User talk:Funper/archive1

Contents 1 Totentanz S.525 deleted 2 Regarding deletion 3 Batch Edits 4 Image Deletes 5 Liszt Index 6 Image information 7 About the redirect 8 PDF question 9 Liszt Catalogue 10 Deletion of parts 11 Coincidence 12 CD Sheet Music 13 Beethoven's 9th Symphony, 2-piano, S.657 (Liszt, Franz) 14 Album d'un Voyageur, S.156 (Liszt, Franz) 15 Songs (Liszt, Franz) 16 LISZT TONE POEMS 17 Ungarischer Sturmmarsch 18 Symphonic Poems 19 Looking for Liszt's Magyar Dalok No. 12! 20 Joplin 21 trading 22 AVE MARIS STELLA 23 Two things 24 Please delete one wrong composer 25 verified tag 26 Copyright review 27 Redirect deletion 28 Harmonies Poétiques et Religieuses, first version, S.154 (Liszt, Franz)

Totentanz S.525 deleted

Hi Funper! I had to delete Liszt S.525 Totentanz because someone e-mailed me and told me that the edition is from the Neue Liszt Ausgabe, and that particular volume was published in 1982. Even though it is a scientific edition (and thus protected for only publication+25 years), it would be protected by German copyright until the end of 2007; it is only in 2008 that the edition falls into the public domain in Germany, and by extension, Canada and all countries implementing the Berne Rule of the Shorter Term. --Feldmahler 10:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

So when can I upload it according to Canadian laws? --Funper 19:29, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Actually... the deletion was according to Canadian laws... the file would have been in copyright much longer in the US probably... --Feldmahler 19:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Oki, so I'll upload it the next year then. Ohh... what should I do while I'm waiting? :) --Funper 19:52, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Well... not much for now. I'm personally quite busy, and so I don't have time to start IMSLP projects just yet... --Feldmahler 19:57, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Regarding deletion

Hi Funper! It might be a good idea to never delete unless absolutely necessary... this is because deleting and then restoring kills the page history, and even though I and the other admins can see the previous versions, it makes following the changes very hard for other non-admins. In fact, I think it is only necessary to delete empty composer pages (that was created some time ago, so that there is no chance the creator still wants to submit a piece under it) and redirect pages (but never delete redirect pages of pages that are in the Recent Additions list). Thanks! --Feldmahler 18:46, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Haha, most of my deletes are goofs, mistakes. I have almost restored all pages I've deleted, but I'll keep your word in mind :) --Funper 18:51, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Next time make sure you see the redirect page itself before clicking delete :) --Feldmahler 18:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)

I always try to. --Funper 18:56, 3 March 2007 (EST)

 :) --Feldmahler 20:59, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Batch Edits

Hi again Funper! Just a little suggestion... it might be a good idea to make batch changes (i.e. change several places per edit) for large pages like the Liszt composition listings. This is because each time you save an edit, the entire thing is saved... for example, the 14 edits you made today on the Liszt page would mean 14x39KB = 546KB used. That's not really a big deal, but if you know you are going to edit multiple places on one page, it might be better to keep off saving until you finish edit it (small things like that can sometimes add up) :) If you are afraid of losing the changes, it might be a good idea to save the page text temporarily to a text file as a backup (or even just edit the text file offline and copy it back in when you are done), instead of saving each edit to IMSLP.

It's nothing major, but just a little tip to save some otherwise unnecessarily used disk space. Of course, if you only want to change one spot, and don't plan on changing anything else on that page for a while you can just save the edit with one change, but if you know you are going to do multiple edits it might be a good idea to group together a few changes. :) Just a friendly tip... --Feldmahler 20:59, 3 March 2007 (EST)

I'll keep that in mind :), besides I have a new piece here which I am unsure about whether it's in public domain or not. I got all confused with the sientific edition issue and all that. Image:Hexameron.pdf --Funper 21:08, 3 March 2007 (EST)

The scientific edition law is only for publications first published in Germany. The law says that all scientific editions (urtext, critical editions, or other editions that is put together by scientific analysis and not editor's preference) only enjoy a copyright term of publication+25 years. This is filtered through to the Canadian copyright law by way of the Berne Rule of the Shorter Term, which says that if a work is in the public domain in the country of origin, it is also public domain in all countries implementing the Rule of the Shorter Term.

The answer to your question about Hexameron is slightly more complicated. Kalmus is not a German publisher (they are based in the US I think), and also they specialize in reprinting. But that it is not to say they don't do their own editions; they do, but they usually reprint. For Hexameron, the first two pages are almost certainly copyrighted in one way or another (logo and intro notes probably added by Kalmus). The rest of the score looks like it is a reprint and thus in the public domain (the engraving looks very old), but I'm not sure since I don't own the score. If you can track down the original publication then you can be sure whether it is in the public domain or not. Another method is that you can ask Carolus (he's very knowledgeable about such things), and if he has time he'll do some research on it (or maybe he already knows). --Feldmahler 21:26, 3 March 2007 (EST)

I am pretty sure that it is a reprint, they wouldn't use such a old engraving in 1974. But if we state that it is a reprint, if a remove those first two pages, will it be shareable here on imslp? --Funper 21:34, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Yup. :) --Feldmahler 21:43, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Image Deletes

Hi Funper! Please do not delete images unless you just uploaded them and found out there is an error. Also, if there is already a submitted copy of a file you are trying to submit, delete your file and not the file that is already submitted.

If there is a valid reason to delete an image, please alert me first before deleting, because I cannot recover deleted files. --Feldmahler 22:00, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Oki. There was no difference between those files, so I thought it didn't matter but I'll delete my own duplicates next time. --Funper 22:03, 3 March 2007 (EST)

The reason I am saying this is because to resubmit a duplicate is to add a needless file to the IMSLP index. Also, page deletes should be used with extreme caution, and not as general purpose functions, and this goes especially with image deletes. This is because IMSLP is a collaborative project, and hence there is a need for other people to see what you are doing. I have myself only used deletion after someone else requested it (and I checked the request), or if it is obvious. --Feldmahler 22:06, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I'll keep that in mind: Delete when it is obvious... --Funper 22:13, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Liszt Index

Thanks, this page is really great. I wanted to make one for Liszt a long time, but didn't have the energy/time (pretty long, huh). I suppose the Klassika page is the main source you used. Because this page should be at wikipedia too. Is this ok for you?

Just one remark, the page should be split because it's really too long.--Peter 05:18, 4 March 2007 (EST)

And a question: why are some pieces in bold, others in italic?

Because I haven't changed them all into italic. :) --Funper 10:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

I liked your idea that you have splited the article, but now parts of the piano works are in the first section and parts of it is in the second section.

If you tried to move all the pianoworks into one whole section and those other works (orchestra, songs etc.) into another it whould be much easier to browse through the list.

Piano works:

• From S. 1-350;
  • 2.5 Pianoforte and Orchestra,
  • 2.7 Pianoforte,
  • 2.8 Pianoforte Four Hands,
  • 2.9 Two Pianofortes,
  • 2.13 Recitations)

• From S. 351-768;
  • 2.2 For Pianoforte and Orchestra,
  • 2.5 For Pianoforte Solo,
  • 2.6 Partitions de Piano, Transcriptions, etc.,
  • 2.7 Pianoforte Duet,
  • 2.8 Two Pianofortes

--Funper 11:13, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Well I found the 350-351 split rather obvious because the two main parts in the Searle index are separated exactly there: 1. Original Works and 2. Transcriptions. If we group by instrumentation, then the whole Searle index is scrambled. Isn't the purpose to give a list ordered by work number? The Searle index on itself is already a thematical catalogue where the works are grouped by instrumentation. It's only divided in the two mentioned parts, to make a clear difference between compositions really by Liszt and the transcriptions. I think that division comes in handy for IMSLP, because often there's confusion where to place all the transcriptions (e.g. the Beethoven symphonies): at the original composer or the transcriber.

So my point would be to follow Searle. If we can't agree, I'll ask the help of the community (via the forum), because I'm not going into an edit war...

Btw, I did the split only for bandwidth and performance reasons. --Peter 11:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Oh in that case it would be helpful if there was an introduction on each of them (e.g. this article contains transciption made by... etc.)

Image information

Hi again Funper! Sorry to be a pain in the rear with all the nitpicking, but hey, your an admin which means you'll have to set a good example for the rest of the contributors :)

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that you need to put as much information about a file as possible when you submit it. For example, I've fixed up your submission of the Toccata and Hexameron. This is very very important for the quality of IMSLP as a whole :) And since you are an admin this means that you have to lead the way :) --Feldmahler 11:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I'll keep that in mind. --Funper 14:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

About the redirect

Just a little note that I've reenabled the redirect for the "Ruins of Athens" page because the Recent Changes list still links to that page. Feel free to re-delete the page once it falls out of the Recent Changes list :) --Feldmahler 23:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

YE'ALL KEEP THAT IN MIND... nitpicking :/ --Funper 18:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

PDF question

That is depending on the program you use for making pdfs. I do not make my scans in pdf, but in Photoshop and save them as images. Then I make a pdf with Adobe Acrobat. You have to select Monochrome CCITT Group 4 as compression level. This gives an outstanding compression, but works only on monochrome images, not on grayscale images! For grayscale, JPEG or JPEG2000 work good.--Peter 09:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll try it out after I've finished a List of compositions by Carl Maria von Weber. --Funper 10:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Liszt Catalogue

Hi Funper, you are right, from now on I will take out the space. Curiouss, by chance do you have Ad nos ad salutarem undam for organ? I'm trying to find that score! Cheers nachoBA

I have that score, but it is in very low quality (it is barely readable). However, I'll upload it after some tuning. --Funper 18:30, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Deletion of parts

Hi Funper! Please do not delete files of separate pieces which have already been submitted. This is because deleting the files does no good to the IMSLP library (they are still theoretically submitted), and people may want the separate files. The exception is when there are an obnoxious amount of these separate files, but this is not the case here since there was only 2 files. Thanks! --Feldmahler 17:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't agree that people prefer separate files, especially if the piece was not meant to be splitted. If you'll take a look at the other Liszt etudes you'll notice that none of them are separate, neather were they published as separate, not even during Liszt's lifetime. --Funper 18:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

This may indeed be true, but IMSLP runs more on pragmaticism than idealism :) I agree with you, but it still stands that there may be people who would want separate files, unless none of the etudes can be played on its own? But regardless, I'll agree with you moving your file to the top of the page. --Feldmahler 18:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Coincidence

Hey weird coincidence! While you were uploading Napoli e Venezia Supplement of Annees, I was uploading the same. So there's a duplicated entry that should be fixed!!! This is incredible....cheers. nachoBA

Wow indeed! I ended up deleting your duplicate NachoBA because it was submitted second (and Funper's had a better file name ^^). --Feldmahler 21:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Incredible, by the way... I'm optimizing 'Ad nos salutarem undam' right now, I'll be uploading it soon. By the way, when you upload pieces on Liszt, please include name, title and opus in filename (e.g. Liszt_-_Hungarian_Rhapsody_No2_S244.pdf). It makes it easier to understand the context of the file.

Between, now that I'm uploading 'Ad nos salutarem undam', do you by chance have 'Trauermarsch und Trauervorspiel, S.206'? I've tried to find that score for ages. --Funper 21:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for uploading Ad nos!! I really wanted to take a look at this work, at first inspection seems to be really difficult to play (given my organ technique). I will check in the library of my university if they S.206

Cheers/nachoBA

Thanks --Funper 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, good you finaly found it. Be aware that that edition is not PD. It's the same that is in the library I mentioned to you. nachoBA.

i'll look into that... apperently it is z.6217, volume 12, which i don't know when published... but anyway i'll look into that, it might be a seintific edition. --Funper 12:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

it is PD, apperently that particular volume was published in 1980, which means that it feel into pulic domain 2005 (1980+25=2005). --Funper 12:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

by the way, i uploaded a new piece by liszt, 'prelude and fugue over the theme bach' for organ. maybe you want to take a look at that since it is for organ? --Funper 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh! then great to hear that!! Another question, do you have any more of Liszt's organ works? they are: Fantasia and Choral on Ad nos ad salutarem undam (which you kindly uploaded), the praeludium and fugue on BACH, a Misa Pro organo, the Weinem, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Variationnen), and Consolation for organ. These works were adapted from the corresponding piano version (except for ad nos, and the Misa Pro Organo). It would be great to have them. I think I can get the praeludium and fugue on BACH. Best regards / nachoBA

i downloaded a bunch of liszt scores from dc++ last night, i will search my scores and see if there are any organ works. --Funper 12:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

CD Sheet Music

Hi funper, you recently added a lot of scans by CD Sheet Music. Although you removed to logo (which is very good), I'm not sure if we should mention the company's name as the scanner. I launched a topic about this on the forum for discussion with our copyright experts... Cheers, Peter 05:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHA not mention! :) did you know that every title of every piece in those cds are handmade by CDSM? they WILL eventually find out that we are using their PD scores :P --Funper 16:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I think they already know :) The point Peter was bringing up is the fact that the phrase "CD Sheet Music"(tm) is trademarked, and by using it we risk potential trademark lawsuits. It shouldn't happen according to my scant knowledge of trademark law (since we are not claiming we are CDSM or anything), but there may be pitfalls and traps which CDSM might be able to use against IMSLP. That is why we are being careful :) --Feldmahler 18:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

P.S. There was actually a lawsuit where the John Cage estate sued some guy who produced an album with a silent track, and who credited the composition of the track to himself and John Cage (the duration wasn't 4'33" so it wasn't the actual Cage composition). The Cage estate actually won the suit, and the verdict was that if the guy hadn't attributed the track (in part) to John Cage, then the Cage estate would have had no case. I know... but copyright law (and IP law in general) is perverted like that :P --Feldmahler 18:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Well it is sick I tell you! Just place your server on Iranian territory, and we will all be free from those sick copyright laws! --Funper 18:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Hahahaha you joker ;) Also, just a correction: the Cage estate didn't win, but they (Edition Peters) settled with the defendant Mike Butt out of court for a 6-digit sum of money (see this). --Feldmahler 18:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

What a stupid arse! If Matt only leaved out Cage as co-writer none of that would ever happened, but I see your point. Yes, the copyright laws are perverted (that is why we don't have any in Iran) :) --Funper 18:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Beethoven's 9th Symphony, 2-piano, S.657 (Liszt, Franz)

Missing pages: 58,59,86

Indeed, those pages were left out in the file I found from DC++. Probably a miss from scaning. --Funper 20:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I have found an alternative edition with those missing pages. I'll upload it. --Funper 15:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

And there you have it...! --Funper 19:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, but this version is not by Liszt!!!

What?! --Funper 09:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Album d'un Voyageur, S.156 (Liszt, Franz)

Here is error. Das ist falsch!

(Erste Buch ist dasselbe wie zweite!)

Book I=Book II

ALBUM D'UN VOYAGEUR, S156 [1834-1838]

Book I Impressions et poesies

[1] Lyon

[2a] Le Lac de Wallenstadt (1st version)

[2b] Au bord d'une source (1st version)

[3] Les cloches de G***** (1st version)

[4] Vallee d'Obermann (1st version)

[5] La chapelle de Guillaume Tell (1st version)

[6] Psaume

Sorry, my English ist poor. I can speak Germany.

Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you mean that Book I is the same as Book II? (Book I=Book II?) --Funper 10:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OH MY.. They are the same! Book 1 and 2! I will remove it quickly... --Funper 10:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Now ist gut. Have you I Book Impressions et Poesies???

No (nein), I will search (süche) for Book I. --Funper 11:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Songs (Liszt, Franz)

• Song, Angiolin dal biondo crin, S.269 - 2nd version
• Song, Comment disaient-ils, S.276 - 2nd version
• Song, Der du von dem Himmel bist, S.279 - 2nd version ?? (3rd is in E-dur)
• Song, Die Lorelei, S.273 - 2nd version
• Song, Enfant si j'etais roi, S.283 - 2nd version
• Song, Es war ein König in Thule, S.278 - 2nd version
• Song, Im Rhein, S.272 - 2nd version
• Song, Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher, S.293 - 2nd version
• Song, Mignons Lied, S.275 - 3rd version
• Song, O quand je dors, S.282 - 2nd version
• Song, S'il est un charmant gazon, S.284 - 2nd version
• Song, Three Petrarch Sonnets, S.270 - 1st version
• Song, Vergiftet sind meine lieder, S.289 - 2nd version
• Song, Was liebe sei, S.288 - 2nd version
• Song, Wer nie sein Brot mit Tränen ass, S.297 - 2nd version

Great! How did you find out the versions? Is there a site for this?

You left out two song.. But I would be glad to find out the version of these if you tell be how :)

• Song, Es rauschen die Winde, S.294 - 2nd version
• Song, Morgens steh ich auf und frage, S.290 - 1st version

--Funper 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I know what's what. I am pianist and composer. I'm very interested in Liszt (Lisztmaniac). I know many works by Liszt

I'm also into Liszt, as you can see I have almost only submitted Liszt scores. By the way, do you have any scores by Liszt and do you know where to find his scores? --Funper 12:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Give me yours e-mail. This is my thomaskami@interia.pl

Great, I'll send you an email. --Funper 12:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Your E-mail doesn't work. --Funper 12:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

 ??? thomaskami@interia.pl

I have sent a new email. --Funper 14:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

........................................................................................

LISZT TONE POEMS

Mhurshell here, hi Funper! THANKS for putting up those 4 hand versions of Liszt Tone Poems! Are you planning to upload any more...? I am thinking of Tasso, Mazeppa and Hunnenschlacht in particular. In any case, these works (I mean the whole tone poem series) are among the most underrated compositions of the 19th century, and I'm happy to see someone going to bat for them. Good show! mhurshell, 14:40, 06 April 2007

i am uploading as many as i can find from dc++, currently i think i have three more to upload. --Funper 09:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Ungarischer Sturmmarsch

Hey Funper, I went to the library to get the Ungarischer Sturmmarsch, and the first four pages were there, but the rest was missing!! It was an error in the publication. The volume was published in 1982, so it wouldn't have been PD in any case. Anything else you need? And what about my reward? ;) --Goldberg988 18:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I am working on a connection between my computers, the other one is a win98 so apperently it is a little bit different between win98 and xp. i think i will be able to upload your reward before monday, then i will give you a link. you did not find Ungarischer Sturmmarsch? well i was very keen on that, but if you have Les Preludes S.511a (solo piano transcription) i would be glad if you could send it. one other thing, this whole thing is between us so PD or not does not really matter that much ;) --Funper 19:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Symphonic Poems

Maybe it is a good idea to put the piano reductions of the Liszt Symphonic Poems under the "Symphonic Poem" category? This way it'd work much nicer with the subcategories; plus people would realize from the page title what it is anyway :) --Feldmahler 00:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Since the transcriptions are indeed called "Symphonic Poem" they should be added to that category. So yes, it would be a good idea to put them there since they match the criterias. Now put the pieces in the category :) --Funper 09:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking for Liszt's Magyar Dalok No. 12!

Dear Funper,

Thank you so much for sharing Magyar Dalok 1-11. I have been looking for numbers 9 and 12 for months, it is so hard to find! If you have number 12, I would really appreciate it if you would share that also.

Thank you so much!

Deniz Kurtel

they are really hard to find.. no, still no results from searching. --Funper 15:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Joplin

Hi Funper! Nice work with the Joplin files and list! --Emeraldimp 19:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. --Funper 19:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

trading

IMSLP is NO trading forum. Your comment on your user page is against IMSLP's policy and free spirit, something an admin should know. Please remove this from your user page. Peter 06:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

How embarising. Were is this policy? I want to read it. --Funper 06:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Between, do you know how to add metanames in article pages? I want Fünf Klavierstücke to be in the K-section. --Funper 06:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I've added German numbers up to 9 to the sort key generator, so now it should be sorted correctly. --Feldmahler 11:24, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. You don't have to read it. A spirit is something that's between the lines. Ok, this is the second sentence of the homepage: IMSLP attempts to create a virtual library containing all public domain musical scores, as well as scores from composers who are willing to share their music with the world without charge.
2. [1] read this for sort keys.
3. And please, please, please add the right copyright tags to your submissions (Fünf Klavierstücke, S.192 (Liszt, Franz)). Also started a discussion in the forum about this.
4. Are you really a retired musicologist?

Enjoy the weekend --Peter 10:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Please put the Urtext-template of yours in "Special:AddFile" if you want me to use it, and please, please, please my submissions are allways missing your tags, and I would really love to use them. Thanks for the link, between, since we are asking eachother unreasonable questions: are you trying to lecture me? A spirit is something that's between the lines? Yeah, and meat is something that is between a sandwich... --Funper 11:15, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok... first rule: no arguing in bad blood between admins. Both of you go cool it for a few days and come back :)

About the two things in contestion:

1. Peter does not have control over the special page, so he can't add the urtext template, though one of the reasons I also didn't put it there is because I thought it was easier for people just to type {{Urtext}} in the "Misc. Notes" box.
2. I do not mind if you offer awards for people uploading pieces you want onto IMSLP, but if this trading is completely IMSLP independent it is probably not a good idea to do that on IMSLP :) I think here is just a misunderstanding between you and Peter about what you meant by "trading". I know you've offered awards in the past for stuff on the wishlist which got into IMSLP, which is fine by me. :)

In any case, you both go cool it :) And next time argue nicer haha --Feldmahler 11:24, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

There shouldn't be any missunderstandings now. See userpage. --Funper 13:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. concerning the typesets: are you sure typesetting a copyrighted edition devoids it from copyright? Peter _talk 06:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

If all editorial stuff is removed, then yes. --Funper 07:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Since it is a scholary edition (NLA, replicating Liszt's instructives etc?) shouldn't there be any problem typesetting from it, or? correct me if I am wrong, I don't know really. --Funper 16:38, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

AVE MARIS STELLA

Do you maybe have AVE MARIS STELLA for solo piano from Liszt ??? I've been looking it in my whole country and nothing (S 506)

You should try the wishlist.. I don't have it, but I can search for it. --Funper 15:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Two things

Hi Funper! I think it may be a good idea to not move entries around on work pages unless absolutely necessary; it will make things harder to find if there are many entries on the page (since they'd not be ordered correctly after moving). Don't try to "fix" (or "un-move") what has already been moved (that'd be mostly pointless too, and make the server work unnecessarily hard), but don't move any more entries :) It helps the server, and saves you work at the same time ;) --Feldmahler 18:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

When is it "absolutely necessary" then? --Funper 11:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

When files that should be grouped together are separated, or when there is a special occasion (i.e. featured score). :) --Feldmahler 12:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Please delete one wrong composer

Hi Funper, I want to change the copygight to personal and and I added a composer Jiří Fiedler and I have set up the ,,personal status. Please delete composer ,,Jiri Fiedler because ti exist without sense-I have dleted all files and so on. Thank you,

Jiří Fiedler

verified tag

Hello Funper,

Just want to make something clear, but this applies to you only if you use the copyright status tags. I saw that some tags were used on your liszt submissions with some errors, but I couldn't see who of the admins changed the tag...Don't be mad if I'm at the wrong address. The tag verified is reserved for publications that are very precisely identified and of which we can be sure that they are in public domain. in Wanderer Fantasy, by Schubert, Solo Piano, S.565a (Liszt, Franz) we only know it's from cotta but not when it was published, and in Soirees of Vienna, by Schubert, S.427 (Liszt, Franz) you (or someone else) gave as reason "from SMA". If we're not sure, but we think (or hope) it's in PD, then the tag Checked is used.

These tags were agreed on in the forum, but we didn't communicate the use on IMSLP. I have changed the explanation text on the tagging page and I hope that it's clear enough now.

Btw, I have identified the Soiree via JUILCAT to be a Peters edition by Von Sauer.

See you, Peter _talk 17:01, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Copyright review

Hi Funper, I'm not sure if i understood clearly what did you want from me to do. I've written that all my works are not protected by public domain.Is that enough or I might do something else?Thanks for the patience,

Jiří Fiedler

This is enough... and the request was from me and not Funper :) --Feldmahler 04:51, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Redirect deletion

Hello Funper, I'd suggest that we avoid deleting redirects if possible, since they could be linked from external sites. Exceptions are very recent pages and redirects to policy pages and the like, since in both cases it is unlikely that there are links from outside. --Leonard Vertighel 16:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Harmonies Poétiques et Religieuses, first version, S.154 (Liszt, Franz)

Homepage of http://www.classical-sheet-music.eu/, bottom line: You are not allowed to republish any materials of this site on other sites. Peter _talk 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

PD? --Funper 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Well it's indeed PD... So they can't claim copyright. But I don't know what our policy is in these cases where they ask politely not to redistribute. It's different from e.g. WIMA where there is an authorship - scanning does not produce authorship. I'll copy this to the forum. Cheers Peter _talk 14:18, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Well if scanning can't produce authorship, the simple solution would be to ignore classical-sheet-music.eu, as we do with "Widely available source" and all those others.. --Funper 14:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

As per my response in the forum topic, the official policy of IMSLP is: the file is allowed on IMSLP and will not be deleted as long as there is no copyright infringement. The reason for this I detailed in my response in the forum :) This applies to all files, regardless of source (I don't think we have a "widely available source" rule? At least not that I know of). Of course, whether you choose to submit it or not is your freedom, but it is very much permitted should you choose to do so, and the file will not be removed unless there is copyright infringement in some other fashion (i.e. besides the scanning). :) --Feldmahler 14:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Widely available source is concerning CDSM. There was a forum topic a while ago about it. Peter _talk 14:39, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought, but I think I may have misunderstood Funper when he said "ignore"... I thought he meant ban, but I now think he meant "ignore their opinions". So its fine now :) --Feldmahler2 16:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)