. So what happens now? Do you intend to fix the issues that I described? If not, will you do me the courtesy of answering the questions that I have asked so that I might fix the templates myself?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the two pages are redundant then why don't you get rid of one? If you want me to do something besides deliver your newspaper on time, you should have asked, "Please do __," and not asked why without presenting a problem. If you want an answer within a certain time period you should set a deadline, present an urgent problem rather than a theoretical curiosity, and, my grandma taught me that you should say please. Even if you're right, even if you're friends, even if you're enemies, and even if you're the boss. Hyacinth (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not asked anything from you except answers to my questions so that I could understand why you created two templates that more-or-less do the same work. With that knowledge, I can know what to do about {{user x}}. What I got from you was changes to the two templates that were then reverted when I pointed out that the changes did not work. The changes and the reverts were accompanied by silence from you. Now, after I asked you about intentions, you chastise me for being uncivil. Thanks, but that isn't helpful so I'll noodle it out on my own.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted me to "noodle it" you could have asked me to, rather than objecting to my "noodling". Is "noodling" an "al dente" reference? Hyacinth (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All that I wanted from you was answers to my questions. You elected to act instead of answer. Of course I objected to your actions because those actions produced incorrect results.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to tell you my intentions then it might help if you first shared your intentions. That way your question may be more clarified, and I may be able to give you a better answer faster (I'm not talking about courtesy, I'm talking about results). Hyacinth (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my intentions were made clear by the last question of my first post here: There are only a handful of these template that use {{user x}}; ok to switch them to {{user x/doc}}? I know now that it is ok to switch those few templates to {{user x/doc}} because that has been done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see the differences between the two templates code then click "Edit" and (select all: Ctrl-A, then) copy the code of {{User x}}, go to {{User x/doc}}, click "Edit", select all (Ctrl-A) and paste, then click "Show changes" (or the other way around).

If you had looked you would see that I initially created {{User x}} 13:44, March 17, 2014‎ as a redirect to {{User x/doc}}, which I did not create until 22:25, March 17, 2014‎. This means that my original intention was not to have duplicate templates. Presumably I was confused by or concerned with the ambiguity of a template used to create template documentation, and that users may have mixed {{User x/doc}} and {{User x}} up.

If you look at {{user pt-2}} with {{User x}} there is something missing compared to {{User x/doc}}.

{{User x}} reads:

rather than {{User x/doc}}, which reads:

It appears that {{User x/doc}} should be copied to {{User x}} and all templates using {{User x/doc}} should use {{User x}}. Then {{User x/doc}} may serve as the documentation for {{User x}} (unless {{User x}} was redirected to {{User x/doc}} and the documentation can be placed at {{User x/doc/doc}} Hyacinth (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)). Hyacinth (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bc1q9x3ypl8r3cvl9gmmsltq2zgjjyemedqulnljny 82.193.124.51 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ohye 2001:EE0:4081:95C2:6845:57B3:4466:F77D (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what's the problem? Hyacinth (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that {{user x}} exists and is for the most part unused and contains code that more-or-less duplicates the code in {{user x/doc}}, probably nothing any longer. It would seem to me that the correct path forward is to move {{user x/doc}} to {{user x doc}} because that is the function performed by the template; {{user x doc/doc}} becomes the documentation page for {{user x doc}}. The language user templates are all modified to use {{user x doc}}. {{user x}} and {{user x/doc}} can be deleted or re-purposed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Hi folks. User:The Earwig alerted me to this discussion. I recently synched Template:User x/doc to Template:User x. I am now proposing to run a bot to change the parameter in the relevant transclusions of Template:Documentation from Template:User x/doc to Template:User x. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsherrAWBBOT 2. After all transclusions have been changed, I will move the "noinclude" contents from the base page to the doc subpage, and add {{Documentation}} in their place. I invite your comments here or there. Thanks very much. --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyacinth. It's great that you wrote up an excerpt of Maple Leaf Rag, but please correct the time signature when you have a chance. It should be 2/4 (2 quarter note beats per measure), not 4/2 (4 half note beats per measure).

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Done. Thanks for asking. Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:A Hard Day's Night melody.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Article Rescue Squadron Rescue List. For future reference. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#Girls' toys and games. Are you giving me a suggestion (a way to help save articles from deletion?) or asking for a suggestion from me? Hyacinth (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an active member of the rescue squad. It helps to have the help of others when dealing with proposed deletions. They aren't 'votes' but numbers and resources matter. That's all. But maybe you knew that already. If so, I apologize for taking up your time. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that I could help the rescue squad by participating, or that I could get help from the rescue squad? Either way it seems like an implicit compliment. Hyacinth (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both. I noticed your participation at the deletion discussion of Equivalence, and noted it was not listed at the Article Rescue Squad. All is well that ends well. Prost. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mutually beneficial. You can do good by doing well, and vice versa. It is good to succeed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Food issue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is way too broad to be a disambiguation page, and is not a useful technical term as an article.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weekly television shows, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dizzy's Business Major seventh chord.mid. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dizzy's Business Major seventh chord.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Charlie Parker - Au Privave - circle progression dominant seventh.mid. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Charlie Parker - Au Privave - circle progression dominant seventh.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyacinth. Thank you for your file on Commons. Please could you add this for french anacrouse : Début de Valet will ich dir geben, BWV 736. L'anacrouse est notée en rouge. Regards, --Sidonie61 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which file are you thanking me for? What do you want me to add (something related to Bach and anacrusis)? Hyacinth (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No personal headings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No personal comments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No personal summaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No personal headings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 14:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No personal comments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 14:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No personal summaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 14:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For real this time! Hyacinth (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tristan chord as dominant with appoggiaturas Chailley.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing and WP:CITEVAR. All of the references in Osgood curve are cited, with in-text parenthetical references for the ones where it makes sense to name the author as part of the article text and footnotes for the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Free reeds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the new section I added to Talk:Degree_(music), following your modification of the first example. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing secondary dominant.mid. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing secondary dominant.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a decade ago, in Harmonic seventh chord, you added this quote from Gage Averill's book: "There's a chord in a barbershop that makes the nerve ends tingle....We might all our chord a Super-Seventh!" Is that second sentence a typo, for "We might call our chord..."? I don't see how else to understand it, but didn't want to change a quote without checking the source. Rigadoun (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! If interested you can read the quote yourself: [1]. Hyacinth (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your nice score excerpt from Ludus Tonalis was converted a couple of years ago by DatBot to a much smaller file that unfortunately lost too much resolution. You’ll see now there are staff lines and stems missing. I don’t know what the best solution is, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. MJ (t • c) 17:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark R Johnson: I uploaded versions with less and less resolution, stopping with a 9 KB version (only 3 KB more than DatBot's version and lower heighth and width). Hyacinth (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been sufficient, but the bot ambushed it again a few days later. I wrote a query at the bot’s talk page. If you were to just revert to the previous version, would the bot do it again? MJ (t • c) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy, Mark R Johnson, and Jerome Kohl: I wonder what the criteria which triggers DatBot to "Reduce size of non-free image". Size isn't even mentioned at W:NFCC. A brief explanation of DatBot is found at User:DatBot, but presumably DatBot would be more helpful and easier to understand if it explained how it works more fully (since the page it cites, W:NFCC, does not). Hyacinth (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bot does not decide which files to go through automatically, but rather the {{non-free reduce}} template is added. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89 and Ronhjones:

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Size relates to WP:NFCC#3b. Generally, non-free images should be at most 0.1 MP. There are more details at WP:IMAGERES. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark R Johnson: The "File history" does not have clickable "revert" buttons. Hyacinth (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited L-system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Purpose needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kenneth L. Hale Award recipients, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victoria A. Fromkin Lifetime Service Award recipients, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Figuration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Figure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your music example for "Ostinato for Radiohead's 'Creep'..." you have chord symbols above 4 triads of tied whole notes, "G+, B+, C+, C-". I'm not sure why you used the "+" sign, as that is generally notation for an augmented triad, not a major one. The actual notes below are all major chords, not augmented, so this is wrong, or at least misleading.

Although a minus "-" sign is often used (but not recommended by notation experts) to indicate "minor", and the last chord is indeed a minor triad, the more conventional symbol is a lower-case "m". I trust you will understand my concern. I feel the notation line should be more like this: "G B C Cm".

Shermanbay (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Shermanbay[reply]

@Shermanbay: There's more than one way to notate chords and chord quality, and different people have different preferences and references use different systems. Pluses and minuses may also notate the syntonic comma. Hyacinth (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version and added a note in the citations mentioning that Capuzzo uses a different notation system. Hyacinth (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth, you redirected Minkowski island to Koch snowflake. No doubt they are connected, but the page does not mention Minkowski island. The only page the does, besides the original redirect, is Fractal antenna where there is a picture. SpinningSpark 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that on that page you made an edit saying Vicsek fractal is a synonym, so surely it should redirect there (although that article does not mention Minkowski either). It looks like the same thing to me anyhow. SpinningSpark 17:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Hyacinth (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fixed? Minkowski sausage is an open curve, Minkowski island is a closed curve You have made them synonyms. SpinningSpark 23:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you asked for is a mention of "island" on the page "Koch snowflake". If you've looked at that article the lead says that a "Koch snowflake", "Koch island", and "Koch curve", are different names for the same thing. I have not magically created a synonym that predates me. Hyacinth (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should lead to articles about the topic that covers the redirected term, not to articles which mention the topic that covers the redirected term. A subspecies of dove should redirect to the article about doves, not to the article about dove shaped objects. Hyacinth (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not magically created a synonym... Yes you have. The lead says Koch island is a synonym of Koch snowflake. It does not say that Minkowski island is a synonym. I am no expert, but it appears self evident to me that these are not the same object. Nor is Minkowski sausage for the obvious reason stated above. SpinningSpark 12:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just write two articles about the Minkowski sausage and the Minkowski curve? In the meantime, could you define a fractal sausage and a fractal curve for my future use? Hyacinth (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because right now I am busy writing other things. Because I am a volunteer and I will work on what I choose, not what is convenient for someone else. Because it gets right up my nose when other editors tell me what I should be doing. In the meantime, stop inserting stuff you are just guessing at in these articles based on images or names that are vaguely similar. You clearly know absolutely nothing about mathematics and you are very clearly not getting the information from reliable sources. Leave it to someone who knows what they are doing. SpinningSpark 08:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could convince me and I would never disagree with you again about this issue, or you could break the rules of Wikipedia and personally attack me (WP:NPA).

A question is not a demand, even when it is a suggestion (because a suggestion is not a demand).

If you do not have time for something that is not my fault.

Given that we have not discussed mathematics, but instead have discussed titles (English class, not math class), and that you have used no math to support your position regarding titles (even an unsupported claim to holding a mathematics degree), I suggest that you quit sticking things up your nose and keep on collaborating and discussing things. Hyacinth (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what interests you more: fractals or antennas? Hyacinth (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well electronics is my background, but I have to say I find fractals way more fascinating than antennas. SpinningSpark 12:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I forgot about sausages. Many users might prefer sausage to both fractals and antennas. Hyacinth (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up the definition of "depreciated" (meaning decreased in monetary value) and "deprecated" (meaning no longer supported by software). I will fix your new category names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime synonyms. Hyacinth (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, which is why I suggested checking a dictionary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prove a negative, so I suggest you don't waste your time, especially since me being wrong doesn't change the results.

However, you may use references to convince me that the roots of the words are different, if they are. Reasons always seem more convincing than assertions.

Depreciate: "to lower in honor or esteem".

Deprecate: "play down: make little of". Hyacinth (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "deprecate" in question is the third one at M-W: "to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of (something, such as a software product) in favor of a newer or better alternative". That's the definition being used in the "deprecated parameter" and "deprecated template" categories that you were tagging. "Depreciate" is not used in a programming context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting is almost always more convincing than pointing. Hyacinth (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:Depreciated Portal:Literature pages be moved to Category:Deprecated Portal:Literature pages (since it contains, "pages that...have since been removed or replaced," and not pages which are cheaper than they used to be)? Hyacinth (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that I didn't create Category:Depreciated Portal:Literature pages, and that is what I meant when I said there was a time and a place when someone besides me used the two terms to mean the same thing. Do you want me to do the move? Hyacinth (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, that would be helpful. I am unfamiliar with the process around category moves/renames, despite having read WP:CATMOVE a couple of times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since nothing links to the category, and no templates appear to place pages in the category, the main task is recategorizing the old category members to the new category. Once a redirect is created this is now fairly simple (you can just click the + next to the old category and hit enter). It does appear that some members of the category transclude other members, including the categorization without WP:NOINCLUDE, but as the transcluded pages are moved to the new category name the pages which transclude them will stop being placed in the old category. Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth, your deletion of Minkowski island is entirely out of process. Please restore it. It is unbecoming of an administrator to use the tools in a content dispute. SpinningSpark 18:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per your request. Thank you for saying please. I'm not kidding or being sassy. I appreciate your politeness, especially given how rare it is on Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hopefully, we can now both calm down and work collegially. I apologise for my earlier rudeness. SpinningSpark 23:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking the same doesn't prove that two things are the same, but don't you think the Minkowski Island antenna looks a little bit like the third iteration of the saltire form Vicsek fractal? Don't you see how a "Koch snowflake" is built from multiple copies of "Koch curves" arranged to form a polygon? Hyacinth (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference could be just in the method of construction. Vicsek demonstrates in this book that the same/similar fractal can be arrived at either through growth like a snowflake, or progressive removal like a sponge. SpinningSpark 09:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but the difference between what? Hyacinth (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that I could do for you, such as tedious tiny edits to multiple pages or the creation of images? For instance, I could create an image to demonstrate different construction methods leading to the same result (although, how does one tell from an image if someone is adding onto a figure and then shrinking the results, if they are cutting away from a figure, or if they are using rewrite rules?). Hyacinth (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: The lead to the article, Koch snowflake, in which you claimed in an edit summary that, "We don't normally call for etys, that's something for Wiktionary," contains the etymology of "Koch snowflake":

"It is based on the Koch curve, which appeared in a 1904 paper titled "On a Continuous Curve Without Tangents, Constructible from Elementary Geometry"^[2] by the Swedish mathematician Helge von Koch."

The Mandelbrot set lead contains etymology:

"Its definition and name are due to Adrien Douady, in tribute to the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot.^[2]"

The Julia set lead contains etymology for both "Julia set" and "Fatou set":

"These sets are named after the French mathematicians Gaston Julia^[2] and Pierre Fatou^[3] whose work began the study of complex dynamics during the early 20th century."

Who did you mean when you said "we"? Hyacinth (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We, the Wikipedia community who produced the guidelines that we like to follow, the particular guideline in question here being WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I never said that etymologies are not found in Wikipedia articles. They are, and can be interesting (but too often the lead sentence of an article is cluttered with a too detailed ety that really belongs on Wiktionary, or at least, later in the article). The point is that they are not an essential part of an article. Only problematic text should be tagged in-article and not having an ety for Minkowski sausage is not problematic. This is similar to articles lacking images; {{Image requested}} is used on talk pages, not in-article. Besides, I doubt that the ety of Minkowski sausage is very surprising or interesting. It is almost certainly Minkowski because he studied them and sausage because the set is open-ended and its meanderings resemble a string of sausages.

I just noticed that you have tagged this yet again, this time with "clarification needed" (which I've removed). You seem absolutely determined to find something to tag this with, rather than just accept what the source says that it is a synonym. I mean, so what it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? Neither are nearly all of the other entries in the table. You've demanded a citation and now got one. Why are you finding this one so problematic when it is one of the few entries that actually has a cite? SpinningSpark 10:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Compositions by genre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patience has been nominated for merging with Template:Solitaire. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguistics, Language, and the Public Award recipients, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found your Wikipedia:Mostly negative essay and I think it is great for identifying a bias in Wikipedia's design which we need to counter somehow to be more encouraging. Thanks for that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Musical object. Since you had some involvement with the Musical object redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Okay, [please] convince me: Why is an accusation without support or links a better edit summary than a copy and paste given Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Clearly if I add a comment to a talk page readers can tell I did so whether I write in my edit summary "added comment" or if I copy and paste a comment with a signature. If you convince me then I will become ardent. You have witnessed this, if not realized it: you convince me that an article should have more links and then I add more links but if you convince me an article should have less links then I remove more links. You may have found this confusing, and I can only assume this is because most editors are not as flexible and easy to convince as I am so you have interpreted my reactions as jokes or making a point (as me disagreeing with you when actually I changed my mind and agreed with you). If you care enough to complain, then I hope that you care enough to convince, and I am relatively easily convincible. Hyacinth (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about or the point you're trying to get across. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, but I'm not trying to make a point. My goal was to invite you to convince me of an assertion you have made repeatedly. I'm asking you for a favor. Wikipedia, or at least my edit summaries on Wikipedia, may be improved, but I don't "get" any "prize". For instance, on this page at 07:03, November 29, 2019‎, you wrote, "And once again, please stop copying the text of your edits in edit summaries." I chose to ping you on my talk page so that you would be free to ignore it or to respond. Hyacinth (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Overhand knot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Half knot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quality measure. Since you had some involvement with the Quality measure redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--

I have a question about the image you created of the Harmonic Series--curious how you made it, also if you would be willing to create a higher resolution version without the guidelines? Apologies if this is not the proper way to ask but I could not find other contact information for you. Would appreciate any response and happy to take offline if you prefer. Thank you!

Adam.masser (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam.masser: I assume you mean File:Harmonic series to 32.png. See: File:Harmonic series to 32.svg. Hyacinth (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyacinth: Yeah, that's awesome! I hope you have a great day, because you've made mine! Many thanks, Adam.masser (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam.masser: I create a time column of fractions from 0-1, progression in time, which I plug into the equation:

${\displaystyle \sin(f*2*\pi *x)}$

where ${\displaystyle f}$ is the frequency of the sine wave and ${\displaystyle x}$ is the number from the time column. To adjust the amplitude you may simply multiply the result by a larger or smaller number. To create a harmonic series you use ${\displaystyle 1/f}$, so that the amplitude is the inverse of the harmonic; thus the equation is in each cell of all columns, with each harmonic as the heading. I appear to usually use 100 cells in the time column, each ${\displaystyle 1/100{=}0.01}$ larger than the previous; the less cells the worse the resolution.

The cells in the column of the first harmonic contain the following text in OpenOffice:

=(1/B$1)*SIN((B$1*2*PI())*$A2)

where B$1 is the first harmonic and $A2 is the value from the time column A. Hyacinth (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyacinth: That's pretty brilliant. I really did not realize you could do that in a spreadsheet but I'm messing with it now and it makes sense! So cool, and thank you kindly for explaining. I don't know if you intended it to be, but I think your image is one of the most elegant and aesthetically beautiful representations of the harmonic series I have seen. Well done! I am going to play around with this method and turn it into some art, hopefully. Please let me know if you'd like attribution or anything else. Thank you again so much, I really appreciate it! Adam.masser (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam.masser: Thanks for the compliment. On Wikipedia, in my experience, criticisms are near constant but compliments are only occasional. I've created plenty of images, so it's good to know that at least one was appreciated/found useful.

If you sum the harmonics' columns then you can create images of Fourier analysis, such as File:Fourier Series.svg or the animation at square wave (neither of which I created).

In Indian classical music often one of the first things one is taught as a student is the idea of a string as a model of the universe (both literal and metaphorical). Since change is constant, the universe obviously consists of vibrations. What we think of as objects are like really high harmonics with very little amplitude but a much faster frequency than the string. As John Cage says, duration is the one thing that all music has in common.

It might be ideal to use a spreadsheet with values for both ${\displaystyle y}$ (amplitude) and ${\displaystyle x}$ (time), rather than relying on the fact that each value for ${\displaystyle y}$ is equidistant to the previous and following values. Hyacinth (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam.masser: I took an alternative math track, integrated math, in high school (instead of discrete math like algebra class, geometry class, calculus class). It was almost always applied math, and I feel that has been of great benefit in studying music. Music is the window that I see the world through, and math is one of the main windows I see music through (and math has opened other windows, rather than closing them, such as intuition/feel/groove/physicality). Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyacinth: I like what you said about the universe and strings. My primary instrument is guitar and the string metaphor is an extremely important way I understand music--I think that's why this representation of the harmonic series resonated so strongly with me. Objects being high harmonic frequency low amplitude vibrators is a novel way of thinking about the world. I like it and will give it some more thought. I had a HS physics teacher that would talk similarly about how everything physical is actually a hologram made up of light which is vibrating in a non-spatial dimension. Honestly don't recall everything he said, and sometimes it deviated pretty far from the textbook, but he definitely kept it interesting and kept us curious about what it means for something to be physical, to be a wave, or to be both at the same time.

I haven't spent very much time thinking about music in a mathematical way. I've been playing music for many years, but most of that time I have been really resistant to music theory or any kind of formalization. In the last year I've realized how limiting that is so I've been trying to immerse myself more. That's part of why I was on the harmonic series page, doing some reading to fill in missing parts of my understanding. I think it's unbelievably beautiful how patterns like the harmonic series (or Fibonacci sequence, fractal patterns, other natural series) show up again and again in nature and are described with such precise mathematical and geometric formulations. I'm definitely hopeful that building a solid foundation in the underlying mathematical and theoretical bases of music will open new worlds; after just a few months applying myself to learn music theory I already notice I feel more possibilities when composing a song than when I tried on intuition alone. Adam.masser (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam.masser: You might enjoy popular music studies, such as books by Richard Middleton and Peter van der Merwe. There are advantages such as the examination of things that classical music theory ignores and/or says are impossible (like ninth chords and polyrhythms) and often claimed (as proof of its superiority) to be only the province of European classical music (such as polyphony and chromaticism), and the usual disadvantage is that without familiarity with classical music theory the popular music studies theories are often difficult to understand (such as modal frames, whose coverage has been criticized on Wikipedia). Jazz theory may be the most attractive to study, and ethnomusicology is always an option (although study from a local POV is almost always preferable to anthropology's alien POV). Hyacinth (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyacinth: Who says ninth chords are impossible? That's like my favorite chord! Those are some great suggestions, which I will make sure to check out. I have been trying to learn through a jazz lens a bit (picked up Jazzology a couple weeks ago), but it's certainly an uphill battle. Wishing I had started paying attention to this stuff much sooner, because it's awesome! Adam.masser (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam.masser: Usually the argument is that a dominant ninth chord is simply a dominant seventh chord with a prominent nonchord tone, much like the argument that the "so called" sus4 chord (on C: C, E, G, F) is claimed to be simply a triad with a prominent nonchord tone known as a suspension. Sometimes the arguments are more subtle, such as that extended chords are ambiguous: the dominant eleventh chord on G (G, B, D, F, A, C), could be a thirteenth chord on F. When Steve Reich first used phase music in two compositions for tape many people argued that the technique could never be performed by human musicians, and Rich was forced to create his own ensembl