706:
justifies my writing in meeting the standards of the encyclopedia. Is it unacceptable for someone associated with the inventor and his work to be able to edit specifically concerning this factual recorded and published important work and its inventor? Please excuse me for taking much space in “text” and “gallery” Kb’s, but it is necessary to support my case for non-deletion of the article. Please find below .jpg format information of the
English publication of the “Mathematic model of the Guitar” by DAS MUSIKINSTRUMENT. I prepared this exclusively for the “discussion page” (and not the article since the article is tagged for deletion): a) a summary, b) full readable pages and the magazine front cover, c) a .jpeg showing all the pages and the front cover of the magazine grouped together and d) Mr. Jose Ramirez’s dedication to this specific work of the inventor. All these are recorded facts and what seems difficult for me to understand is what is really more “obscure” as one-editor remarks concerning my article. Is it my writing of the article or is it really the ignorance itself that one guitarist or many aficionados of the guitar, might today possess (year 2007) (as already expressed by the editor himself) on a subject so closely interrelated with mathematics, guitar making, acoustics etc.; even so, when this subject has been internationally presented in an international exhibition: MUSIK MESSE (Frankfurt-Germany, 1983), at the College of Furniture in England (1983), at seminars to English luthiers and guitarists (1983), published by an international magazine in English and German (1984) and received publicity by the international press conference where it was presented (MUSIK-MESSE, 1983) and also received such a recognition from Mr. Jose Ramirez (April 8, 1983), all of these happening 24 years ago (year 1983)? I have posed a question; it is up to the kind editor who remarked about my “obscure” article to answer if he wishes. It would be helpful I believe for all people in the discussion to realize what exactly would end up to be more “obscure”, in the end of this discussion, no matter what your respectable final decision for deletion or not will be. Many of the editors have never heard of this work and this is natural. This happens in many if not in all of the situations for any work in any field. However, many guitar makers have made their work better by using and applying this mathematic model in their guitar making and work, because they have read about it and because it certainly possesses many acoustic functions. From the first page of the published work which I have uploaded for you one can read: …At the press conference given by the author (Musik Messe, February 1983) Mr. Jose Ramirez stated: “This prospect here presented, has all the traditional measurements and proportions of Torres. It is the starting point and the basis, which leads to the ideal guitar. The way though to the ideal guitar is through this basis». Therefore, the question arises: what is the real scope and prospect of an encyclopedia? Is it not to record specific important works and facts, which have been proven helpful to science, to the arts, to tradition, that provide concrete new information to specialized with the subject people and also to make these facts known to the rest of the world, specifically to those people that had not as yet the opportunity to learn about them? This was the intention behind the writing of this article and the facts that support my case can easily prove this. If you delete the article, all of your editors will have become richer in knowledge and experience from the information I supplied specifically only to you and then you will have deleted this knowledge from the rest of the readers of the encyclopedia. You really think that the loser will end up being the inventor of the work or the writer of this article? Please allow me to humbly say: I do not think so. Of course, the article can be deleted; this though will not delete the historic facts. These remain calm and relaxed in their presence. I recommend non-deletion of the article and also to give me the permission to enrich it with only limited informational facts, which will in my opinion, upgrade wikipedia’s offer to its readers. Whatever your decision will be in the end of this discussion, Best regards, Thank you.
383:
MUSIKINSTRUMENT" in 1984 and also he presented for five days this work at the international music exhibition: "MUSIK MESSE" in
Frankfurt, Germany, in 1983. He also gave a press conference in the events of the exhibition where Jose Ramirez who was present confirmed that this work is mainly scientific and it is directly connected with the tradition of guitar construction, possessing mathematic constructional data useful for the acoustic behavior of any guitar. The inventor also gave seminars concerning this work to respected teachers and students at the "College of Furniture" in London in 1983 and also gave a seminar to more than 80 luthiers and guitarists of England, invited by George Clinton of "GUITAR" magazine. Jose Ramirez has also written a critic note as a dedication to the inventor and his work. All these are facts and your editors can check them out. My answer to your editors remarks that they never heard of this work is exactly this: just because one has never heard of an important event concerning his own work does not mean that the event did not take place". Any time I can supply you with recorded, published data concerning all the above, if you eventually decide not to delete the article. It will be a pleasure for me to receive the feedback of your editors on the matter. Thank you for your time and remarks.
411:
and as required by the
Encyclopedia's standards within the specific scope of the subject, everything which I wrote was deleted from the article "guitar". The general impression I get is that there is a lot of confusion on a very clear cut matter. Furthermore, I had also written an article entitled "Yorgos Kertsopoulos" and in this article iI was very clear cut and bold defining that this person is the inventor of the "mathematical model of the guitar". Also this article was deleted by your team and as an outcome this specific name is recorded as continuous "stubs" by your computerized system, something which is not nice to happen for a specific name which has a recorded history of specific factual donations to public knowledge.Your editor Siva 1979 remarks and criticizes as unremarkable a work which has gained international acclaim and recognition already since 1983.If you do not want me to write any more information either for this work or the inventor I would appreciate it if you could boldly inform me because my only intention is to support with my efforts the general information and communication of knowledge through your very respectable encyclopedia. I am not in any sense trying to promote a promoter. It is out of my intentions. Thank you
732:
it was specified that they are exclusively for the encyclopedia readers and they were uploaded and linked to this specific discussion page and not to the article? How can an editor support the case for non-deletion of an article if the material which supports and proves the correctness of the case is deleted? Isn't there any editor who can see that at least in my case you have not provided a fair play in a just discussion? That is the least that should be able to be provided on such a matter. Under such conditions I would vote myself dear editors, for the deletion of the article. Again and lastly, Best regards and thank you for your attention and time.
448:. Since Smith is, himself, an accomplished guitarist, it is hardly surprising that he has paid special attention to the study of that instrument. The point is, there is a great deal to be said about physics and mathematical models of the guitar, but we see no evidence of such knowledge in this stub; if we did, it should be merged. --
657:
I think you people ought to seriously consider the possibility that Yorgos
Kertsopoulos and the writer of the article, Blaziki, are one and the same person (see how everything added points at Kertsopoulos, the article he wrote about himself has already been deleted). Check out the contribution dates
410:
In answer to your further thoughts dear editor, I would like to inform you that I had written this exact information of the article in the article which you propose "guitar" and specifically under the section "Neck". As you can easily check this out although I was very specific, bold and informative
382:
The article "mathematic model of the guitar" which I wrote and has been proposed for deletion is referring to an international matter where the inventor published this work In
English and German bearing the title "The Physics of the Guitar" in a recognized and music orientated German magazine: "DAS
352:. I agree this is an A7. It could have been speedy deleted, but the nominator was unsure and looked for other opinions at AfD. He is to be commended for doing that, rather than criticised. It doesn't really matter whether you call it "speedy" or "snow": there isn't much point in continuing this AfD.
731:
All the .jpg's that were uploaded to this page specifically for supporting the non-deletion of the article were deleted. The question is more than obvious:why? All the editors involved with this specific page cannot view the information which supports this matter. Why were these .jpg's deleted when
555:
Well, certainly that would be the best case scenario(having a good article on this subject). If the current article is improved to the point where it is actually about the mathematics, I am sure the delete votes would go away. However the current article simply isn't encyclopedic. It basically says
744:
Well, take a look at the images' image pages and click the log link. For the most part, they seem to have been deleted because of bad licencing. We have strict restrictions on the use of images in order to avoid legal problems; FU images in deletion debates does not appear to be kosher at all. See
688:
Of course they are the same person. Blazaki rolls up on 12 July and adds links to
Kertsopoulus videos on youtube, Kertsopoulus thesis (subject above), inserts photos of Kertsopoulus , writes an article on Kertsopoulus. Stops editing on 14-16 July and suddenly Kertsopoulus arrives as editor and
705:
The writer of the article is
Blazaki and not the inventor himself as remarked by an editor. Yorgos Kertsopoulos did try to edit at wikipedia and had many deletions of his editing, but that does not mean that he writes as Blazaki. I happen to be an associate of the inventor and this hopefully
689:
carries on the process even going to extent of writing an article on himself playing
Albeniz. These get rightly deleted. Then Blazaki resumes on 17 July and re-inserts the Youtube links to Kertsopoulus performances disguising the fact that they are played by Kertsopoulus . Go figure.
248:
the string length and successively the fret scale are directly connected with all the other dimensions of the instrument, as are the body length, bout and waist widths, soundhole diameter etc. affecting considerably the acoustic resonance output of the constructed
556:
that if you change the way a guitar is made, the sound it produces is different...and apparently there is a mathematical correlation to each type of change. This information alone does not deserve an article and can be found already elsewhere.--
428:", which covers guitar physics. Given the musical interests of many physicists and mathematicians, it is hardly surprising that there is a body of research into stringed instruments, including piano, guitar, and especially the violin. (See
578:
of Erkut. While it is not unheard of for older masterpieces of mathematics, written before their time, to be rediscovered, this stub is very poorly written, and absurdly focused on one work to the exclusion of a long history of research.
523:. The latter article is rather weak, so I'm surprised to see people acting as if it already covers everything. If this gets deleted and if I every learn anything about the theory, I'll restore the article and put specifics into it.
532:
If by "some people" you mean me, I agree that the physics article is weak; the line of research I described is not covered, which is one reason I mentioned it. If you are arguing that a physical model and a mathematical model
392:
My further thoughts are that the author may well know something about the acoustics of guitars, but that still, this is information that belongs to the article about guitars, generally; the paper may well be a valuable
611:
notable. This content would only be notable if its thesis had been the subject of discussion in other independent reliable sources. As it is, this fails the notability criterion. In any case, we have an article
88:
83:
92:
484:
The nom was right not to speedy it, for A7 (non notable) does not apply to books, or to theories, just real people, groups, bands, clubs, companies, and websites. See
258:, the size and shape of a guitar determine the way it sounds. I suspect the paper may go into a bit more detail, but these matters might be more profitably added to the
75:
115:
541:
would emphatically support that claim; but I would still argue that it would be better to augment the physics article than to retain the article in question. --
230:
I don't know much about Wiki policies but in 25 years as a professional guitarist and music teacher this thesis has never come to my attention, it is
677:
One reason to doubt they're the same person is that the article says so little. I'd expect the author of the book to say a lot more than that.
591:
himself is often credited with the discovery of the mathematical relationship between the length of a vibrating string and its pitch.) --
340:
Snow may be inappropriate, speedy is not, as the article does not assert notability, fails A7. I just wanted to make sure with an AfD--
643:
757:
736:
720:
710:
693:
681:
666:
648:
620:
595:
569:
560:
545:
527:
511:
499:
472:
452:
415:
401:
387:
368:
356:
344:
332:
306:
294:
278:
266:
238:
222:
196:
170:
158:
139:
126:
57:
437:
17:
716:"I happen to be an associate of the inventor" - yeah sure. I rest my case. It's up to Wiki if they want to be taken for mugs.
625:
I would have contested a speedy deletion; I think this one should be discussed. I agree with the nominator that it should be
658:
of both editors. I thought there were guidelines in regard to using Wiki for self-promotion and in regard to sock puppetry.
79:
565:
It's not just that there is a mathematical relationship; it's that someone knows what it is and wrote a book about it.
445:
71:
63:
774:
507:
If the article said something specific about the mathematical theory, I doubt we'd see all these "delete" votes.
36:
773:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
147:
This is clearly an unremarkable article. It does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. --
255:
613:
520:
425:
639:
353:
659:
167:
461:
the best thing to do would be to contribute the additional reference to the article just mentioned.
252:
733:
707:
412:
384:
678:
566:
524:
508:
303:
291:
488:
and if anyone want to propose additional criteria , the talk page for that policy is the place.
634:
302:"Snow or speedy" is an inappropriate comment when so little time has passed since nomination.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
754:
750:
557:
365:
341:
329:
275:
123:
717:
690:
663:
235:
205:
179:
574:
The book, whatever its worth, is but one source (uncited). Contrast that with the recent
286:
Possibly this could be developed into something interesting if it actually explained the
429:
219:
53:
495:
468:
154:
746:
538:
394:
149:
109:
617:
519:
Contrary to what some people above assert, this does not appear to overlap with
433:
398:
318:
263:
592:
588:
575:
542:
449:
213:
136:
616:
for dealing with guitar physics already, so a new article is not needed. --
584:
50:
440:
algorithm dealt with the plucking used for guitars. That was elaborated by
364:
The author of this article has commented on the talk page of the article.--
314:
AfD is not necessary for speedy deletions, as one of the templates in the
490:
463:
580:
259:
441:
767:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
397:, but not in itself a good subject for its own article. -
436:, originally at Bell Labs, later at Stanford. Then the
105:
101:
97:
380:. He also commented in the article text. He writes:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
777:). No further edits should be made to this page.
122:A7 I believe... anyway just look at the article
8:
607:: publication of an article does not render
135:- lack of coverage by independent sources
7:
324:family should do. Unless this was a
274:Snow or speedy take your pick ;)--
24:
72:Mathematical model of the guitar
64:Mathematical model of the guitar
438:Karplus-Strong string synthesis
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
424:We already have an article, "
583:'s work is surely relevant;
446:digital waveguide synthesis
432:.) One of the pioneers was
794:
662:06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
629:(useful comment can go to
758:23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
737:21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
721:12:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
711:12:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
694:09:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
682:05:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
667:06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
649:02:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
621:22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
596:20:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
587:is a pivotal figure; and
570:03:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
561:01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
546:04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
528:01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
512:01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
500:00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
473:00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
453:21:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
430:Catgut Acoustical Society
416:20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
402:19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
388:19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
369:19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
357:18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
345:18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
333:18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
307:17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
295:17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
279:15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
267:14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
239:09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
223:03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
197:03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
171:03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
159:02:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
140:02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
127:02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
58:05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
770:Please do not modify it.
272:Comment for random admin
32:Please do not modify it.
312:Comment re:original nom
290:of the proposed model.
631:physics of the guitar
614:physics of the guitar
521:physics of the guitar
426:physics of the guitar
262:article in chief. -
609:the article itself
576:Ph.D. dissertation
718:RichardJ Christie
691:RichardJ Christie
664:RichardJ Christie
647:
246:. We learn that
236:RichardJ Christie
785:
772:
751:Knowledge:Images
637:
323:
317:
216:
210:
194:
188:
184:
157:
152:
113:
95:
34:
793:
792:
788:
787:
786:
784:
783:
782:
781:
775:deletion review
768:
729:
399:Smerdis of Tlön
321:
315:
264:Smerdis of Tlön
218:
214:
206:
190:
186:
180:
150:
148:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
791:
789:
780:
779:
763:
762:
761:
760:
728:
725:
724:
723:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
660:121.72.245.220
652:
651:
623:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
550:
549:
548:
514:
502:
478:
477:
476:
475:
456:
455:
408:
407:
406:
405:
372:
371:
359:
347:
335:
309:
297:
281:
269:
241:
225:
212:
199:
173:
161:
142:
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
790:
778:
776:
771:
765:
764:
759:
756:
752:
748:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
735:
726:
722:
719:
715:
714:
713:
712:
709:
695:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
680:
679:Michael Hardy
676:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
665:
661:
656:
650:
645:
641:
636:
632:
628:
624:
622:
619:
615:
610:
606:
603:
597:
594:
590:
586:
582:
577:
573:
572:
571:
568:
567:Michael Hardy
564:
563:
562:
559:
554:
551:
547:
544:
540:
537:be distinct,
536:
531:
530:
529:
526:
525:Michael Hardy
522:
518:
515:
513:
510:
509:Michael Hardy
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
492:
487:
483:
482:comment on A7
480:
479:
474:
470:
466:
465:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
419:
418:
417:
414:
404:
403:
400:
396:
390:
389:
386:
379:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
367:
363:
360:
358:
355:
351:
348:
346:
343:
339:
336:
334:
331:
327:
320:
313:
310:
308:
305:
304:Michael Hardy
301:
298:
296:
293:
292:Michael Hardy
289:
285:
282:
280:
277:
273:
270:
268:
265:
261:
257:
254:
250:
245:
242:
240:
237:
233:
229:
226:
224:
221:
217:
211:
209:
203:
200:
198:
195:
193:
189:
183:
177:
174:
172:
169:
165:
162:
160:
156:
153:
146:
143:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
55:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
769:
766:
730:
727:Final answer
704:
674:
654:
653:
635:CRGreathouse
630:
626:
608:
604:
552:
539:FM synthesis
534:
516:
504:
489:
485:
481:
462:
442:Julius Smith
421:
409:
391:
381:
377:
361:
354:Geometry guy
349:
337:
325:
311:
299:
287:
283:
271:
247:
243:
231:
227:
207:
201:
191:
185:
181:
175:
163:
144:
132:
121:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
755:Morgan Wick
434:Max Mathews
330:Morgan Wick
168:Harlowraman
166:as per nom
589:Pythagoras
178:per nom.
585:Helmholtz
395:reference
326:contested
284:Weak keep
234:obscure.
232:extremely
204:A7 it is
558:Cronholm
366:Cronholm
342:Cronholm
328:speedy.
276:Cronholm
124:Cronholm
116:View log
734:Blazaki
708:Blazaki
675:Comment
655:Comment
627:deleted
581:Chladni
553:Comment
517:Comment
505:Comment
486:WP:CSD,
444:in his
413:Blazaki
385:Blazaki
378:Comment
362:Comment
338:Comment
300:Comment
288:content
249:guitar.
155:iva1979
89:protect
84:history
618:Karada
605:Delete
422:Delete
350:Delete
260:guitar
244:Delete
228:Delete
202:Delete
176:Delete
164:Delete
145:Delete
133:Delete
93:delete
46:delete
747:WP:FU
593:KSmrq
543:KSmrq
535:might
450:KSmrq
256:words
253:other
208:Giggy
137:Corpx
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
749:and
496:talk
469:talk
182:Buck
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
633:).
491:DGG
464:DGG
251:In
192:ofg
187:ets
114:– (
753:.
642:|
498:)
471:)
322:}}
319:db
316:{{
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
54:13
51:Sr
48:.
646:)
644:c
640:t
638:(
579:(
494:(
467:(
220:P
215:U
151:S
118:)
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.