User talk:Opus33/Archive4

Note of support

Hi Opus -- I'd say more if you had e-mail enabled, but I just wanted you to know that I, for one, truly appreciate your continued presence on this project, and believe that you deserve recognition as one of the finest long-term content contributors we have had, as you approach your four-year anniversary. Short of divine intervention destroying the "article assessment drive" in a hail of brimstone, a fate it richly deserves, there's not much we can do--those of us who actually write the articles and understand the issues involved in assessing them--short of letting it run its course, and then cleaning up the "assessments" later. Very best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:FortepianoByMcNultyAfterWalter1805.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:FortepianoByMcNultyAfterWalter1804.jpg. The copy called Image:FortepianoByMcNultyAfterWalter1804.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes for classical composers

Hello, I noticed that you removed the infobox that I added for "Dmitri Shostakovich" with the comment that there is a consensus against the use of infoboxes for classical composers – I had no idea that such a consensus existed. I don't have a problem with that, but can you direct me to an article that discusses the appropriate use of infoboxes? I had a look at "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)", but that article only provides advice on the design of infoboxes. Cheers, Jacklee 19:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jacklee, take a look at [1]; also at [2]. I might have been exaggerating in calling this a consensus, but so far it seems that the anti-infobox-for-composers faction has been maintaining its hold. Yours truly, Opus33 19:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for this. Cheers, Jacklee 19:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for Rating on Bartolomeo Cristofori

The reason that I rated this article as a "B" is because the article talk page did not say that it had gone through becoming a good article. Just in case, I rated it as a "B" because that is the highest that I could rate it without it going through the official rating as a good article. If is has officially been declared a good article, then it can be an "A" class article. Sorry for the confusion. Captain panda 23:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the article has not been rated as a good article and you wish to rate it thus, go [[3]] to submit it to good article review. Captain panda 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opus33.jpg

You might want to tag it with {{db}} or list it at WP:IFD. — SheeEttin {T/C} 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New articles bot

I don't have a new articles bot. Were you intending to leave a message for someone else? Warofdreams talk 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DiagramOfKeyLevers OvalSpinet.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:DiagramOfKeyLevers OvalSpinet.PNG, by Bsayusd (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:DiagramOfKeyLevers OvalSpinet.PNG fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

This image is an older version of an image which was not uploaded over this old image like it should have been. See Image:DiagramOfKeyLevers OvalSpinet.png for new image and author's comments about this old version.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:DiagramOfKeyLevers OvalSpinet.PNG, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

updated copyright tags for images in Sacred Harp

Opus33,

I updated the copyright tags for the images of the 4-shape scale and the orientation of the sections in Sacred Harp to

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If this is not legally possible:

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

. Please change if this is not correct. Dkreisst 09:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luchesi

Hi Opus! Welcome back; I hope you had a good vacation, if that's where you were.

Reading this, I tend to agree that this could be an acceptable approach, since it has been published, more or less. We've done this often enough on Wikipedia for similar things, e.g. Usenet crankery. Prodding the article, which I did, is another way (may not work though). Personally I think the Luchesi hypothesis is a crazy fringe theory, and having studied Mozart's, and Haydn's, late symphonies as I have, there's no way on earth, or any other planet of your choice, that they were composed by the same person.

Myke Cuthbert says it well: it is published, but it's not really a reliable scholarly source, so including it is borderline. We could let the community decide via the AfD process (a process I dread, but it's what we have). Grove ignores it which is significant. Google shows nothing but material by the one author; he's clearly by himself on this one.

The biggest problem with fringe theories in our area, in general, is that they don't get enough eyes. Fringe theories on 9/11, or the moon landing "hoax", and other such things, get enough oversight from the generally sane that they usually end up being treated correctly. I don't think I even noticed the Luchesi thing until I saw someone add it to the Mozart article once and went "huh"?

Best, Antandrus (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems like it was accepted as a discussion of Luchesi's authorship of the 7 Words of Christ on the Cross with a long P.S. (Post-(peer review) Scriptum ? :) which tries to dismiss all traditional scholarship in the classical period (only a slight exaggeration). I couldn't find anything in JSTOR about his theories, but to be honest, it's hard to find anything about the Luchesi, under any spelling of his name (curious: almost all scholarhip (crackpot and non-) calls him Luchesi, but Grove uses Lucchesi, why?). In addition, I hate to say it, but though this Catalan journal is not very high on the musicology radar, nor are the journals where the conventional Luchesi articles by C. V-K. were published (Bonner Geschichtsblätter, Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für rheinische Musikgeschichte). I think that in the end Taboga is going to get something in this article, because some of it has gotten through the (often non-existent) peer review of some journals. I think it might be best to head it off first and give the theory the small amount of space which WP's rules say it deserves (ah another vote for expert editors a la Citizendium). Something like, "G. Tagoba has advanced a theory that Luchesi wrote Haydn's "Seven Words of Christ on the Cross" along with many other works by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (whom Tagoba regards as a close student of Luchesi).(refs) None of Tagoba's theories have been acknowledged, let along accepted, by the larger scholarly community of music of the Classical era." This is factual and as far as I can tell NPOV. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I admit though that I was about this close to vandalizing your home page to say:

"Opus33" commemorates a turning point in the career of Andrea Luchesi, one of my favorite composers and an inspiration to late bloomers everywhere.

<laughing>. Cheers! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk)

Re: Elijah edits

Hi Opus33, thanks for keeping an eye out on things, and for writing the original text to this section. I think the section about Elijah and the influences of Bach and Handel really needs to be more well-researched so that it can speak with a more specific and commanding tone. None-the-less, without doing that research myself I wanted to revise the original text to improve a few things:

1) "can be construed in part" is very vague and I think underplays the direct connection -- Mendelssohn actually intended the reference or homage to Bach and Handel (having performed the work, it's undeniable)... it's not something that musicologists have later added (which "construed" implies). 2) the first sentence in that section had evolved to be a pretty crummy structure since you wrote it. The original was pretty good, but when I found it it really didn't convey its meaning very well at all anymore. It was a bit of a run-on to start, and the connection between the points definitely could use to be clearer. 3) The second sentence about "seems to be modeled" is again too general and passive, and leaves me with a big "why/how?" question in my head. 4) lastly, "the two Baroque masters" should really be "these" unless you want to be exclusive of which baroque composers are called masters.

So, it was an improvement on these issues, although on looking at it again, I agree not tremendously convincing. In the course of thinking about this just now, I went back and re-wrote it again, and I think it is, again, better. I appreciate that your original text has stood pretty well for 3 years now, but I hope you'll help make it even better! cheers, Fred 04:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment move

Hi. I moved your comment at DYK suggestions to DYK discussion, hope it's not a big deal, it was just posted in the improper place is all. IvoShandor 17:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, hopefully your still as amicable when you see my vehement disagreement with you. But it's nothing personal or anything. IvoShandor 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart

Glad you liked it; have you been over to check out Mozart's Lick Me in the Ass and it's talk page discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to say thank you, Opus33, for all the work you are putting in on improving the Mozart article! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn to London

Your (very rapid) reversion has cleared up my confusion, which came about as a result of 'Haydn's departure for London' in Haydn and Mozart. I suppose that first sentence is OK if you already know Haydn left on New Year's Day... Rothorpe 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading levels

Hi Opus,

A very interesting question indeed. As far as I know, it's never been discussed, and if we are interested in consistency around the project, this issue is a rather important one.

In one of my previous incarnations I wrote technical manuals for the U.S. government, and I have some familiarity with grade reading levels, and the tests used to ascertain them (I have had to write for 7th and 10th, for example). I agree with you about where we should aim ("college freshman"); occasionally I see editors "dumbing down" music articles to single-digit-grade levels, which I do not think is appropriate. Since we can wikilink difficult words to their explanatory articles, a reader should theoretically have everything necessary to understand a topic, and the prose style of our principal writers would not be crippled if we stuck to "college freshman".

If we had to write to, say, a 9th-grade level, we'd have to avoid too many words like "chromaticism" or "enharmonic". At the other extreme, I encounter articles in publications such as JAMS which I would never want to inflict on a casual visitor to the site. Once on a lark I ran an article in Perspectives of New Music (Milton Babbitt's "The Structure and Function of Music Theory") through the test; it coughed up a grade reading level of 57.

Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart

I couldn't help notice the great work you are doing on this article. I sourced a couple of statements last night, but I had to make some minor changes to the text to comply with my sources. I hope that is okay. Keep up the amazing work. Danny 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conductor infoboxes

Hi. I'm making a list of articles with bio-infoboxes. Is this of any interest, I wonder? -- Kleinzach 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit more optimistic about the situation, at least for now. We found there were actually very few infobox creators (for composers and opera singers). After some long arguments the whole thing died down and we haven't had any more problems. All the conductors' ones seem to be done by the same person.

Anyway here is the first list (Austrian conductors): Franz Welser-Möst, Walter Weller, Martin Turnovský, Hans Swarowsky, Rudolf Schwarz (conductor), Peter Schneider (conductor), Hans Rosbaud, Ferdinand Löwe, Erich Leinsdorf, Josef Krips, Herbert von Karajan, Oswald Kabasta, Manfred Honeck, Joseph Hellmesberger, Sr., Joseph Hellmesberger, Jr., Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Karl Böhm, (These ones I've already done: ,~~Clemens Krauss, Felix Weingartner~~, Felix Mottl, Hans Richter (conductor), Emil Paur but some of them have now all been reverted!)

Best -- Kleinzach 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Il Sordo e i sordini (ossia il sordino)

Yes Opus, I didn't look long at the talk page before I made my edit summary. It is still unsettled, I think, precisely what Beethoven ("il Sordo", "the deaf man") wrote. That's why I enquired concerning the original autograph. I'll research the matter further. Sordino would make a kind of sense anyway, because one might often use the singular in place of the plural as a normal option, especially where one wishes to invoke things of a type, and names the type (using the singular) to stand for a great number of tokens (things!) of that type: "They conquered Persia using only the broadsword and the shield." (I now see that we need an article on the logician's and philosopher's distinction between type and token.)

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysia Weber

that was a completely maliciously wholesale revert. 1) the of the familiar, Aloysia is inapproprate, and is contrary to wp:mos. 2) since the article is about aloysia, i don't think the reader would be at all confused by the reference. --emerson7 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:KarlLichnowsky1756-1814 II.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KarlLichnowsky1756-1814 II.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrinoman responds

Thanks for your comments. I try to check what I can, both on the Web and in books. Sometimes I can't check as thoroughly as I might like. But I will attempt to get things straight before finishing a major edit.

Did you catch any major errors in my music article editing?

Best - Neutrinoman (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josepha Duschek

Do you have access to Grove? That might answer the question. I don't have the volume for D. She did perform opera arias of course. I'm not sure whether she ever went on the stage. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano

Hi, re: the criticisms on my talk page, did you look at how many contributions I've done. The number of complaints is modest in comparison to the number of contributions. And discussions are normal. You can't revert good faith edits on the grounds that there are criticisms of my edits on my talk page. The reverting policy is that reverting is to be mainly for vandalismNazamo 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Did you note that there is a notice on the Wikipedia page...Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Are you against modifications or editing on the pages for piano or fortepiano? Please explain your approach and point of view. ThanksNazamo 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oval Spinet

Hi, I just stumbled across oval spinet, and I saw some nice work there. I noticed on the images from Chinnery's website that you had gotten email permission. What I would like to do is confirm and document this permission on the image page. Wikipedia and commons have an OTRS ticket system to securely archive permissions for images. To do this we should (in the following order):
1. Move images to wikipedia commons, so that interwiki projects in other languages can use the images
2. Forward the permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

The permission email must state that the sender is the copyright holder, and that the image is listed under a specific free license such as GFDL or CreativeCommons, and should give the filename on the commons and the URL where the image is hosted. It would be best to use an email template if possible.

3. Once the email is reviewed by the OTRS system, they will put a tag on the image description page saying that the permission is confirmed.

If this is too complicated, I'm happy to help with the details. Also, I notice that Chinnery has a sound sample available for the instrument; If he's willing to license that under a free license as well, it would be a really excellent addition to several articles. (I notice harpsichord does not even have a single sound file!). To upload the sound file, it just needs to be converted to the .ogg format, which is no problem for me to do. Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:QueenOfTheNightColoraturaInOZittreNicht.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:QueenOfTheNightColoraturaInOZittreNicht.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on Grove"

Regarding this edit to Franz Xaver Gerl, you wrote in the references that it was based on the article from Grove. That's probably not good wording, as that's what we use for things incorporating other text literally or in translation, and where copyright would apply. What I assume you meant is that it uses information from there as a reference, but not as a text source. I think just listing Grove in the references is a better solution, or use the {{GroveOnline}} template. (I assume you didn't just copy text; I don't have access to Grove on this computer to check, but I know you've contributed a lot and are familiar with copyright policies.) Rigadoun (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be hard. I think the phrasing you've used in some other articles, such as you did here, is better. Then, if other information is found, it can be added like you did later. If there get to be several references, then you could go to footnoting every sentence (or, more reasonably, paragraph). That's not hard if you wrote the article yourself, but if you're improving the refs for another article it's harder to be sure that it is in the source. Another approach is to list the one source in the references and add a few footnotes from it for anything that seems unusual or likely to be tagged with {{fact}}, and then add other footnotes to new text that is added. That's what I usually do. I just thought the wording "this article is based on..." sounded strange, in contrast to "the information from this article is..." or "the information is taken from the following source," etc. Rigadoun (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good work. Rigadoun (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Musical improvisation. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You probably didn't mean it, but the content was not readded. ff m 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong. I did not look at your edit more closely. ff m 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:FriedrichSchillerPortraitFrom1787ByDorisStock.PNG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:FriedrichSchillerPortraitFrom1797ByDorisStock.PNG. The copy called Image:FriedrichSchillerPortraitFrom1797ByDorisStock.PNG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 29 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ludwig Fischer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query about tags

Hello Conrad, I am puzzled by the tags {{Refbegin}} and {{Refend}}, which I noticed you installing. What is their purpose? I've never seen them before. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Refbegin}} and {{Refend}} provide {{Reflist}} style formatting. Visit User:Opus33/reftags for examples. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway pronunciation

Hey, I realized today I don't know how to pronounce Steinway, as in Steinway & Sons. Do you know? ALTON .ıl 08:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wanted to avoid getting such a famous name wrong. ALTON .ıl 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note of support

I was prompted by someone's recent comment on the Maynard Solomon talk page to contribute another irregular verb here that may interest you. I hope the comment I am referring to made you laugh also. I know your hard work on Wikipedia is continually appreciated by many of us. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Georg Mozart as bookbinder

Howdy, I wanted to explain the {{publish-bio-stub}} tag on Johann Georg Mozart. This is the stub tag for people related to the publishing industry, not just the publishers themselves. Despite the text in the template, you can see the more general scope in Category:Publisher (people) stubs. I didn't find any closer stub category for bookbinders in particular.

Now Johann Georg Mozart is probably not notable for being a bookbinder, so there is no reason to put him on the publishing WikiProject's lists, but if you think he is notable as a bookbinder, you might want to add back the stub, so they can take a look too. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Symphony No. 31 (Haydn)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Symphony No. 31 (Haydn) , has been proposed to be merged into another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rattle/referred to WikiProject Council

Hi. Perhaps you haven't seen it but 128.232.251.233 has referred the issue to the WikiProject Council, see Inappropiate Ownership Attempts. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) BTW Emil Paur, Ernő Dohnányi and Franz Welser-Möst are also affected now. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have seen I replied to your idea but IMO your peace proposal has been misunderstood by the others. People don't understand the distinction between the different kinds of infobox and navigation box, so it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion. We've been through this so many times before and the conclusion is always the same: the only viable policy is no bio-boxes, because WP just doesn't have the necessary mechanisms to control the quality of ancillary material. Print publishers are able to do it - with great difficulty, but WP can't, and there is a limit to how much time we can devote to an ultimately futile discussion. -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]