User talk:Opus33/Archive5

March 2008-March 2009

Art of the States

Hello Opus33,

Thanks for your letter and kind words regarding our website. The question of whether to retain the original 'faw' or amend it with the performed 'law' has mostly to do with the function of artofthestates.org as a listening resource rather than a scholarly reference. Although we extensively research all of the music we present, our site is oriented primarily toward the act of listening, and the information you find there exists to support that experience. And since it's beyond the scope of artofthestates.org to clarify a detail such as the difference between 'faw' and 'law,' we opted for that which you hear on the recording.

Best,
Matthew Packwood, Art of the States
matthew@artofthestates.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.231.94 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

<Opus33 replied to this response by postal mail.>

Sacred harp articles

Opus, I looked at your articles on Leading Sacred Harp music and Pitching Sacred Harp music. They look very good to me. I'll try to make time to make a few comments on them later. - Rlvaughn (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Size of Orchestra at Haydn's Creation Premiere

Opus33,

Thank you for your work in assembling all of the information about this oratorio. I'm curious where you found the information about 120 instrumentalists for the premiere. I can't find record of a performance in Vienna in this period that had more than 30 string players and the score calls for 18 winds. That puts it at 48. I don't even think that there was a stage around that had room for 120 instrumentalists.

Thanks for your assistance, Ben Denne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdenne (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ben, You can find this information on pp. 35-36 of Nicholas Temperley's book Haydn, The Creation (try Google Books, which shows pages of this book rather liberally). The stage was that of the Burgtheater, and Haydn among other things put three wind players on a part. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Placement of maintenance tags

Per Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, maintenance tags should be placed on the article page and not on the talk page. Gary King (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gary, your tag actually proposes a change in article-writing style that, in my opinion, would harm the article, not help it. I would judge that this comes under the heading of "policy debate" rather than "maintenance." Ordinary readers who come to the Mozart article deserve to see a clean, legible format, unhindered by references to policy debates among Wikipedia editors. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA

(This is based on the discussion at: [[1])

You'll notice that personal commentary about other editors, especially when not assuming good faith either, is highly inappropriate. I don't really care what you have to say, but you should probably learn about Wikipedia policies, since you're so familiar with classical music I'm sure that won't be too hard, although for us uneducated morons who dare to ask that articles fit the community accepted standards for notability, I guess we'll have to struggle with our tiny, walnut-sized, modern-music-loving brains. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cheeser, my objection] had nothing to do with your overall level of intelligence, though you seem to have chosen to interpret it that way. Rather, I'm concerned with the issue of knowledgeability. You evidently don't know much about classical music, so I think you shouldn't be proposing classical music articles for deletion. I solemnly promise you that I will not propose any articles for deletion that are about video games, Ottoman history, three-valued logics, or any other topic on which I have no informed opinion. Kleinzach said the same thing, about gastropods. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn Gold Coin

Hi there. The Austrian government mints every year only one coin of 50 euro value, in very small quantities, immediately getting acquired by collectors. They started a series in 2004 called "Great Composers", in their honour, and it was decided to put Haydn on the very first coin … on top of Mozart and Beethoven! How can you say this is not interest for those that want to learn about Haydn? The fact that you have no interest in numismatics, or that your interest is in music, should not be enough to decide what should and what should not be included in an article; that is my personal opinion. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia … I think that a reference to a very special coin featuring a portrait of Haydn, not only does not take too much space in the article, but it is also very valid; please reconsider it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Miguel, I think it would be fine to discuss this commemorative coin but such discussion would belong in the numismatics articles of WP and not the Haydn article. As support for my position, I would note that neither the New Grove (the major English-language encyclopedia of music) nor any of the composer biographies I've read make any mention of commemorative coins. I think the pros are right on this point and we should follow their example. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree, this is not a music encyclopaedia, and not allowing this simple fact in the article, that takes no more than three lines, is neglecting the fact that the coin exists; which the only thing that shows is the relevance of Haydn in contemporary society, not only in music; it simply shows the legacy he has left from a different angle. Of course the coin is in an article of numismatics, which by the link, links back to this article as well. I will change it a little bit, and will put it in the "See also" section, please be wide, and see it as a valuable piece of information. Maybe some of you, musicians, would love to have this coin (and the other two "Great Composers" coin, featuring Mozart and Beethoven) after knowing the fact that it exists, it is a very rare piece of art, of pure gold, very valuable. Did you know the coin exists? Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A personal note: thanks for compromising. I have changed a text a little bit, I hope you are OK with it. Are you watching Mozart and Beethoven as well? I will do changes there as well over the next few hours. Will let you know here once is made, so you can take a look and give me your opinion.

PS, you are right about the Haydn article and the usage of the images, they are all on the top of the article, I think it will be better if some of them are moved towards the end of it. But it is just my opinion, will not do it, if you need help, let me know. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Haydn Infobox: A Trojan horse?

Of course your infobox is innocuous - but then Trojan horses are supposed to be! Actually the routine is completely predictable with a long time-wasting discussion following wrong information being put up. You are of course free to change your mind. Maybe best to email in future in case this all turns nasty (see Melodia's personal attack for example.) --Kleinzach (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach, I seem to be just a couple messages behind you. Of course I didn't mean my infobox to be a Trojan horse. But I did find it encouraging that irrelevant or inaccurate material can be simply removed from the infobox, rather than deleting the whole thing. Would this not be a feasible solution elsewhere?

Re. changing my mind: I really found it rather stressful dealing with User:truth-teller or whatever his name is. It's not like there's a huge crowd of available composer-infobox-reverters available to back one up, and the strategy of removing his dreadful edits rather than the whole infobox seemed so much more feasible to me... Regards, Opus33 (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please use email - for your sake rather than mine. Re stress - I think you are inviting a lot more of the same thing. If the Haydn box stays, Beethoven etc will be next. If the pro-boxers were real bona fide editors it would be different, but they are not. They're just lazy kids looking for instant gratification. They don't read the articles at all. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Now i think you can see what I mean about a Trojan horse - or should I say a Pandora's box! The box you object to - a box which had just been deleted - was also added to Beethoven. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you reverted infobox in Haydn, Template:Infobox classical composer to a more sensible infobox (your words), Template:Infobox musical artist. May I ask why? I thought it was thought that Infobox musical artist was not liked for composers for the reasons of fields such a associated acts? I am curious as I would like to know what makes the old infobox better (and so what I can do to change the current one). Centy – reply• contribs – 10:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Kleinzach: For someone that calls personal attacks at someone accusing you of pointiness "If the pro-boxers were real bona fide editors it would be different, but they are not. They're just lazy kids looking for instant gratification" is a wonderfully hypocritical and ironic comment.

Hello Centurion, For my current views about infoboxes please consult the talk page of the WP composer project. In a way, you've really managed to bring me around on this issue. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Recant etc.

Thank you. That meant a lot to me. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You also get Wiki-savvy points for having prophesied the trouble. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mozart CD-ROM/Audio CD

The Mozart CD is a hybrid audio CD and CD-ROM. Here is the WorldCat entry for it: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/24661904--Geremia (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing content without talking about it ...

As I have said in the past, your neutrality towards my comments is generally under question. You can not hide the fact that very high value coins have been minted using very important representations like people, castles, etc. If you continue reverting my edits on purpose, I will escalate your behaviour to a Wikipedia neutral administrator and your account may be blocked. Way more important articles than the ones your review have been happily accepting my comments, you should take that as a sample! Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Opus, I'll revert the changes at Schloss Esterházy until consensus is established for them. Can you keep an eye on the article page as well, reverting as necessary; we can take michael here to 3RR if he continues to revert without discussion. Also, I think the coincruft should go at Haydn's page too. It's just hideous. Thanks, Eusebeus (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Opus33. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, --Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise on the coin issue at Schloss Esterházy, which builds on the compromize of Snappy56 where he moved the image into the gallery. I put a small paragraph back in describing the commerative purpose of the coin, which Snappy had eliminated. I will admit that the coin in the gallery (in this article) is still somewhat uncomfortable, but perhaps it is tolerable. I believe the paragraph would stand on its own without the image if necessary, and I do not believe that it detracts from the basic article; indeed, indicating that the government still values the building seems positive to me.

On reading the article I found it had considerable problems with wording, having a very confused sense of tense. I went through and corrected this as best I could with the available material. I'm still concerned that this material was probably lifted in whole cloth from some book or web site, but it is probably better now.

I'd like to know if you agree or disagree with the changes I've made. While I listen to classical music by preference, I have to admit that I don't own a copy of Grove. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Opus33, it will really mean a lot to me if you can give your honest comment on Talk:Schloss Esterházy, even if it is "I do not like and I rather the whole mention of the coin and the image to be removed". Thanks in advance. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've put some remarks at Schloss Eszterhazy and the Wikiproject Composers talk page. The quick upshot is: please, devote your efforts to improving coverage of numismatics--there, it will help the encyclopedia. Your efforts to include numismatic material in articles on other topics are hurting those articles. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

After thinking a lot yesterday, particularly carefully meditating about Loren's comment, I have a strong feeling that you and I can solve this issue. My next proposal, how about just this sentence in the "See Also" section (without the quotes), it can be the last sentence of the section if you want:

"The Austrian government minted a commemorative coin in 2004 featuring the Schloss Esterházy".

What do you think? Thanks Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Miguel. Look, in truth I'm not interested in compromising, and I will now explain why.

Take a look at my user page. It says, more or less truthfully, that I edit WP on just three topics. For each of these topics, I have read several books and know a fair amount. I wouldn't dream of editing numismatics articles, because I have never read a book about, or otherwise studied, numismatics.

You (in fact, everybody) should do the same: edit in an area where you know something, and leave alone the areas where you have no particular knowledge. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am simply trying to satisfy your original request and not to get into battles that are wothless. If you are OK with the sentence that I proposed (it is just a small sentence in the see also page of an area that I do know something and it does not hurt the article that much) then I will be personally removing all the images and replacing with that small reference to another wikipedia article. Your article will be back to your control I think. That is what the "See Also" section is for, right? What do you think? Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Opus33, would you consider giving Miguel's idea a try? I understand your position on trivia and at least partially share it, so I can see there are places it wouldn't work at all. But in my personal opinion, on looking at several places that coins had been inserted, I wasn't particularly upset by them. The image in the Esterhazy article does bother me, seeming out of place. But the experimental sentence I put in mentioning the coin did not feel bad, at least to me. I think it would be worth a try. If it doesn't work after some number of articles have had lines added, they can always be reverted next month at little effort for anyone. And I'd personally like to see the changes be allowed to sit for a week or two if possible before arbitrarily ripping them out. Thanks for considering this -- I really don't think these bits of info will be detrimental to most of the articles, and they aren't completely off the subject of the article. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:WindhamDorian.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:WindhamDorian.PNG. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. 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, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate the source you used to create the Sibelius version :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Western Wynde

Wow -- I did not expect to have detailed transcriptions of all three versions of an obscure little English Renaissance tune. Great work back in 2004! Too bad that only a few of the subsequent edits have done anything to improve the article from what you brought it to. Cheers -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Myke - I think that was a period where I was discovering the joys/challenges of my Sibelius software--I actually know very little about this music! I still own the software and feel vaguely inspired to make more examples. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mozart's Operas

Maybe you would like to comment on this? Best. --Kleinzach 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This article is now List of Mozart's operas and is undergoing a peer review. Your comments would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:442px-Seyfried.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:442px-Seyfried.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. 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, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Mozart's operas

This is now at FLC. It has so far attracted only limited attention, concerned with commas, full stops and minor style questions. It badly needs some informed comment about its content and utility. The list provoked some interest when it first appeared; it would be very helpful if you could spare a minute or two to leave a comment at FLC. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mozart article

Semiprotected again -- thanks for letting me know. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of "In Popular Culture" from Cosi fan tutte

Bravo. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn small issue

I am contacting you regarding a small issue on the Joseph Haydn article, an edit had changed the description of the image Beethoven Riedel 1801.jpg from by Carl Traugott Riedel (1769 – 1832) to by Anton Boch which I then reverted, not sure which one is correct hope you can help.Kevin hipwell (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kevin,

I can't find a really solid source, but this web page:

http://www.lvbeethoven.com/Portraits/GalleryPortraits.html

suggests you were probably correct to revert to Riedel. Boch evidently made a later copy. Opus33 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Maria Anna Mozart

Wikipedia:Dates#Date autoformatting: linking dates auto-formats them. Lars T. (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

<Opus33 asked Eusebeus not to begin comments with "Gentlemen">

Madam, my humble regrets. Eusebeus (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eusebeus. Actually, my own gender, just like everything else concerning the person who is Opus33, is a secret. But re. the general point at hand, I suspect that editor Melodia Chaconne, who also participates in classical music discussions, is female; and who know who else might come along. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Mozart revert

Don't worry about it. I knew it was a potentially contentious situation and wasn't really personally vested in the permanence of that particular edit. I was just trying to find a reasonable compromise and the redirect was already there. I hadn't seen that editor's block history and didn't realize exactly how nasty he was going to get without about a such a trivial point.

I find it a bit ironic that the Holy Roman Empire's grander aspirations at the time (i. e. naming themselves the "Roman Empire") is inhibiting modern Germans' desire to stake claim to its history. This is an issue that exists for all historical figures from this place and time period and the discussion shouldn't be isolated to one particular historical figure's article. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mozart page moves

I replied on my talk page. Graham87 05:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindertotenlider English Horn

Hello,

Regarding your reversion of the Kindertotenlieder page back to the original listing of "English Horn (cor anglais)", I personally still feel that listing both names is redundant when only one will suffice. I laud your efforts on trying to make WP intelligible to all readers but I've edited several instrumentation sections for works and I have never seen both names mentioned. English Horn is usually mentioned, or cor anglais, but never both. The cor anglais article (which "English Horn" happens to redirect to as it is) clearly mentions both names and a confused user can easily figure things out.

Again, this is my personal opinion but I want to try to make these sort of articles as concise as possible.

Sincerely,

TrumpetMan202 (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your reply on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumpetMan202 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Magic Flute

I am surprised and confused by your edit to The Magic Flute. You provided this edit summary: "Hello, I'd like to see a reference source for 'three acts' before we include it. My score says just two." However, your edit seems a straight UNDO operation, reverting my previous edit — which had nothing to to with 2 or 3 acts. My edit was mainly, as my edit summary indicatyed, a reversal of a previous anonymous edit which specified baritone for Monostatos; I changed that back to tenor. There was an intervening edit by Viva-Verdi which I left untouched. I have now reverted your edit because I assume it was not your intention.

As to the substance of your edit summary: I quite agree — I don't know about 3-act Flutes, so if your want to remove all references or at least tag them ({{Fact}}), you won't find any opposition from me. Regards, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

<Opus33 apologized to Michael Bednarek on his talk page.> Opus33 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I did see it and I did appreciate it. As I wrote above, I assumed all along that it was not your intention to revert. We all make mistakes, and sometimes the Enter-key is just in the wrong place at the wrong time; no hard feelings whatsoever. I apologize for not acknowledging your message — I have been told that my messaging style is often perceived as terse. (My editing habits on my talk page are very lazy: every month or two, I just delete what's become obsolete and trust the page history to find things again if I have to.) All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs

I have nominated Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mozart family Grand Tour

For your information, this article is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:LetterFromAnnaPaikow.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LetterFromAnnaPaikow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A Mozart project?

Maybe this has come up before. . . . but I'm wondering if you have ever thought about starting a Mozart project - as a way of concentrating, consolidating your articles and giving them a higher profile? This has worked well for Wagner and Gilbert & Sullivan. A Mozart Project would probably be a daughter project of Composers (not Opera in view of WAM's broad output), but only bannered by the project itself and free to adopt and develope its own guidelines. Best. --Kleinzach 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach, Thanks for the suggestion. In truth, I would prefer that the Mozart articles have a low profile. When the profile is high, it increases the time one spends on crazy stuff (for example: the "Mozart had Tourette's" hypothesis, or demands that we put major coverage of Amadeus into the Mozart article). But if someone else started up a Mozart wikiproject I would participate. The Wagner project you pointed out seems sensible. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's keep it in mind as an option for the future. Best. --Kleinzach 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Contact Info, etc.

Any particular reason why? I'm not in the habit of giving out my professors' contact information without them knowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallGirl88 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed -- I think WP has gotten sophisticated (and complex) enough that it's getting very hard to devise assignments of the type "write an article" or "fix wrong things" that don't end up creating more problems than they fix for the encyclopedia. I found it much more useful to take an important but poorly written article (in my case, "John Adams (composer)" which was mostly copyvio) and say, "as a class we'll rewrite from scratch in a sandbox," upload the new article and let the community decide if they want the class's article or the old one. I don't think WP assignments can work unless the prof. is already a participating member of the community (eek, which I barely am at all anymore).

I also wonder, "a prof who doesn't want his or her name out there in the world?" I always thought narcissism was as natural to the academic species as binder clips and footnotes... cheers. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. I agree, and would add my general sense that the prof ought to be seriously involved in the work (as it sounds like you are), giving comments and feedback, rather than sending the students off to WP to take pot luck (as it sounds like this prof is doing). Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike and Opus. Mike -- good to see you around, and Opus, I'm also glad you are still editing here! -- I still have not contacted the professor responsible for the latest round of disastrous "improvements" to articles on Renaissance music and composers. While I am not absolutely certain who it is, I strongly suspect it is this assistant professor, since he teaches Music History I in the fall (which logically would end with the period in question). (Two of the students edited while logged out, enabling me to trace the IPs to Union University and a residential connection in Jackson, TN.) While he does not have a current syllabus on his web site, the 2006 one ends with a "research project web version" due on the first Monday in December, which we know to have been the case with the Wikipedia projects in 2007 and 2008 as well.

I'm not sure yet what to do about the "improvements" I whined about on the Wikiproject Composers talk page. There are some useful sourced statements, but in my more ornery moments I'm tempted just to revert them all. Last year I spent a lot of my free time between Christmas and New Year's fixing the damage wrought by the previous crop of sophomores (Heinrich Isaac, Johannes Ockeghem, Claude Le Jeune, .... and a bunch of others; many are still a mess). The Arcadelt and Marenzio articles currently contain nonsense and inaccuracies, since the people editing the articles clearly did not understand the topics, and in the case of Arcadelt the student was using a source from 1900, which was two generations before even Einstein.

By the way, I'm not certain we have caught all the edits. I do not have every composer or topic on my watch list; some easily could have gone missing.

Thanks for listening. Rant done. Have a pleasant weekend both, Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. Nice to hear from you, and your remarks were very interesting! This is a topic worth keeping in mind as WP matures. Best wishes, Opus33 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- thanks for keeping up with this Antandrus -- maybe I'll reload my old Ren. Music watchlist back to help (I deleted my watchlist to spend less time here, but I did make a backup in case the urge struck again). What you said about the 1900 Arcadelt source is something that I'm seeing more and more: sources pre-1923 used for essays because they come up on google print. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Opus, thank you for your help on this!

On one hand, I'm a little resentful that much of my free time around the holidays will go to repairing the articles which are now riddled with misunderstandings and out-of-context quotations from out-of-date reference works. On the other hand, a lot of those articles I wrote in 2004, and they could use rewriting to our current standards, so the result will be good.

All the best, Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. It is really great for WP that you are so patient! Happy holidays, Opus33 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Henryk Górecki

Hi again Opus, I hope you dont mind me approaching you directly but I need some input at [2]. You dont have to worry about offending me; the harsher the critism the more helpful. If you dont have time thats fine, no harm in asking. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ceoil, I'm embarrassed to say I know almost nothing about Gorecki and would be of no use here. (I certainly don't mind your having asked me.) Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine Opus33, I suppose I'll survive. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven

I have left a comment here Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There has been a merge proposal to merge Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven into Ludwig van Beethoven. Since you created the former article, I think that you should know about it and make your opinion known on the matter. The discussion is here. Please note that this is not my proposal. I am simply the one who went to the trouble of putting the appropriate templates on the tops of the pages. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 17:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

File:ShortOctaveOnC.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ShortOctaveOnC.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you are not aware of it: there is another version of this at Commons: Commons:File:ShortOctaveOnC.svg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Opus33's Day!

Opus33 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Opus33's day! For your work on classical music articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, Opus33! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Opus33/Books

Hey there! I'm making a centralised "library" if you will of books that Wikipedians own; the idea is to give a single place of reference where users can go to find other users who might have texts on a subject they are writing about, rather than what we have at the moment (various users having indexesbooks they own scattered around in places). Would you have any problem with me including your texts given here in the library? Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coins

See here. --Kleinzach 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no copyright violations as I have mentioned already several times and I will be proving shortly. There is no copyright violation in the text that you are also removing. If you continue with this behaviour I will have no choice but to report you on WP:ANI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel.mateo (talk • contribs)

Really now, Miguel. Our previous round of discussions involved a judgment call: are coin images relevant enough to justify inclusion in "real world" articles? But the permissions issue seems much more straightforward to me, particularly in the case of coins issued by the Austrian mint. They tell you in plain language that it's not legal to use their images without their permission. So I think it's a bit over the top for you to assert, or imply, that it is legal. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Opus, pardon me for butting in. Miguel, please -- you seem to be on a solitary crusade to put coin images in numerous articles; if you encounter a large group of editors opposed to this, it may not be a "teaming against you" but rather a WP:CONSENSUS, which is a normal, and desirable occurrence on Wikipedia. Regarding your ANI threat, beware the Law of unintended consequences. I know what will happen there, and it's best avoided. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about consensus, the point is that there was consensus in a similar article recently (just two days ago) to keep the image, and the same three editors are now against that consensus, and blantly removing it from other articles. And I am not threatning about ANI, is a hard reality and it may go that way if this continues. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)