User talk:Opus33/Archive7

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob
I figured it was something like that. :-) Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New Grove Haydn
Most of the stuff in our Gregor Werner article can also be found in pp. 11, 12, 15, 16 of Larsen, Jens (1997) Peter and Feder, Georg. New York The New Grove Haydn, W. W. Norton & Co. as close to verbatim as a paraphrase can get. James470 (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, the material you mention is the New Grove. They often reprint their longer articles as books (both of their most recent Haydn articles have been treated this way.  Opus33 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not everyone has a subscription to Oxford Music Online, but hopefully most people can walk into a library and find copies of such Grove "reprints." James470 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I owe you an apology, and I only realized it recently.

At first I was confused by your talk of my "blunders" and "reckless editing" and "removal of reference sources." I was also puzzled by your repeating stuff back to me like you said it first.

And just now I realized what my mistake is: I infringed on your ownership of the Gregor Werner article. I am so sorry for this trespass. Just because I don't claim ownership of any Wikipedia articles doesn't mean that others don't have that right. I will never edit that article again, regardless of what I think of its shortcomings—it's irrelevant, just as I don't care what my neighbors say about my lawn.

Again, please accept my apology. If you provide me with a list of other existing Wikipedia articles you own, I will also never edit those again either. James470 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you're so upset about this. But the fact is, your edit looked very far off the mark, suggesting incompetence on your part in bibliographic matters.  If you disagree with this assertion, why not address the facts of the case rather than engaging in sarcasm?


 * I certainly do not "own" this article and I welcome carefully done work by other editors. Opus33 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said I was upset about this? And who said my edit was far off the mark and that I'm incompetent in bibliographic matters?  (Besides you, of course).  Take a long hard look at a version of that article before my edit and try to justify going back to that version.  Was there anything in that article that would've allowed anyone else to verify that the article was actually correct and not just the writings of a teenage Internet prankster with no knowledge of the subject?  Just because a citation is in your head doesn't mean that it's in the article.  Try reading things carefully once in a while.


 * But I have way more important things to do than try to convince Internet idiots of anything. If you tell me you own all Wikipedia articles, I will respect that.  I'm serious about that.  I'm not going to fight anyone over a sandbox.  James470 (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on summary.
Hello Opus33. The summary you included here is insightful and could benefit others if included as noinclude text supplementing the statement about the infobox. As a reviewer, I would honor the guidance.  My 76 Strat  19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you for your courteous response.  Opus33 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A thank you
Something that doesn't happen as often on Wikipedia is it rightfully should. Thank you for writing the article on Gregor Werner, which is the finest free-content material on this composer on the internet. I'd give you a barnstar for toughing it out for what, seven years now? -- in spite of difficulties ranging from misunderstandings to completely unjustified abuse, some of which appears on this very page, and in the edit history -- but I suspect you think barnstars are as silly as I do. Content is what matters, as is respectful treatment of our contributors. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael Bednarek is the one who deserves the credit here. Take a look at the edit history for that article and tell me who really is the victim of "misunderstandings to completely unjustified abuse."  It's not hard to produce a good-sounding piece if you're going to just plagiarize Grove.  But to really produce "the finest free-content material on this composer on the internet," now, that would be worth a real medal.  James470 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record: James470 is mistaken. I listed the extent of my edits clearly in my edit summaries. They show that I merely consolidated existing references and fixed some formal matters; eventually, I clarified the minor matter of who Johann Novotný was. All of the article's text, except for one subclause I added, was and is Opus33's. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank, Antandrus. James, please go away, you are being quite a pest.  Opus33 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That would hurt if it came from someone who actually understands language as opposed to just cuts and pastes it.
 * Anyway, bye. James470 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Opus, I've opened your first draft of the article and compared it to the equivalent article in the online New Grove, and I see no plagiarism, let alone "cut and paste". James, this is beginning to be harassment, so please make good on your promise to leave, as I believe Opus wishes you to go away.  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --- to both Michael and Antandrus.


 * This said, it think it fair for me to add that in 2007 I should have properly cited the Werner article in Grove (article name and author), rather than letting it just be a inference for the reader (one that I thought would be obvious) that one would go to Grove and look up "Gregor Werner".   Had I done so, this unpleasantness would (probably) not have arisen.  I will certainly dot every i and cross every t when citing Grove henceforth.  Opus33 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mozart and dance
Sorry for adding the OR tag - I didn't realise the statements about Mozart's enjoyment of dance in the introduction were sourced later in the article. Good luck working on the article. Thanks. Claritas § 07:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. Opus33 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gottfried Silbermann
Couldn't you just place a instead of deleting the whole entry? Angry bee (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to offend, Angry Bee. However, would not agree with me that sourcing is an area where WP should err on the side of caution?  Some of the unsourced edits we get are really off the wall and not only unsourced but unsourceable.  Yours turned out to be legit -- but I couldn't have known this in advance.  Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and in the end it was better that you deleted it because it was slightly inaccurate. Angry bee (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've had this experience myself (edit from memory, and then notice an inaccuracy after checking).  Opus33 (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mozart edits
Just thought I should let you know about this. Were you trying to revert me instead? If so, let me explain: I removed the locations because having some books include them and others not is inconsistent, and WP:CITE requires a consistent citation method throughout the article. If you want to re-add those locations, please add locations for the entries that lack them too, and please don't revert my other changes. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your courteous message, and sorry to have been sloppy in my editing. This time I just put in the places for publishers, which I believe is a pretty normal requirement for bibliographies.  There are still a couple where I don't know the location; unfortunately Google Books leaves out this information.  Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You could try Googling publishers or looking at their websites. One other thing, though: I noticed that for some of those entries, you replaced the comma before the publisher with a period, while others you left as they were. Was there a reason for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubtless apartheid...
Many thanks for your kind comment! Rothorpe (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert
Was this wholesale revert really necessary? Did the edit completely fail to improve the article in any way? Jehochman Talk 22:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think so. Please take a look at the Mozart talk page, where I have now added a discussion of the revert.  Opus33 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. However, we have many articles, and need many more editors.  When an editor first arrives at an article, please remember to be welcoming.  Invite them to add ideas for improvement to the talk page. Offer to help them. If you must revert, do try to salvage minor improvements and take the time to explain why you reverted. These small investments of time are worth it. Jehochman Talk 03:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V
Thanks for your comment at WP:V talk. I'm really glad to read input on this from an editor working in a humanities field! Discussions about media/scholarly sources often end up sounding as though the main problems with media sources being used in preference over scholarly sources in Wikipedia lay in hard science topics, as opposed to art, music, literature, society etc. In my view, it's these latter topics that languish most in Wikipedia, due to under-use of scholarly sources. -- JN 466  02:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In classical music, the unreliable-source problem lies not so much in journalism as in childhood music education and record jackets, which perpetuate old errors. It would nice to see modern, more accurate scholarly work cited in the WP more often, so I hope your proposal makes some headway.  Regards, Opus33 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Haydn's Austrian hymn
"My Wiki-goals [include] accuracy, with everything taken from a peer-reviewed, properly cited reference source." While your "Das Lied der Deutschen" compels respect from one living in Germany, the desideratum just quoted does not on the other hand, in the article de.wikipedia.org/.../Österreichische Kaiserhymnen, seem to have been reached in the case of the words underlying the melody quotation (hell-stem, not hell stem; Lorberreiser, not modern Lorbeerreiser, see Haydn's autograph and the first edition, which accurately reproduces it), or of the melody line as notated in the article, or of the heard music of the audio file (piano) which you posted and released on the 13th of February 2009. As it happens, I have just made a most painstaking transcription of the words and music from a facsimile of the first edition for the purpose of testing the new Mac version of the music-writing software PriMus. As I do not know how to get my files (PriMus, then for a non-possessor of PriMus an html-file for the written and an mp3 file for the heard notes) into Wikipedia, perhaps you could offer a suggestion? In conclusion, I pick out one place in the musical text which is never heard as Haydn wrote it: the rhythm of the last occurrence of the words "Gott! er-hal-te" [! sic] is dotted crotchet, quaver | crotchet, crotchet; the chord of the subdominant over -hal- is completely unadorned, with no suggestion of the suspension of the fourth in its top part which is always slavishly sung, presumably to 'improve' a sequence which Haydn meant to be slightly asymmetrical. A good look at the harmony of the entire brief sequence will prove instructive. Pamino (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lucia Elizabeth Vestris
Hi, thanks for your question on an edit for Therese Jansen Bartolozzi and this page about her having the dance classes with her brother. I had been using sources on Bartolozzi's page but must have been working too fast and misinterpreted something. Have corrected the material.Parkwells (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you. Opus33 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Harpsichord
Thanks for noticing the Bartok omission. The exact reference is the Preface of the Boosey & Hawkes Edition, Plate 15197, all of which seemed unnecessary as a Wiki full reference. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrbodine (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what you did works fine. Thanks for doing this.  Opus33 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)''

Haydn's relationship with Beethoven
Good evening: Regarding my recent edits to the Haydn page:  you stated that I should include the Solomon quote in the separate section. But the Haydn page INCORRECTLY describes beethoven's attitudes as being negative towards his teacher. Consult chapter 7 of Maynard Solomon's biography of Beethoven (the most renowned, authoritative biography on Beethoven), and this chapter explains this relationship in great detail. It notes that Beethoven's view was quite positive towards his teacher, despite some periods of minor friction (which were quite normal in light of Beethoven's personality).


 * You are right and I have tried to correct the error. I'm reluctant to use the Solomon source (at least, as the only source) since his work seems to attract controversy.  I have a less-controversial source available and will give this a try shortly.  Thanks for raising this issue.  Opus33 (talk)

New picture: query
hi there,

that's all it said on the description of the object, I myself do not know as well what the museum means with "old". Maybe it came from the theater from a previous renovation? Gryffindor (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LocationOfIthacaNewYork.gif
Thanks for uploading File:LocationOfIthacaNewYork.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

City location maps
There's a fancy new way to show city locations using SVG maps, though I haven't played with it yet. See, for example, Ely, Cambridgeshire. Kelly hi! 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Counterpoint query
Hi Opus! Did you mean to do this? It appears you went all the way back to 28 September 2007 in your last edit. (I have no idea how that would happen.) What was the advertising link? Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, gaak ... Thanks for spotting! I'll fix.  Opus33 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Grychtolik
Thank you for your support: O angenehme Melodei, BWV 210a and O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit, BWV 210, translating to "O pleasing melody" and "O lovely day, o hoped-for time", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I'm glad it survived.  Opus33 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking but I'm a bit overbooked in the RW right now. Opus33 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP Classical Music in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Music for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! -Mabeenot (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mozart and Haydn Project
Hi. You may be interested to see the discussion here. Best. -- Klein zach  01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've replied there. Opus33 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views


The article Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is mostly a POV fork, and rife with original research. If the supposed controversy over Beethoven's religious views are significant and supported by sources, then this belongs in the Beethoven article itself.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Message about Sacred Harp edits
Please note my comments at User Talk: Espoo and feel free to join in. ;) Feel free also to delete this personal message after reading it. Finn Froding (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the alert. Opus33 (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DHR
Replied to your edit summary on article's talk page Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice; please see now my reply there. Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:BachToccataAndFugueInDMinorRecastAsViolinMusic.GIF listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BachToccataAndFugueInDMinorRecastAsViolinMusic.GIF, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Schikaneder article
Please do yourself and the Wikipedia community a favor and don't start an edit war over the changes to the Schikaneder article. If you have concerns, please take them to the talk page where we can discuss the changes that have been made. If necessary, we can get other editors who have contributed in the past to the article involved as well. If other input is needed, we can get and RfC going. I replied in detail to your comments on the article's talk page last night - if you haven't read them, please do so. Polite and productive conversation about how to improve the article in a cooperative and collegial manner as well as keeping it within policy and Wikipedia standards is welcome. Patronizing and dismissive comments about how the article is "damage[d]", how you are needed to "repair" it, and that I should "read the source material before editing...Please return after you have done so" are not. Three things you might want to remember about Wikipedia in the framework of the scenario surrounding the editing of this article: (1) There is no deadline in Wikipedia, (2) the little caveat under the "Save Page" button that states, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here"; in other words, Wikipedia articles are meant to evolve, and (3) no one owns Wikipedia articles - editing here is a collaborative, community effort. One more thought: your prose and article editing style is reminiscent of both a textbook and a research paper. Wikipedia is not meant to be either and is to be written basically and succinctly as any other encyclopedia - simple enough for a fourth-grader to understand, inclusive enough for an academic to appreciate. This is another reason for a number of my edits in the Schikaneder article - to simplify and "dumb-down". See you on the article talk page, Lhb1239 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Die Schöpfung
In case you didn't see it, I created tables for the structure of Haydns The Creation, - a "side product" of writing a program for our concert. There is a discussion about naming them and/or merging information. Please join, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Gerda, I've been busy in real life and haven't edited much recently. For what it's worth, I would guess that (like me) you really like this piece and wanted to write a WP article about it.  So, now we have two articles about The Creation!  It's really not the end of the world to have two articles and I don't see any huge need to merge them.  But other editors are probably a bit more fussy on this point and might give you a hard time about it.  Best, Opus33 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I see it as looking at the same thing from different angles, and - as you may have noticed - I "cross" over for every single movement. My angle is "less prose" for the not-fluent-in-English part of the world (what's a plum aria?). Also I have (intentionally) mentioned only basics about history, both of creating the piece as later performance, just enough for the perspective. Singt dem Herren, alle Stimmen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:SixBasicChordsInCMajor.PNG needs authorship information.
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:SixBasicChordsInCMajor.PNG appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

'''Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!''' :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: www.urcity.com/survey/index.php?user=55343282.

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

Haydn 104
I'm glad you suggested I visit the local music library. That's where I noticed the thematic similarities between the Mozart and Haydn melodies. (Have you heard them, or seen the scores? YouTube can furnish recordings, although Perlman and Zuckerman's excellent Mozart is not there, nor is Colin Davis' Haydn; my favorites. The Mozart passage occurs in G somewhere near 6 minutes into most recordings, I believe.) The fact that nobody has written on it is simply incidental; nobody has (to my knowledge) pointed out that Ravel's Introduction and Allegro shares a prominent melody with the Eb minor dance tune in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture either, but that does not make it untrue. I understand that the Wiki does not welcome new thought, but such interesting observations make up the lifeblood of the project for me. If others were held to these same standards that new edits are now subjected to, we would hardly have any writing on classical music at all, and even less of it would be remotely insightful. Look at the page for Schubert 5. Some grad student copied and pasted a paper into the article - but he got it into a journal, so the fact that it's original research goes unquestioned. It's not terribly well-written or interesting, but let's ignore that. Now look at Schubert 1. No citations at all, and no references other than the score. None of the claims in the article on Haydn 104 are cited in themselves either, besides the quotation, because they are apparent from the score. So is my addition.

(Unsigned; returned to sign and add the following:)

If you take a moment to realize that, Wiki rules aside, my assertion is correct, then rather than revert my contribution, perhaps you could use your apparently limitless knowledge of Mozart and Haydn to find a source, since I have tried long and hard and been unable to find a writer who mentioned this.

Ra56 (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Ra56, I did give a try in this direction and got nowhere. Opus33 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, on a second look, your objection is partially to the speculative nature of my assertion? If the italicized text below is changed to read, "which bears a striking resemblance to", would this be acceptable?

Ra56 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This movement, in G major, opens with the main theme in the strings, quite probably borrowed from the second theme of the first movement of Mozart's Duo in G for Violin and Viola, K. 423 (appearing in ms. 27 in D major, and later in G in ms. 112). After this, a brief episode highlighting A minor and D minor leads to a modified repeat of the main theme in both strings and bassoon. From here, a second section begins which modulates to various other keys, including G minor and B flat major, but continues to feature the melody of the main theme. After arriving on the dominant of G major, the music of the first section returns. The rest of the movement consists of a modification of the first section of music, with several changes in rhythm and more prominence to the winds, especially the flute.

Oh, and would including cuttings from both scores be sufficient for a source, if I felt inclined to type them out in Finale and upload them? Ra56 (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Ra56, I need to clarify my earlier remarks. (1) The No Original Research policy is essentially non-negotiable throughout Wikipedia.  (2) The only conceivable "back door" through the policy would be in cases where what the editor says is original, but is extremely obvious and beyond doubt.  For example, saying that in late December 1800, Beethoven was 30 years old.  So, what I meant to say was (1) your contribution was original research; and (2) it is not beyond doubt.  Putting the two together, we have a no-go result.  I hope this helps, and I wish you good luck in finding a legitimate reference source for your assertion.  Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So the text of the music itself is not sufficient source? Ra56 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. If you want to see the chapter and verse, it's here. Opus33 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So do I once again give up trying to contribute to Wikipedia, or should I make a fuss and submit it to a journal so I can call it someone else's work like the fellow who wrote the Schubert 5 article? That seems to be the standard, yes? - if someone else agrees, it must be true! Ra56 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if people were watching the Schubert-5 article more closely, that edit might have been reverted. That's not an excuse to add conjecture in other places.  We try to only state links like the one you suggest if other authors have noticed them.  Wikipedia is intentionally boring this way.  If every simple theme that sort of sounds like another simple theme to some listeners is mentioned than WP would be a big mess.  You don't have to give up trying to contribute but do you have anything else besides WP:OR?DavidRF (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well put, thanks David. Opus33 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Followup: as RA56's most recent edit indicates, three clear explanations of WP:NOR, from three different editors, have not sufficed. My current plan is simply to revert further NOR violations from this editor. These discussions have proved to be a waste of time. Opus33 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My last contribution to this article was in no way original research. There is nothing there that is not present in the score without analysis. You are now treating this as a vendetta, reverting something that was not objectionable simply because I wrote it. I accept that my previous edits were outside the scope of this website, but my latest is not in any way. Please put it back.

If you want me to go through it, here is the passage as it was, with your removals bolded.


 * The third movement is a minuet and trio in D major. The minuet section consists of a ternary (ABA) form with an opening section emphasizing the tonic, while the second section visits the relative minor (B minor) and the dominant (A major). The first section is characterized by frequent sforzandi on upbeats, which are often translated into parallel passages in the second section (although they are not marked in the score). The trio is in B flat major, and uses the oboe and bassoon extensively (while omitting the brass, who are unable to play in the new key). Like in the minuet, this trio's B section emphasizes the relative minor (in this case, G minor). The trio ends with a transition back to dominant of the main key in preparation for the return to the minuet, which is very lightly scored (using no lower strings).

"Frequent sforzandi on upbeats" - just a comment on something visible in the score without interpretation (or even the ability to read music. Far less "original" even than noting that the movement is in ternary form, which is already there. The fact that they are often translated into the analogous passages in the A' section I can see removing, since I've not cited conductors who do so (although I could, if I could redeem it by doing so; probably not worth the effort, although I know Colin Davis does it). Noting that the brass do not play in the Trio and explaining why (natural brass instruments) is likewise a "sky is blue" observation that does not constitute research, as is the note that the lower strings do not play in the bridge section - there are no notes in their staves in the score. That is not research.

I realize you do not like me. It's taken me a while to get used to the Wikipedia's standards, which I do not like but will accept and abide by, and you appear to see this as a personal failing on my part. I am willing to follow the rules from this point forth as I understand them now, and I expect you to do the same rather than seeing my name and assuming that my contribution is illegal. I can be stubborn when I am wrong, but you will find me far more so when I am right, and in this instance I believe I am.

Cordially, Ra56 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a dirty job restraining rogue editors but someone's gotta do it. Opus33 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not a response. Did you even read what I wrote? Ra56 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did read what you wrote. You've made it very clear that you aren't interested in complying with WP rules and I'm not going to waste further time (other than the present 30 seconds) in dialog with you.  Opus33 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize you're going to ignore me because it's no longer convenient to pay a attention, but you just revealed that you didn't read my comments. I stated very clearly that I do intend to comply with the policy in question, and explained in great detail exactly how the edit you reverted does so. Please grant me the courtesy of accepting that I have changed my position. It's not easy to admit fault, as I am sure you know, and it is far less so when the person to whom you are admitting it does not want to forgive you or entertain the possibility that they need to change their preconceptions. Ra56 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, a clear indication that you've changed position (thus restoring other editors' confidence in you as being with the program) would be to make a few sourced edits. For reference, here's the way it's normally done: at the location that needs sourcing, you type .  This creates a footnote with your reference source in it.  I hope this helps.  Opus33 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. You don't need to patronize me (granted, I may be reading condescension where it wasn't intended; I'm a bit sore from your previous rudeness, but I'll try to take you at your word from this point forth). But something like my edit to Haydn 104 (the third movement, the most recent one you reverted) is by my understanding appropriate to leave without an in-text citation because it refers only to material directly evident from the score without any external interpretation or analysis - it contains only observations strictly pertaining to what is on the page, with no inferences drawn. Please explain if (and if so, how) my understanding is incorrect in this case; or (if I do understand correctly), will you restore my contribution to that article? Thanks. Ra56 (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Not sure if you saw the above message; it's been a few days and I haven't heard back from you. Ra56 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have nothing more to say to you other than what I've already said. Opus33 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean that you intend to continue reverting edits as original research when they are not, or that you will restore my work on the Haydn 104 article? (Or, failing that, will you explain how it in your opinion constitutes original research, as I have politely asked three times? I am honestly unsure, as it appears legitimate to me, but since you appear to have a problem with it, I am trying to decipher what that is.)

My impression was that you were actually interested in helping new editors, not simply shutting them down and telling them to go away. You've done the latter, and I am now asking for the former, having taken your earlier criticism to heart. If you have no patience (or desire to help) left, please simply say so and I'll leave you in peace. Ra56 (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Joseph Haydn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mozart titles
Moving Since the main article is at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and not Mozart, then I'm a big supporter of all child articles and categories being named as such. If you disagree, I'd happily discuss this set of articles by way of the requested moves process. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)