User talk:Leonard Vertighel

Free public domain sheet music from IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library

Contents 1 Archive? 2 Otherlangs 3 siae 4 Supertchan 5 Special:NewPages 6 Auflistung bei Category:Composers 7 E-mail 8 Canceling account 9 Search facility 10 Paul Graener 11 Help with the Help stuff 12 New Programmer Portal 13 File download counts

Archive?

Don't you want to preserve your discussions as is standard? What's up?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherlangs

Hmm, I saw you removed the comment for turkish in OtherLangs:Mainpage, but when I try this with the other newly added languages, it's messed up, displaying the links in red on the page body. do you know how to correct this?--Peter _talk 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't, I uncommented Polish in OtherLangs:Main Page. That one worked all along, I had only commented it out because you had removed the previous outdated Polish translation. Now we have an updated Polish translation, so I restored the link.

I'm sorry but I have no idea why the other links don't work. --Leonard Vertighel 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks Ed should have an idea.--Peter _talk 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

siae

Ciao, volevo un informazione: mi piacerebbe caricare delle mie composizioni, ma che licenza va usata se i miei pezzi sono depositati alla SIAE?
Puoi anche rispondermi su wikipedia :-) ciao, ^musaz 23:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Non ne ho idea, spiacente. Puoi provare a chiedere nei forum se c'è qualcuno che abbia esperienza in materia. Altrimenti dovrai rivolgerti direttamente alla SIAE. Suppongo (ma questo va verificato!) che l'unica licenza possibile sia quella "performance restricted", dato che dal momento in cui aderisci alla SIAE sono loro a gestire i diritti di esecuzione, per cui tu neanche volendo avesti il diritto di permettere l'esecuzione delle tue opere senza interpellare la SIAE. --Leonard Vertighel 05:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, grazie! ^musaz 08:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Supertchan

Should probably become a translator.-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:NewPages

Hallo Leonard, kann man die maximale Seitenanzahl auch tatsächlich auf 500 zu erhöhen, so wie es oben/unten angegeben ist? Manchmal werden vielleicht ca. 200 Seiten angezeigt, manchmal auch viel weniger. Orientiert sich diese Spezialseite an einer Datumsdifferenz anstatt einer Anzahl? Es wäre schön, wenn man da um einiges weiter zurückgehen könnte, nicht nur ein paar wenige Tage.
Eine weitere Sache: ist es möglich, eine Spezialseite zu machen, die leere Werkseiten auflistet? Das würde die Wartung von Seiten erleichtern. Momentan spüre ich die immer über Special:ShortPages auf. Aber in dieser Auflistung sind natürlich noch jede Menge anderer Seiten mit dabei. Hobbypianist 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviel ich weiß, sind unter NewPages nur die neuen Seiten der letzten 7 Tage aufgelistet, und ich befürchte, dass sich das nicht ohne weiteres ändern lässt. Eine Liste leerer Werkseiten wäre in der Tat praktisch, ist aber leider auch nicht leicht zu realisieren, da die Information nicht direkt aus der Datenbank auszulesen ist. Wenn ich irgendwann dazukomme, sehe ich mir an, ob sich da was machen lässt. Momentan habe ich dafür aber leider keine Zeit. --Leonard Vertighel 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Auflistung bei Category:Composers

Hi Leonard, kannst du mal bitte hier schauen und evtl. deinen Kommentar als Programmier-Experte dazu geben. Bei der Auflistung wurden zusätzliche Einträge hinzugefügt, die aber optisch einfach unschön aussahen und halt bezgl. des 2. Buchstabens irgendwie zufällig gewählt waren. Mich hats ehrlich gesagt auch erstmal etwas irritiert. Ich weiß, daß du momentan keine Zeit hast, aber vielleicht gibts ja grundsätzlich eine elegantere Lösung wie man das mal in Zukunft ändern könnte. Gruß, Hobbypianist 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I received your e-mail; see my post in the Moderator forum. --Feldmahler 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Canceling account

Hi, Leonard. Due to technical pronlems I'll have to ask to have my account removed. Thanks! Tobeor

It is not possible to delete user accounts. If you have posted private information on this wiki which you wish to remove, please let me know exactly on which page(s), so I can remove it. The account itself however will remain. --Leonard Vertighel 17:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just have to stop using it, I guess. -Tobeor

Search facility

Hello Leonard. Would it be possible to devise a search form that would allow users to search multiple fields from the information template simultaneously, and produce a hyperlinked list of works that fulfil all the criteria?

The fields in question are:

• Composer
• Title
• Category (which will replace "Meta-Genre" under the new system)
• Work Type (to replace "Genre")
• Piece Style
• Instrumentation

... such that users could specify combinations of terms like:

• Composer=Beethoven AND Work Type=Overtures
• Category=Concerertante AND Instrumentation=Violin solo
• Category=Choral AND Piece Style=Classical AND Piece Style=Motet

Is this technically feasible? Break it to me gently  :-) — P.davydov 13:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Graener

Can Category:Paul Graener be easily undeleted on IMSLP as I believe would be the case on Wikipedia, say? I believe you wrote that the problem was that it was empty, and that can now be fixed quickly, since there are two pieces by him on Sibley that can be mirrored... Thank you for your time anycase! Eric 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Graener, Paul has been restored. --Leonard Vertighel 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with the Help stuff

In case you haven't seen it because you were away (or any other reason): [1] Let me know :) -jujimufu 11:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New Programmer Portal

Hi Leonard,

I got your e-mails about the translation system. It would be nice if you can redirect all future programming questions (except security-related) to the Programmer Portal I just created, so that it can be archived for future programmers as well (and other programmers can participate in the discussion; think Mediawiki.org). Plus, that way I can read the discussion even when I'm not in front of my computer but someone elses.

Anyhow, my answer to your questions is on the programmer portal.

--Feldmahler 16:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File download counts

Hi Leonard, I don't know if you noticed my question from the other day on the forum, but the head of CCARH (whose scores we have a number of) wanted to know if we could let her know how many of each item had been downloaded. Is there any way we can track this? I was also wondering how much of our daily download count was being generated by bots from places like SMA. If such activity is significant, I wonder about changing the copyright disclaimer to a captcha-type thing were the downloader would actually have to respond. Thanks, Carolus 07:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that from the data I have access to I can't tell download counts. Maybe Feldmahler could extrapolate something from the full server logs, but I guess that's not a priority at present.

As far as bot activity is concerned, I agree with Feldmahler: captcha systems are very cumbersome for the users, and determined bot owners can still circumvent them. If copyright is a concern, then maybe we should recommend that copyrighted scores always contain an appropriate notice directly in the PDF file. --Leonard Vertighel 07:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to implement a file download counter for each file requires a little bit of coding. Retrospectively it is pretty much impossible to tell the number of downloads from the very beginning, as I only keep logs for 1 month as a matter of policy. But looking forward, implementing it is not all that difficult (just change the SQL schema and add a counter to the download handling code).

The problem with having a captcha system on the disclaimer is that, with the current implementation, there is absolutely no difference insofar as the bot is concerned (both set a cookie on the user side, so the captcha only makes real users' life difficult at no hindrance at all to bot owners). The only way to make the captcha system work is to require it for every single download, so that there are no loopholes, but I have doubts that the virtue of such an arrangement offsets the vice to any significant degree (it will likely have an effect on casual duplication, but it probably would not deter SMA-type committed duplicators which are who we really want to block). Plus, we do not have any capacity problems with regards to bandwidth, so it doesn't benefit us from a monetary perspective anyway.

If you have any concerns about legal aspects regarding this duplication, please call me and we can talk more in depth... --Feldmahler 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. My main hope was that there would be an easy way to make life more difficult for bots - not users. SMA and company do not seem to be particularly concerned about maintaining attribution, which is one of the few actual requirements common to all flavors of the CC license. My chief concern not so much that they duplicate our efforts here, but the fact that this duplication may discourage new composers from adding their works here. Jujimufu has apparently contacted a number of new composers who also have items over at LoadCD, and they've been uploading their own scores here recently - a nice development IMO. If possible, I do not wish them to become discouraged due to constant bot-mining by SMA and his pals. Carolus 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggested recommending that composers add an appropriate notice directly in the PDF. It seems to me that for example at Mutopia this is common practice. This way, attribution is automatically preserved (unless the PDF is edited, which usually is not the case). This would also largely solve the attribution issue in the case of manual copying - after all, the problem is not specific to bots. --Leonard Vertighel 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that this might be what you were worried about Carolus. I've thought about this, but concluded that it is something composers must come to account with. IMSLP can only be an ineffective placenta at best; I would rather that composers understand what it means to put their music online (not that people won't duplicate it even if it is not online). I agree with Leonard, and think that it is probably better that the composers learn themselves how to protect their works if they want to do so, rather than having to burden the average user with things that they really shouldn't be burdened with...

Just my 2 cents. --Feldmahler 17:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)