User talk:Martin Lohse

Talkpage Martin Lohse Please leave messages here.

Lohse, Martin
You made this page: Music Theory/Lohse, Martin in the book music theory, but then you made pages such as Lohse, Martin/Short biography under a nonexistent book titled Lohse, Martin. Should they be in the Music Theory book instead, making the aforementioned page Music Theory/Lohse, Martin/Short biography? If so, I can correct this. If not, then Music Theory/Lohse, Martin should be moved to Lohse, Martin so the pages have a root page. Please let me know. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment! I've been in doubth where to put the book, can you please move the book from music theory to Lohse, Martin? Best regards Martin Lohse (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC).


 * It's taken care of now. I also added category code to the book template to categorize the pages in Category:Lohse, Martin and added the book to Category:Music theory so that it can be found by people browsing the books. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Please remember that we do not allow original research on Wikibooks. Any information you add to the book about you must be verified with reliable sources, e.g. newspapers that interview you, books written about you, etc. I am not implying that your book contains excessive original research, but only trying to remind you that such information is not allowed, as you have a conflict of interest. Thanks for reading this comment, Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rights change
You can now upload files via Special:Upload. Please be sure to add information to indicate authorship and non-free media rationale to them to justify their status as fair use. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lohse, Martin
Hi. Based on my interpretation of Wikibooks site policy, I believe your book Lohse, Martin in its current form is, unfortunately, in violation of WB:HOST. This is a heads-up that I'm going to bring the question to the community, for opinions from more people here and a collective decision one way or another. The vehicle for that is a nomination for deletion. The outcome isn't necessarily as simple as just "keep" or "delete"; even when it's agreed that there's a problem, there are various ways that might be chosen to reasonably resolve it. Sometimes, yes, a book is simply deleted, flat out; but, for example, it might be decided that a book can be kept if its changed in some way, a book could be merged into another book, or transwikied to another WMF project, or the author can be given some time to move the material to another host. You'll be invited to participate in that discussion by the standard rfd warning tag, which I'll be adding here in a little while, when I've got the procedure underway. I wanted to leave you a personal note here first, though, rather than just nominate it for deletion and let the standard tag be the first you heard of it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've been studying the WB:HOST, and I agree, in a strict sense it violate the paragraph of not publishing original research, there is text in the book which has never been published before. On the other hand most of the material in the book has been published in newspapers, radio programs, music articles and program notes for the scores, and the book is an attempt to collect all the different material in one place. We are very few who contributes to the book, and the main purpose of my contribution is to illustrate the text with scores and sound samples, which needs to be given the right license etc. Martin Lohse (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Relevance of the book: An important tool in a composers development is the study of contemporary techniques of other composer, for inspiration or rejection, which makes a few but dedicated readers to the book. Martin Lohse (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * Even if you are probably following the request for deletion discussion on the Lohse, Martin book I felt it was adequate to leave you a note anyway. While I do believe the book falls within project scope, requiring only some adjustments of tone and approach, a superior alternative (in my humble opinion) for preserving the contents was proposed - namely, moving it to Wikiversity. Wikiversity projects are more open-ended than Wikibooks ones, both in terms of structure (the projects do not necessarily have to look like a book) and contents (what we usually call "original research" is admissible there if done consistently and transparently). That would mean less trouble you and the other co-authors, which wouldn't have to fight against the restrictions the Wikibooks project scope imposes on your vision, and also allow for more interaction between readers and writers.


 * I invite you to share your feelings about the possibility of the move. I am no admin or experienced editor, but if the transwiki process gets agreed upon people will certainly be willing to help with any technical details. Regards, --Duplode (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)