User talk:Feldmahler/archive4

Contents

Bartok

Opps you are right! I forgot. You know the answer hehe, I will remov the Ligeti's foreword. I've also string quartet No.4, which is in low resolution (from 1 to 10 I would say a 4), what do you suggest? cheers 

nachoBA
By all means! Even if the resolution is rather low, it is much better than nothing :) --Feldmahler 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Hi there boss, I think that trying to restore the file I've destroyed the page. Could you please delete the whole entry on the file so I can upload the new one again. This Schoenberg songs are reprintings published by a company, I had to take out the logo. Cheers
I've fixed the page... did you want me to delete the new file as well, or only the old file? (I've already deleted the old file) --Feldmahler 01:42, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, never mind, I see the new file has the logo too... --Feldmahler 01:43, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Now it's gone. Cheers! nachoBA

Files from Mutopia and WIMA

Do we have a general policy regarding non-PD files from Mutopia (e.g. Image:Spring-score-a4.pdf, MutopiaBSD - allows distribution), and files from WIMA (e.g. Image:HAYDN sette parole musica.pdf [1] - redistribution not allowed in general, AFAIK)? --Leonard Vertighel 07:17, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Non-PD files which pass the CC-SA or similar criteria (this would include MutopiaBSD) should be tagged as having a "Personal" license. For WIMA files, it is a good idea to ask the submitter to ask permission from the WIMA contributor, and if there is no response within 1 month, remove the file :) --Feldmahler 11:07, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Ibert, Jacques François Antoine

If I'm not mistaken, the files should all be moved to the US server. --Leonard Vertighel 15:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Fixed :) --Feldmahler 15:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Weird things going on...

... here. I still have a copy of the broken download on my harddisk, if that's of any use. Downloaded with Firefox 2.0.0.2 on Linux. Unreadable both with Acrobat reader and KPDF. --Leonard Vertighel 15:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... I've actually deleted the file on the main server. But I think there might be another copy on the mirror server (got lazy lol, plus it'd sync in a few hours anyway). --Feldmahler 15:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I've checked the file, and it also doesn't want to open in KPDF here... but I remade the file, and it works fine. I think it is just that there was a corruption during upload that damaged the PDF metadata, but not the images themselves, so rebuilding the PDF file fixed it :) --Feldmahler 16:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
But how does it explain that when I downloaded it again, shortly before you deleted it, I got a working file? The first download this morning was 11337728 bytes, the last before you deleted the file 11600174 bytes large (I have retrieved them both from the /tmp files). Why did the server deliver two different downloads (with exaclty the same browser on the same machine)? --Leonard Vertighel 16:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok... time to spill the beans I guess. Two days ago, I switched all the /image/ directory bandwidth to my image (mirror) host. However, my image host, bastards as they are, have made it so that any file above 8000000 bytes in size is automatically redirected to a REALLY SLOW pipe (we are talking about 5-10kb/s here). So I wrote a PHP downloader, which is of course a total waste of system resources, but was the only way to work around this problem. Apparently, and not totally surprising, they are making the PHP script either break off prematurely, or time out. Funnily (though not totally surprising again), while I'm allowed to use 2TB bandwidth, I only get to actually use less than 300GB. And now I'm back to the drawing board (I'll reroute the >8000000 byte downloads to the main server). The problem is that 1. the main server doesn't have enough bandwidth, and 2. the hard drive seeking is totally killing the server speed (the load is hovering around 2 constantly, and the frequencies of 502 internal server error are increasing at an alarming rate). I'll have to get the donations set up fast so that I can upgrade to a more decent server, though I won't have any time until 1 month after. Let's hope for the best :) --Feldmahler 16:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
And just a clarification... I didn't know about the script timing out before you asked me about the difference in file sizes; and so I wasn't blaming you for asking or anything (was just afraid you might interpret what I said the wrong way :) )... since there is no point to IMSLP if the files won't finish downloading. --Feldmahler 17:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


The Unanswered Question (Ives, Charles Edward)

Boss, please check the file I've uploaded. I think I did it OK as it's PD in Canada, but I'm not 100% sure. Let me know if I was mistaken. Cheers / nachoBA

Yep, it is in the PD in Canada, especially since Ives himself wrote the preface, which means that it is extremely unlikely anyone other than Ives have edited the piece (may well be a reprint of an earlier edition). --Feldmahler 17:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Le Sacre du Printemps (Stravinsky, Igor)

I wasn't able to download any of the files (the same problem whit other stravinsky's works). It would be great if someone can fix this. Well, i just want to notify this. Sorry my bad english, and many thanks for this page.

There seems to be no problem for me. What exactly are you unable to do? Does clicking the link go to the US server? Or does actually downloading the PDF fail? Or is it that you cannot open the file? --Feldmahler 14:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I can't download the pdfs, the link send me to http://usfiles.imslp.org/
Can you tell me which page links to http://usfiles.imslp.org/? I can't find any... the Stravinsky pages links to a different URL for me (I've tried both logged in and logged out). --Feldmahler 00:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
By the way, have you tried clearing your browser cache and trying again? It may be just reloading a very old version of that page --Feldmahler 00:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
this page: http://www.imslp.org/wiki/Le_Sacre_du_Printemps_(Stravinsky%2C_Igor) The two links to the pdf parts send me to http://usfiles.imslp.org/. I check this in opera and firefox, so i don' think it is a cache problem.
It's the same with Petrushka and Piano Rag.
Can you e-mail me the saved HTML file of the page? My e-mail is imslp@imslp.org . http://usfiles.imslp.org/ is the old URL that should had been replaced months ago... --Feldmahler 01:42, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Done
I've found the problem and fixed it. Should work now :) --Feldmahler 01:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it work fine ;) Thanks a lot.

Fitzwilliam

Should I try converting the uploaded files to b/w? I'd have to do some more testing and maybe write a little script to handle this, but it seems that with pdfimages and convert (ImageMagick) I can obtain fairly decent results at about 20% of the original file size (does that sound reasonable, or would one expect more, err, less, I mean, smaller files?). If you want, I'll give it a try during the weekend. (btw, if you look hard you will find that they are actually in color, not even grayscale :)) --Leonard Vertighel 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

The quality is really pretty good, so we'll let Jsigerland finish uploading the files :) The main reason I wanted it to be in monochrome is because it'd make it easier for people to download it. A good thing right now is that each file is smaller than 8000000 bytes, so that the file is downloaded from the IMSLP mirror that has virtually no bandwidth limit, which means that bandwidth itself is not an issue (files larger than 8000000B cannot be downloaded from that mirror due to restrictions). Also, there's the problem of each file only having 10 pages. I think what will ultimately happen is that after Jsigerland finishes uploading and submitting all the files, we'll try to convert it to monochrome, while releasing it in chunks split according to pieces and not page numbers, taking care to keep it under 8000000 bytes :) --Feldmahler 13:53, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, another version has already been uploaded... so this is no longer an issue. --Feldmahler 14:13, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Just a wild thought: How about setting up a "conversion queue"? The basic idea would be to encourage users to add valuable contributions (as opposed to "flooding IMSLP with random crap"), even if they are not in exact accordance with the guidelines (from the technical point of view, of course: color/grayscale, or e.g. a bunch of GIFs, etc.). These could be preexisting files like the above (if it hadn't turned out to be a duplicate), or e.g. contributions from users who use machines where they cannot install the necessary software (e.g. at a school, university, etc.). Currently I guess I'd have to run it single-handedly (which means that there will be periods when nothing happens for a few days or weeks, when I'm away from home), but maybe later on somebody who doesn't contribute otherwise may want to help. The queue could also be used for files that have to be split/merged/unlocked/etc. What do you think? --Leonard Vertighel 15:56, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this is a great idea! Unfortunately I'm rather swamped currently, so you'll have to set it up. But luckily I'm going to be free in less than 3 weeks hehe :) --Feldmahler 20:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Concerning Numbers

"12 Etudes for Violin" could also be submitted as

"Etudes for Violin, 12"

or which one is more pleasable for the eye? --Funper 11:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I think up to now all the numbered titles have the number come before the title in the natural order... considering that the sorting will not be effected (the title is sorted as if it is "Etudes for Violin, 0012"), I think this natural order (i.e. "12 Etudes for Violin") is fine :) Plus, another page in the Rode category is the same. --Feldmahler 11:54, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay. One other thing, how about uploading recordings on imslp, e.g. self-performed? This would be a really nice feature on the site and it would really enable people to "preview" scores :) --Funper 12:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
This have been discussed before, and have also been on my mind for some time, but the problems are that, first, I fear IMSLP might lose focus trying to cover too broad a scope, and, second, that IMSLP is already facing enough copyright issues already; introducing recordings would be opening up a whole new can of worms. I think this might be feasible in 10 years or so, when the amount of public domain recordings increase, but at the moment it is probably not a good idea to do this. I understand that if the recording is performed by IMSLP contributors and then released into the public domain (or a CC license) there would not be a problem, but letting people upload recordings but restricting it to self-performed ones seem to be asking for trouble, as people will very likely circumvent some part of it, and would remain undetected (i.e. maybe the submitted the recording of their best friend playing the piece without their permission, and etc etc). Combine this with the hyperactivity of the RIAA and you get something nasty. Plus, there are plenty of places you can get recordings on the net already, and so I don't think another is really all that necessary... :) --Feldmahler 13:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
(i.e. maybe the submitted the recording of their best friend playing the piece without their permission, and etc etc).
If you are familiar with pianosociety, they have a board who decides which recordings goes up and which doesn't. They have it very strict in a sence which I must look onto furthur, but they don't have any problems with RIAA. No Licensed recordings are uploaded on their site. --Funper 13:23, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Then maybe it is a good idea to collaborate with them instead of trying to replace them ;) --Feldmahler 13:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Bah! Maybe... --Funper 13:44, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Some random thoughts

It seems to be becoming a habit of mine to scribble random ideas on random talk pages. Concerning the Great Imaging and Indexing System Overhaul:

  • how about integrating Score_submission_guide#Part_II:_Creating_a_File_Entry (or a condensed version of it) directly into the file submission form (e.g. as a column on the right, with the input fields on the left)? If it could be made editable and internationalizable, too, it would be perfect.
  • you mentioned running every PDF file through a PDF file regenerator; will that affect compression? I mean, can suboptimal compression be detected and improved? What about color space conversion (reduction): could that be done on the server at user request? Or if such things cannot be done, how about an automatically generated list of files with a large file size/page count ratio, such that we can fix them by hand?

On a totally unrelated note, if you happen to check the server logs, I'd be curious to know if there has been any noticeable increase in referrals from non-english Wikipedias over the last weeks. --Leonard Vertighel 12:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The one hesitation I would have with automatic PDF regeneration is quality reduction. I recently attempted to recompress the Holst "The Planets" submission, but it resulted in a visible loss of quality. --Emeraldimp 12:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
But loss of quality should only occur if lossy compression is applied, of if resolution and/or color depth are changed. That is why I proposed that server side color space reduction, if possible at all, be performed only at user request. --Leonard Vertighel 12:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Should being the operative word. ImageMagick is a dangerous piece of software. I just ran some more tests, and even a simple 'convert pg_0072.pdf bob.pdf' results in a significant reduction in quality. --Emeraldimp 14:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Imagemagick is horrid at PDF; this is because it is designed for images, and not documents... in fact, in order for imagemagick to process PDFs, ghostscript must be installed, which basically ends up being used like a printer driver (images are printed to PDF, and not created in PDF). This is why I avoid using it as much as possible for PDF files; I generally use libtiff (i.e. tiff2pdf) for this. The program that I'm going to use (PDF Split and Merge) to process PDFs will in no way be like ghostscript; it is an actual PDF file processor, and uses the Java iText PDF library. Also, it will not make the files substantially bigger if it cannot deal with it (it'll just spit it out verbatum), but it *will* fix suboptimal compression, *and* unlock locked files at the same time. That's the beauty of it :)
The problem is, I'm currently looking at how to sandbox it within an inch of its life... stuff as complex as PDF processing is the hotbed for security issues. Even though I suppose it is much better in Java compared to C, major sandboxing is still needed; there has already been malicious activity on the part of one or two people, which manifested in the form of bandwidth (as you can see in the stats) and system load wasting (they were downloading the same file over and over again for a few hours before I banned them). And so the reason I haven't deployed it yet (even though it is so attractive and all) is because of these security concerns... I'm trying to work out a tight sandbox for the program.
About the special page translations and modifications, I've already separated the top section of the special page from the underlaying code (see Internationalization_(translation)#Translation_of_Special_Pages)... what you are proposing is very nice, but the very unfortunate thing is that, while I can code fine, I'm *horrible* with HTML (I've really never studied it). Though, if you can send me a mockup HTML version of one of the special pages (both the original and the modified) I can add it to the code. :)
About the logs, e-mail me, and I'll tell you more about it :) The reason is that there may be sensitive information, and so I'd like to keep it only to admins.
Speaking of admins, this has been on my mind for a while, but will you be interested (and have the time) to be an IMSLP admin, Emeraldimp? I know you've known IMSLP for a long time (I believe your blog was the first blog to link to IMSLP just a few days after the site went online), and I think you will be well suited as an administrator. But I don't know if you'd be interested or have the time? :) --Feldmahler 14:45, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Oops... I guess I haven't put the add file special page text on the wiki. I'll do it soon :) --Feldmahler 14:55, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, yes... ImageMagick's funkiness makes more sense now. Ok, then, objection withdrawn ;-).
I've thought for a while about requesting admin status, but I am concerned that I won't have the time. My other concern is that I'll be overzealous... you've seen some of my reactions. On the other hand, there are a number of others already, and it seems like I'm on here all the time anyway, so if you're willing, I'll do it. --Emeraldimp 16:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll take you up on your word then ;) --Feldmahler 19:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

So libtiff will make smaller PDF files than ImageMagick? For apart from that, the PDF files created with ImageMagick look OK to me (though I agree with Emeraldimp that you should never attempt to convert from PDF with ImageMagick, that seems to produce a major mess in every case).

HTML is trivial, it's the CSS that makes things complicated ;) that is, unless you do the layout in HTML, in perfect best-viewed-with-Netscape-Navigator-Gold tradition. Ahem. I'll see if I can come up with something decent.

As for the logs, you can send me an email whenever you want :) --Leonard Vertighel 15:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

libtiff doesn't make smaller PDF files in every case, but even when it does not its usually only a few bytes off the mark (probably just header issues). There are also sometimes compression weirdness with Imagemagick (resulting PDF file cannot be opened if a certain compression type is given in some cases). The main reason I use libtiff I guess is that libtiff is so much faster than Imagemagick ;) Though, I still need to use Imagemagick to convert to TIFF. Also, don't forget to use libtiff with the -n switch to force it to recompress.
And I'll send the log info now :) --Feldmahler 15:25, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. And yes I think I overreacted a bit with Imagemagick converting to PDF, which is not too bad... but yes, converting from PDF using imagemagick is hell. --Feldmahler 15:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Come to think of it, if the top part of the special page is (will be) editable anyway, there should be no need to mess with the code in order to add a text column... it should be sufficient to add something like <div class="toccolours" style="float:right;width:40%">Column content here</div> at the bottom of the top part :) --Leonard Vertighel 16:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
What do you think? It works well down to some 1000px width, below there is some overlap due to the very wide copyright field; without that, it would work ok from some 700px upwards at an average fonts size. If you want it to be safe at any width, a possible solution would be to float the form, too (just add the attribute style="float:left" to the opening <form> tag); like that, the form should appear below the text column whenever the window is too narrow to have them side by side. --Leonard Vertighel 07:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I've added float:left and made the copyright box smaller! How 'bout that ;) And yes, it looks nice :) --Feldmahler 11:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Purrfect. Can we have the same thing here and here? (The former is not perfect, because the relevant input fields end up much lower on the page than the guide; but on the other hand, the length of the form and the length of the text don't match anyway...) Like this, the score submission guide page should get much shorter (and thus less daunting ;)) --Leonard Vertighel 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I've already fixed the multiple file page (with float:left) when I did the add file page :) The work page I'll think a little more about. One of the interface designing principles that I've had IMSLP follow so far is that it should look good with the browser maximized at 1024x768. Maybe this is a little self-centered (I always browse like that lol), but my logic is that most people have at least 1024x768, and can maximize the browser if they want, and its really not very practical nowadays to design for, say, 800x600.
The problem with the add work special page is that if I float the form, it will of course end up below the descriptions with 1024x768, since the genre selection box is so long... is there a way to make it so that the description box will be maximized in horizontal size if it cannot fit to the left (i.e. if it is on top of the form)? Maybe I'm asking for too much, but one can always try ;) --Feldmahler 18:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Not with HTML+CSS alone - you'd have to use JavaScript for that. And the answer to the next question is no, sorry: I know almost nothing about JavaScript and I can't do that. What you could do in CSS would be to force a minimum page width that would be sufficient to have the two columns side by side. In a narrow window you'd then have a horizontal scrollbar. It would require some stupid hacks to make it work in that stupid broken thing called MSIE 6, but it should be possible. If the width would be such that the two columns fit in a 1024px window (leaving only the navigation bar at the left off screen), it should be acceptable from a usability point of view, though I admit that it's not particularly elegant. Offhand I have no better ideas, but I can think about it.
Anyway, I'd say that designing for 1024+ is fine, considering that e.g. even the website of well-known web designer Dave Shea has that width.
On a totally unrelated note, another random idea: "The back covers of old scores often contain valuable information" - if that is so, would it then make sense to ask people to scan and upload them to a separate category (identifying exactly the score from which the back cover is taken, of course)? Those of us who are not busy submitting scores could also copy the information to make it searchable. But I really have no idea if that makes sense at all... --Leonard Vertighel 18:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe I have a solution, but we'd have to check it in MSIE (I can do that tomorrow or in the weekend): add an attribute like style="width:12em" to the <select name="awGenre"> element. In Firefox and Opera, it makes the dropdown box narrow, but the great thing is that when dropped down, it expands to the necessary width to display its content completely! If MSIE plays along, we're done :) --Leonard Vertighel 18:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I have tried, but unfortunately it breaks in both Konqueror and IE6 (on linux). Will it be possible for you to try this on IE6 on Windows with a static HTML page, since I've reverted the change? If not I'll put it back and you can try. While we can tell Konq users to use another browser (since they probably have one anyway), it'd be hard for IE6 users... and as always, IE6 becomes the web designer's worst nightmare. Not really surprising though haha. --Feldmahler 19:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Why did I expect that to happen (MSIE I mean, though good old Konqueror is also rather quirky sometimes - but I can't really blame it in this case, because I believe that this particular issue is not clearly defined by the standards). I just checked in Windows (insomnia has its good sides) and I confirm. For MSIE, you could solve by replacing "width" with "max-width" - stupid MSIE doesn't know what that is, so it ignores it. The Konqueror problem remains. Maybe we should rethink the interface design. I still believe that having the instructions on the same page with the form is a good thing (I love SUSE's YaST for that), but I see that the current aproach is less than perfect. I'll sleep over it (or at least I'll try). --Leonard Vertighel 19:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I've moved the discussion to the forums, since it seems like we are in for a long one ;) Thread here. --Feldmahler 20:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Concerning "admin-dom".

I recently saw that you removed a copious amounts of users from "admin-dom", with no reason stated. You aren't going to remove me, are you...? Haha I am concerned here! :) --Funper 15:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Well... back then I mainly gave admin-dom because people wanted to delete pages, and not actually for the administration of IMSLP. None of the people I removed had contributed anything to IMSLP in more than 5 months, which is why I removed them. :) --Feldmahler 15:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Concerning 1977 Russian edition of Transcendental Etudes

Hi Feldmahler. You uploaded a 1977 edition of Transcendental Etudes on March 1, 2006 (here is the cover which is not on IMSLP [2]). I do not know if this is an Urtext edition or not, but you should be aware that uploading copyrighted editions could result in lawsuites etc. Even if the score has been on the site in over 1 year, and even if nobody has cared to sue your arse :) --Funper 18:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I'm not so sure about that ;) Russian doesn't have the Germany publication + 25 law, but it does have a very high threshold for creativity; see here. It may be a good idea to ask for a copyright review in the copyright section of the forums... if Carolus has some time he can look at it. --Feldmahler 20:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
We have alternatives now so there won't be to much of a loss. --Funper 20:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, apparently it was a USSR republication of the NLA (looking at the engraving style)... not surprised since the USSR seldom respected others copyrights. And so I have removed it. --Feldmahler 20:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
You are lucky that I have this on my computer :) I will scan the site for Neue Liszt-Ausgabe and delete them (well I am going to download them first although, that is why I want to do it in the first place.) --Funper 20:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://imslp.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Feldmahler/archive4&oldid=33555"