User talk:Opus33/Archive6

Knackered

Ha! Thank you for the enquiry, which made me smile. I'm flattered that you like my username! It does have a kind of testicular derivation, but used in this sense it makes no direct reference to them: it's just a generic term for tired or exhausted or something, perhaps with an extra touch of, I don't know, resignation or maybe even a little bit of grim humour or something.. It's a *little* coarse in BrE but not outrageously so: for example I could quite easily say to a friend or colleague at work "I'm a bit knackered today" and it would not cause outrage, though I'd be a little careful about to whom exactly I said it. I think my mother-in-law who is an eminent retired medic would not turn a hair, and quite possibly says it herself. I wouldn't say it to the Queen (we have frequent chats of course) but I would bet she does say it to, or hear it from, her family in private. It can also be used of inanimate objects: "my internet connection is knackered" or "I have knackered my piccolo trumpet". It's seen as informal and quite friendly, in a way. If I said "my internet connection is f*cked" for example that would sound *much* stronger, more hostile, coarser, too direct, etc and I could say it - were I so inclined! - to *far* fewer people. Actually come to think of it I think my Mum uses "knackered" and she's getting on a bit too, and is certainly not a coarse person! Is this helping, or just muddying up the waters? I have a US tpt prof friend who is fascinated by the usage and finds it an amusing and useful expression, though I sometimes have to remind him what it is exactly as we see each other about once a year only!

I hope this has helped clarify it a little. I should give up and go to bed now, as it's well past midnight, I have to get up early, and I am - yes, you guessed it - a bit knackered!

With all good wishes

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and here's something quite interesting - Lynneguist's blog is the MOST fascinating place to read about AmE/BrE usages. This piece is a actually about the term "gutted" which I do not use but the comments spill over into "knackered" along with a few other expressions ... :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackteebox

Thanks for the reply on the Ignaz Pleyel edit. I'm still working on making it a better article. We probably need to incorporate some images next. I think that I will also try to compile a list of his works. Thanks also for making the necessary edits to my references. (I'm trying to get a handle on editing these articles!) Thanks, Blackteebox (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd's

Seen the CfDs for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_11#Biographers_by_subject the Haydn & Mozart biographers? Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music assessment page

In view of your past interest in this, I wonder if you can have a look at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#New_Assessment_page_by_NocturneNoir? Thanks. --Klein zach 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"WP no longer links dates"

In your edit summary for a recent edit at Dora Stock you state: "WP no longer links dates". I think you might find it's not that simple; major battles have raged for months and are still being fought about the issue. For the moment, you might want to consult Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, in particular it's section Temporary injunction.

My own stance is that I favour the prohibition of indiscriminate linking of dates, but that [[1791 in music|1791]] should be permitted where it makes contextual sense; I'm on the fence about the linking of dates of birth and death. However, I believe that any correction of some (perceived) formal flaw should only be applied when combined with a more substantive edit.

Don't misunderstand this notice as chiding or admonishment — I respect your work too much for that; it's just to point out that the sentiment in your edit summary seems to indicate that you might not be aware of the full story regading the linking of dates. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I wasn't aware of the injunction. I will refrain for the present from indiscriminate de-linking. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mozart and smallpox

On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mozart and smallpox, 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.

—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a 4-note score

Hi there,

I've seen the scores you've made in other articles, and wondered if you might be able to make one for this. It's a four note piece used in a TV show, and apparently is playing "Every second of every day of the year" somewhere in the world.

I'd therefore like to add a picture of it to Paul Farrer. More info in the (rather tabloidesque) news article here.

Thanks in anticipation, best, etc, Chzz ► 08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, hard to make out. Is there an audible YouTube version out there? Opus33 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here at 0:54 maybe? Chzz ► 16:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ives Haydn connection

Besides the source you found, their's atleast two other sources confirming Ives made parody lyrics for the surprise symphony. i can't find sources for the quotation given in teh article either. I don't know if its just me, but I think it would be alot easier to just talk about the parody lyrics and chuck the 'sissies' quotation, instead of all that fightign and oneupmanship thats going on by everyone at that discussion cept you. Flutedude (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flutedude, Trying to be helpful, I brought this up on the talk page. You know, if you want to edit Wikipedia you should try to be as thick-skinned as you possibly can--it's just in the nature of the thing. Put on your best diplomatic manners and then join the fray. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opus33. Your right, you have to have a real thick skin. "anyone may edit" and that brings out way too many Esuebeuses and Willigerses and way too few Opus33s and Fluteflutes. Flutedude (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now on Commons: File:MozartsBerlinJourney.PNG

File:MozartsBerlinJourney.PNG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:MozartsBerlinJourney.PNG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:MozartsBerlinJourney.PNG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Haydn map

I'm delight that you've switched the Haydn page back to the simple map which I much prefer - but where was the discussion? Aa77zz (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have included it in the edit summary. It was here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Haydn_and_Mozart. And for RavPapa's consent, see Talk:List_of_residences_of_Joseph_Haydn. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Gottfried van Swieten Portrait by Fendi.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Gottfried van Swieten Portrait by Fendi.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require 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) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptances are here: User_talk:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors#Acceptances. (I nominated you - hope that's OK!) --Klein zach 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion solicited

Hi Opus. Do you have an opinion about this Wikiproject? I have weighed in at the talk page. Maybe it's hopeless, but I'd like to do anything possible to stop the spread of the blight of Giant Maintenance Tags, a sort of WikiKudzu, and this project -- allegedly to organize people to help with citation -- makes as its first purpose the splattering of tags, with only a passing mention of actually citing and researching sources. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Antandrus. Btw I really liked the hitchhiker metaphor. Best regards, Opus33 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continuing attention to this ... scourge. By the way, there's a discussion now on my talk page. I'm feeling a bit pessimistic, as I perceive the taggers now greatly outnumber the content creators, and the trendline is ominous (it is no longer 2004, alas). Do you have any ideas as to what we can do? Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny one, which I'll put on your talk page. Opus33 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I'm starting to feel like a heretic, but darn it, I have to make some noise about this. Wish I could feel at least a little optimism, but I think the taggers, boxers, and their kin greatly outnumber content contributors at this point. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antandrus. I have never seen you so mad on WP before! Hey, don't let the nitwits get you down -- these tags reflect poorly on their authors but hopefully they do not loom large for us in the long term.

May I share a wicked thought? Suppose that by some miracle the infobox/tag/chatroom crowd really did buckle down and start adding reference sources. You and I know that accurately transferring information from scholarly sources to WP is actually quite tricky to do, and I rather doubt that the chatroom types would be particularly careful. So I suspect the result of my scenario would be that all sorts of ridiculous howlers would enter our pages, backed up by what looked like legitimate reference sources! So maybe we should be grateful for the problems we've got. Best regards, Opus33 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know ... you may have a point there. While I feel like I am fighting an infestation of kudzu with a nail-clippers, yelling at the kudzu for not growing in an orderly fashion may not be the most sensible approach. Anyhow, knowing now that I'm not entirely alone or completely crazy feels a bit better. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal standing of the aristocratic titles of the Esterházy famiily

Hi Opus33

please vide my reference in regards to the legal standing of the aristocratic titles of the Esterházy family, below. As a mediatized family of the former Holy Roman empire, the family had not only been of Austrian-Hungarian ethnicity but, since the purchase of the princely County of Edelstetten in 1804, also souvereign princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Thus their aristocratic title is not only of Austrian-Hungarian origin.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Mediatisation

Please note:

The special position of the mediatized Houses in the former Austrian Monarchy was abolished in 1919 when the Republics Austria and Czechoslovakia were established.

In Germany the new constitution of 1919 also forsaw this abolition, but it was never put into effect, except in Prussia in 1920.

As Prussia ceases to exist as a Federal State in the present day republic of Germany, the former Prussian abolition of the special position of the mediatized Houses has become obsolete.

In case you need more references, please take your time for further research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.171.170 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 62.245.171.170,

You clearly know a lot about this, so presumably you know books that contain this information. Go ahead and cite them at the bottom of the article (it is not necessary for them to be in English). If you cite actual reference books I promise I will not delete your contribution. Incidentally, all of this is normal Wikipedia policy; please see WP:VER. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opus

Here are two references

Book: Almanach De Gotha The Reigning and Formerly Reigning Royal Princely Houses of Europe and South America and the Mediatized Houses of the Holy Roman Empire Vol 1, Pts.1 & 2

Internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatization

vide Mediatized houses - a list of German mediatized princely houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.171.170 (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. So, re-read those books and use them to edit! You cite them in the References section and use the tags <ref> and </ref> to surround the footnote saying what page you got information from. Opus33 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a Mozart title reference

OK, I just got the complete works of Mozart (which are no longer complete but I'll deal with that later). Several of the pieces are listed with numbers in parenthesis, like so: KV 93(75g). Those may not be the correct numbers but you get the idea. So what is that? Is that some confusion in the Köchel catalog? Does that denote some other numbering system? My curiosity is peaked. Padillah (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Padillah, the reason for the parentheses is that the Köchel catalogue has gone through multiple editions since it was first issued by Köchel in the 19th century, and they have changed the Köchel number for certain works. One of the numbers you gave is the oldest Köchel number, the other is a later one, probably the one with a b in it. The whole thing is apparently something of a mess ([2]). Opus33 (talk)

Thanks a ton. That also answers my next question about the K Anh I see sometimes. That was a big help. Padillah (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica links

The Britannica project puts a link to a disclaimer at the top of every article. The point of the links is to let people know there is more information on the topic in Wikisource. I am working on 1911 Britannica, so those are the resources I know about, and I put links in the appropriate Wikipedia articles. I have not heard of any Wikipedia policy of not notifying people of information in Wikisource because it "might lead them astray." My idea was that the policy was one of maximum information. If a resource is there, let people know about it. I don't always put a link, but certainly a concern of "leading people astray" I can't see as a consideration. Most Wikipedians I think are not sheep, and intelligently evaluate information, and that is one of the things Wikipedia teaches I believe. I don't assume people are experts on all the information in all the links they provide, and I would not expect that, and I would not welcome it. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harpsichord diagram

Hello Opus33,

Finally, I downloaded lnkscape.exe, learned how to erase something (not how to draw a beautiful 3D picture of an Italian harpsichord!) and used #13 to index what in French we call "barre d'enfoncement" (the rail above the key tails which limit the key dip) and whose English name I do not remember. The correct picture is now on use on the French WP ; if you want, I could do the same correction on the English version. But you *must* load on Wikimedia Commons the picture of the music making angel of Minden cathedral that I was looking for for such a long time in order to illustrate the most comprehensive history of the harpsichord (in French) that I am currently writing. Maybe you noticed that I recently loaded on Commons a lot of historical harpsichord pictures : the ones I took in Musée de la Musique in Paris, as well as pictures from Flickr and other web sites.

Yours truly, Gérard (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the error about 4' hitchpin rail (and some other ones) is fixed. Gérard (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Opus33 replied to these appreciatively on User:Gérard's talk page.>

Chester files

File:Chester Billings Score.PNG is now available as Commons:File:Chester Billings Score.PNG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chester.ogg is now available as Commons:File:Chester.ogg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound media in Mozart article

Hello Opus33, I've just seen you have reverted the inclusion of some sound media samples in the article. I understand that, being in a block, it did interfere with the article layout. However, I invite you to reconsider some kind of media inclusion ( it can be in smaller one sample blocks): this is an article about a musical genius, which gave space to every picture of Mozart and friends, although a lot of people know exactly how Mozart sounds, its music is the issue here, and it would also be kind for the not so connoisseurs - or not so interested to dig it -to be able to hear it there. What do you think? --Uxbona (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! (and how to ID mammoth ivory)

For your diligence in keeping the 'pedia in decent shape, I salute you. You may tell the Queen I said that, next time you sit with her and a pint or two. Thanks to you, I went poking around and found a dead link to fix. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

urgh. Now I see it was some other editor that hangs out with HRM a lot. No matter, carry on, and thanks again! Just plain Bill (talk)

Thanks for the link, JpB. I'll share this with the Queen next time we have one of our après-bungee-jumping chats. Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

I have reverted your recent edit to Wikipedia:CiterSquad. All of this content is available on the projects talk page. Besides the fact that many of the concerns voiced by those users have been addressed, and no longer of issue, the project main space is not the appropriate space to discuss proposed changes to the project. If you would like to discuss changes to the project please do so on Wikipedia talk:CiterSquad. You may also want to review WP:3RR. Jeepday (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union University "research project"

Hi Opus. Do you remember this? The music history class in which the students were given a "research assignment" to edit Wikipedia articles, mainly on Renaissance and early Baroque composers? I believe you may have had some correspondence with Dr. Veltman. Well -- have a look at this. He evidently gave a paper on the topic. Included in the abstract is a comment about "the mixed reactions to the whole endeavor from hardcore Wikipedians." Interesting, no? (A lot of the articles mangled by the last class are still in a rather miserable state.) I wonder if this delight is coming our way again. Do you know if papers given at these regional conferences are available on the web somewhere? Antandrus (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antandrus,

Interesting. Prof. Veltman never sent the promised follow-up message when I queried him on this a few month ago. So I sent him a reminder message and I'll tell you what I learn if he replies. Best wishes, Opus33 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opus ... well, here we are: [3] What do you think? It's the right time of year for Veltman's class, and stylistically it's exactly right, but to my eye it's of higher quality than last year's edits (maybe the good student is doing her assignment earlier than the others ...) As soon as I see the second obvious editor from this class I can post at our Wikiproject to see what they think. Has there been anything similar on your watch list? Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antandrus, nothing yet but I will keep my eyes open. Regards , Opus33 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request a review of Amazing Grace

Hello, Opus33. I note your extensive work in shape note and Sacred Harp article work. I was wondering if you might have the time an interest in reviewing Amazing Grace, which I just rewrote, and think should be able to get to FA with enough effort. I appreciate whatever you can do! --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moni, I'm a bit swamped right now but at least I can spot an error for you. I'm almost certain that the original Sacred Harp did not print Amazing Grace (a.k.a. "New Britain") in four parts as the article currently is saying. The 1860 edition is online and shows just three parts for this hymn (http://digital.lib.msu.edu/collections/index.cfm?action=view&TitleID=610&Format=jpg&PageNum=44). Most Sacred Harp tunes were 3-parters in the mid 19th century and had their alto parts added later (mostly by Seaborn Denson) in the early 20th century.

Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, please. I would like the article to be as accurate as possible. Steve Turner, author of Amazing Grace: The Story of America's Most Beloved Song, states that the 1844 version of The Sacred Harp as published by Benjamin Franklin White and Elisha King is in four-part harmony. If Turner is wrong, I'm ok with that. I've written enough articles to accept when a source, even an authoritative one, is mistaken. Are you aware of images for the 1844 version of The Sacred Harp?

I must admit my familiarity is at or below novice level with shape note singing, and I have questions about it that may relate to the article. However, I appreciate that you are busy. The article is at Peer Review right now and nominated for GA, which may take a month or more. Before I nominate it for FA, however, I would love to have your input and any advice you can think to give. --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting links

Interesting stuff on WP:CM, but have you seen this? Best. --Klein zach 02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kleinzach, Thanks for the link. Re:

We believe that excellence, not mere compliance, is the goal of our teaching, our research, and our service.

I'm happy to take them at their word. I think that turfing out your teaching job to overburdened WP editors is not excellence in teaching, and filling up the WP with errors is not excellence in service. Best wishes, Opus33 (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get any disagreement from me on that interpretation. And I'm all for the striving for excellence. Our own dedication to excellence may manifest in a wholesale purge of certain less-than-excellent edits. Best, Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antandrus, This seems to be a much bigger issue than it was last year! Probably good that it be thoroughly aired. I hope you will keep on pursuing excellence in the sense just described. Best wishes, Opus33 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now getting a bit of edit warring on Talk:George Frideric Handel. MaddieRhea, who is reverting fact tags, tells me "I am just trying to fulfill my requirements for class. It's due Thursday and then after that it's all yours (well, it may take a few days before he gets to look through it so a week tops)! . . ." --Klein zach 23:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Sharp article source

Hello,

I replaced the Cecil Sharp source - which I had placed in the first place - because when I clicked on it tonite it gave me the biography of someone else. In fact, click on it now and see what you get. --- Michael David (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Opus33 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our recent dispute

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna van Beethoven

I feel you have been uncivil to me recently. However, we may have misconstrued one another so I thought I had better expand on my comments. I have also suggested at teh AfD talk page that the discussion be closed so that further work can be done to establish her notability and add reliable citations.

My interpretaion of notability as I applies to individuals is that they need to have personal notability independent of any other person. This may be true of Johanna (and of Kaspar for that matter) but none of the relevent articles (including LvB's) actually establish it. Worse, a recent edit cut out most of the article... Even worse, the remaining references do not appear to be relaible sources. We need to work together to sort this out rather than slamming each other. I admit that I too may have been somewhat disingenuous towards you in the discussion and for that I can only appologise.

I also contacted Shadowjams, though I relise now (too late) that I should have come to you first. I include the message I sent to him:

As the nom, I feel I have to talk to you personally. This article might need to be de-listed for now. The problem, as far I as I can see (and as you pointed out), is that her article needs far more work to establish her personal notability. I think it best to wait to see if this can actually be achieved in the article. Cablespy (here) has actually cut out a substantial amount recently (tagging as: no sources for this paragraph. may be defamatory). Also, my discussions with Opus33 aren't going too well: I actually feel as if he is being at least uncivil if not actually personally attacking me. Have I actually warranted his comments? Have I misconstrued him? I hope I have been civil back? I'm pretty annoyed any way and need someone to talk to. Please tell me politely to go away if I am out of line.

I hope I haven't misrepresented you to him.

Anyway, that about covers it. I hope we can reach an agreement. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jubilee, I'm sorry to have been rude to you. I'm working on the article and hope, once it is built up from proper reference sources, that you will be satisfied that Johanna is indeed a major figure in Beethoven biography, that more can be said about her than will fit in Ludwig van Beethoven, and that therefore her entry should not be deleted.

I've had a number of unhappy experiences recently with editors attacking scholarly content on WP and am perhaps have gotten oversensitized. Sorry to take it out on you. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Opus33: Hm... editors attacking scholarly content on WP Ah, that explains it! In that case I fully understand. Apology accepted. I apolgise again for my rudeness.

Good luck with the article (looking good so far). Are you working on Kaspar, too? I think that also needs more - he was a teacher, a composer, a clerk in the Department of Finance, and "liason secretary" (or what ever they would have called it) for Ludwig. Together these factors should establish his notability, but only if properly sourced (obviously). I strongly suspect there is far more to Kaspar, too...

BTW, I also support your position on editors who evidently want to cut back coverage simply because they personally can't imagine a topic being of interest to other people. I myself am interested in minority academic articles (if that's the right way to put it). See Piano extended technique and Post-tonal music theory, both of which I created, and Quartal and quintal harmony, which I have recently heavily edited. Not exactly mass-media stuff!

Thanks for taking the time to respond and I look forward to corresponding in the future.

--Jubilee♫clipman 02:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to ask: how do you feel about my de-list proposals? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we're sort of talking in circles. I think our long term goal should be to include everything that is known about the great composers, and that will only fit in our current article format if we have many satellite articles. So I'm opposed to delisting of such satellites in general. Opus33 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah: I meant de-listing the articles from AfD. In fact, both articles have now been re-listed, with the request to clarify each editor's present position.

100% agree that everything known about all the great composers should be on Wiki: the problem is where to put it! I generally agree with your point about having seperate articles for each person related to, influential upon, or otherwise important to great people; however, I feel that each of these people also needs to have individual notability, unrelated to the "great" person's notability. However, there is no actual policy on this, as far as I can tell: there is just a series of linked guidelines that simply outlines what isn't relevent to notability and points editors to other policies such as verifability etc. The lack of precision on this is probably the cause of all too many drawn out AfD discussions... In fact, I would say that too many editors fail to realise that most of the "policies" they try to cite are nothing of the sort. Eg WP:NOTINHERITED is merely part of an essay helping readers to avoid certain arguments. Guidelines are merely there to help explain the normal ways the policies are applied eg even WP:N is not a policy (let alone WP:BIO), but a way to help apply the actual policies, eg those highlighted in the Five pillars... The only actual policy related the Biographies I have found is the very necessary WP:BLP. The precise difference between Policies, Guidelines and Essays etc is something I am, too, am still learning. It's fortuitous for me that we are having this tête-a-tête now, since it is forcing me to look long and hard at all those documents, something I should have done ages ago... For that, thanks! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have misunderstood you re. "de-list proposals."

One thing to remember concerning "where to put things" is that sometimes there is no perfect solution. We have to pick the least-bad solution, which may in certain cases violate guidelines. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken... WP:IAR! Yours, Jubilee♫clipman 00:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mozart book

Hi. I see you have been working on the Mozart book. I've been doing some similar (but unfortunately not very successful) experiments with Chopin, so I thought I should let you know about them. The links are here and here. My conclusion is that we probably need to do Mozart as a series of little 'booklets' rather than a thorough-going book. --Klein zach 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kleinzach. Of course you're completely right about the need for a hierarchy of levels. For now, I'd be more in favor of having one book with an insufficient internal hierarchy than a series of booklets -- it's more important to have everything all in one place, I think, even if the resulting organization is suboptimal.

In other news, I find that the "book" that gets rendered as PDF for Mozart won't open as a PDF file. Could you perhaps try it on your own computer and tell me if you get the same result? It might be a bug.

Thanks, Opus33 (talk)

I had no trouble downloading and opening it. Do you realize it ignores the subheadings (Stages of Mozart's Life, Kin etc.) you have put in? Doing it as one big book is fine but you only have one heading level. --Klein zach 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hope you have a great new year too! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you, Jubileeman. Opus33 (talk)

Merry Christmas, Kleinzach, and happy shoveling... Opus33 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rebecca Schroeter

Oops! I've fixed that edit. Graham87 02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: Music competitions prize-winners

Hello Opus33! Several categories related to music competition winners are being targetted, and I think it would be useful that you give your opinion regarding the neccesity (or not) of these categories and maybe later help proposing changes to the present guidelines (music awards and prizes). Category:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners has been already deleted. The categories proposed for deletion are #Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, #category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition, #Category:Operalia, #Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and #Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)--[reply]

Harpsichord kits

Thanks for your edit and comment on my inclusion of harpsichord kits in the Harpsichord article. More than reasonable. emdrgreg

And thanks for your patience with being reverted. I think that more ought to be said on WP about harpsichord kits, especially if good reference sources can be found. Opus33 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music Articles

Greetings! Saw the little back-and-forth edits on the Mozart article (no worries on that of course -- can see how my edit summary may have been misconstrued) and then noticed that you are all over that article...and then I wander over to your user page and see that you focus on Mozart, Haydn, and classical in general. You seem very busy. I am a classical junkie, prlobably just a shade above a novice in terms of my musicological knowledge but I know a fair bit about the biographical history of several composers, and am certainly obsessed with the music either way (Mozart has long been my favorite). Regardless, I just wanted to swing by and let you know that if you have any articles that you're working on that you feel too swamped to handle or whatever, let me know and I'd be happy to help. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, probably the biggest gap in our Mozart coverage is the need for full-length article on the Paris journey, similar to the current articles on the Grand Tour, the Italian journeys, and the Berlin journey. We also have yet to cover the Frankfurt journey. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi Opus33, do you want me to give you access to the rollback button? It makes reverting vandalism, like what happened at the Bartolomeo Cristofori article, a lot easier. It should only be used in obvious cases; see Wikipedia:Rollback feature. I think you have more than enough experience to use it wisely, and some classical music articles get a lot of vandalism. Graham87 06:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me--thank you. Also, thanks for spotting my mistake at Bartolomeo Cristofori. Opus33 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I've also given you the autoreviewer user right, so any new articles that you create are automatically marked as patrolled. Without that user right, any page that you create needs to be patrolled by an admin. Graham87 09:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham. Opus33 (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Stolfi's analysis

I don't know whether you are familiar with Jorge Stolfi's views on Wikipedia? For example here, at a real Rfc, not a farcical imitation of one. Here is a quote:

"Five years ago, Wikipedia could be defined as "three milion encyclopedia articles which anyone can edit". I am afraid that today it has become "a decadent social networking site with 10,000 members who have three million articles to play with". . . . most Wikipedia decisions are being made by a small minority of "bosses" who seem to derive more pleasure out of social interaction (and, in particular, the sense of power that comes from "bossing" over other members) than on making real substantial contributions to Wikipedia."

IMO that's a good summary. (He's also got some good essays on his user pages.) --Klein zach 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kleinzach, and thanks for the link. Stolfi's hypothesis sounds pretty plausible.

Within the link you sent, I noticed a proposal that WP policy should be set by an elected legislative assembly. This is something I have long wanted to see. It would be much fairer if the people who want to bully us at least had to win an election first. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary dominant images

Thought I'd drop you a line and see what you think of my new versions of your images for the secondary dominant article. On the talk page someone requested lowercase letters for the minor chords (ii and V/ii rather than II and V/II) and I have attempted to oblige them. Other than that, and being much bigger in file size, my images are nearly identical to yours, except for one version of Image:SecondaryDominantChordsInCMajor.PNG. Hyacinth (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, thank you Hyacinth. Opus33 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eine k(K)leine Nachtmusik

Why did you remove the hatnote in the article Eine kleine Nachtmusik to the album of the same name, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (album)? It seems an entirely proper hatnote to me. I suggest to restore it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael, it was lazy of me not to provide an edit summary, so sorry about that. However, I still think that the link doesn't belong. As you know, we generally avoid cramming classical music articles with pop culture references, because they tend to mount up so quickly and swamp the original article. Also, I think it's inappropriate to put at the very top of an article about a famous work of music a reference to something that looks pretty minor and ephemeral. What do you think? Regards, Opus33 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote has been restored, because it is, as Michael Bednarek noted, entirely proper. As long as Eine Kleine Nachtmusik redirects to Eine kleine Nachtmusik, which I think is also appropriate, the former title is ambiguous because there is another article using it. The hatnote is not a gratuitous pop culture reference; it is a navigation aid for users who are looking for the album.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Flemish harpsichord Small.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Flemish harpsichord Small.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bölzlschiessen

First, congratulations on this thorough article. Your edit summary asserts that "Bölzlschiessen" is the correct spelling. I'm sure that the correct German spelling is "Bölzlschießen", as shown in the German anonymous source (JB) you cite in the article. Most of the English sources will of course use "Bölzlschiessen", but I think googling Bölzlschießen demonstrates that German sources use "Bölzlschießen". I don't care much how the article is titled here in the English Wikipedia, but it should at least mention that in German, it's "Bölzlschießen".

Two more points about the article: it uses the word "Bölzscheibe" – I think that should be "Bölzlscheibe", which is also used in the anonymous source. Second, the quote in the article's section "Bölzlschiessen#Anonymous" should, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics_and_quotations, not be in italics but sorrounded by quotation marks. -- All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Michael. I think I've got these at least mostly covered now. Opus33 (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn and speculations as to his Gypsy origin

see [4] I am not saying he hails from the ranks of this much maligned "tribe" yet there seems to have been intense speculation as to a possible and plausible Roma connection. What I will do will be to insert a reference to this Dedalus. 18:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Apostolos Margaritis (talk)

Folk music

You are an experienced editor so I am sure you are aware of the 3RR, but nevertheless I draw it to you attention, because you have undertaken numerous reverts to this article without achieving consensus on the article talk page and because it carries serious consequences. I would rather not file a report over these actions and would be grateful if you would desist. If you cannot agree to the need to achieve a consensus, perhaps you could accept some form of dispute resolution, a process in which I would be will be willing to participate. You can reply here as I will be watching the page for a few days.--SabreBD (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Joseph Haydn

I see on your user page that accuracy is one of your goals on Wikipedia, so please do me the favor and check at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names how to begin a biographical article, with special attention to the distinction between the name of the article and the name of the subject of the article. Thank you. Kraxler (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]