User talk:Smerus/New Archive 1

Image:Yblmiklos.jpg
Hi. I was processing this image, which was nominated for deletion at Possibly unfree images/2007 December 8. Based on your statement at Image:Yblmiklos.jpg, I have tagged it with {{subst:nsd}}. You indicated that you are willing to have it used on Wikipedia. If you are still willing to, could you provide appropriate licensing terms on the image page? If you would like to license it under the GFDL, you can use  . If you would like to release it into the public domain, you can use  . Optionally, if you prefer for it to show up as being uploaded by you or if you would like to re-upload a higher resolution version, you can upload it to that same filename, enter whatever license you would like, and let me know and I'll delete the old version so it will show as being uploaded by you. Thanks. --B (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

nice edit
your work on The Wandering Jew article is greatly appreciated. It's nice and concise now - very well organzied. Thanks so much!LiPollis (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List of autobiographies
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article List of autobiographies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

István Bató
Hi,

I understand that the article right now doesn't meet the notability criteria, but I'll try to add more info and sources in the future. It is allowed to move it to a subpage of my userpage until I find the sources? If it's not good enough for WP right now, I'll blank the subpage, but I'd like to keep the page history.

regards, – Alensha   talk  17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! – Alensha   talk  20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Braham
Dear Smerus, Happy New Year... I don't know if such things interest you, but (for your interest) a well-known online secondhand book agency includes a notice of an autograph note by JB for sale in Lincs., traceable by searching keywords "Braham autograph". Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles-Valentin Alkan
Hi, I want to be sure we are working on the same page here, at Charles-Valentin Alkan. Am I doing constructive things to an article you obviously have a much longer history with? If not, I will leave it alone, no problem. I don't have a problem with you correcting slips or outright errors, but at the same time it's a little disheartening to have that done with slightly disparaging edit summaries.

One of the biggest problems we all have with this subject is the validity of references. None of the references I use correct the story about the Talmud, for example, but I wouldn't discredit the rest of their information. Lewenthal, for example, has some authority of the performance of Alkan's music, for example. So when his book states that they were connected to Morhange, for example, I take it as true, because what I assume I am reading is a factual history, which obviously isn't the case, in many ways. But I can't email his official biographer with every statement and ask whether it is true or not. This is a difficult article to work on, but it would be even more difficult for me to leave it as it is. ALTON  .ıl  18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that all makes perfect sense. With great pleasure I hope to continue working with you on the article. ALTON   .ıl  09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kaplanmusicians.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kaplanmusicians.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box
Smerus...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that the colleges were more important than the parent university. I have never been to any of these places, I just thought it would be neat to have a single user box for all of these related schools instead of dozens scattered all over the place. Also, can I please be forgiven those typos? If you have any suggestions, please put them here? - LA @ 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for diplomacy
I'm impressed with the diplomatic way you worded this user talk page message. I want to learn to talk like that! --Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for setting a good example that I can try to learn from! --Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaim Elozor Wax
Don't Delete - Both of the reference books are available in any store, I have one of them also in pdf, give your e-mail address I should be able sending it to you. Next time please be carefull before attacking. It is a very important article, and is still not complete. Shoteh (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diplomatic Exemplitude
Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what that is, but I agree that Wikipedia needs more diplomatic exemplitude! Diplomatic remarks do deserve to be recognized, and are especially honored when the award coins a new word. (We certainly give enough recognition to personal attacks). I hope Coppertwig will forgive me if I borrow that barnstar for some awards that I hope to give to other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be delighted. May the number of editors deserving such an award be myriadinous! This barnstar is based on the Barnstar of Peace. However, I don't think I'm the one who coined the word "exemplitude". It has 109 Google hits.  --Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nomination of Oxbridge
Hi, I have nominated Oxbridge for deletion since it reads entirely as WP:OR. You can find the discussion here. Coldmachine Talk 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Le pardon de Ploërmel
Just a note to say I've asked about using this title (rather than Dinorah) on the talk page. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wagner
Hi Smerus, about your animalistic edit. I think its pathetic to make Wagner responsible for the Nazis respetcively Hitler especially taking claim of Wagner. However the Animal protection activities had an antisemitic stance, which went hand in hand with Wagners well known specific views on the topic. --Polentario (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't cut-and-paste
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

I mean Portmanteau and Portmanteau word. The message above is standardized and doesn't contain my opinion. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Portmanteau word vs. portmanteu
In the article, portmanteau word, you changed "portmanteau" to "portmanteau word" in one place, but left it alone in another. However, is it necessary to repeat the word "word" over and over? The first sentence of the article says "portmanteau" is sometimes used. Why not make use of that fact? In any case, you should either revert your change as unnecessary, or make the change consistently throughout the article (I think only one more instance would need changing). Thanks.&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

frankenword
Thanks for fixing up my edit of portmanteau word. The use of the tag is relatively new, and I should use it more myself. I threw the "frankenword" reference into the section on portmanteaux involving proper names, because, of course, it is such a thing, but your move higher in the article actually enhances the reason I put the reference into the article in the first place. You may be interested to know that the whole reason I added the factoid about "frankenword" is that I fixed a double-redirect, causing "frankenword" to now redirect straight to portmanteau. Once I did that, I thought it was rather unhelpful to direct the hapless wiki-reader to a page that didn't even reference the search term he must have entered or clicked to get there. So it was with joy that I saw you left the gist of my edit untouched while improving the flow of the article!&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 22:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

more Portmanteau
You removed "Billary", I added "Brangelina" (1,830,000 hits on Google)...after reading the whole "portmanteau" section on the Supercouples page,I thought there should be some mention back on the original article. I know this has gone back and forth a good dozen times with yours being the last edit, so I wanted to check in and take your temperature on the add. Elizabeth BY (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to undo your undo without a conversation. And I absolutely agree that people shouldn't just add their favorite words, simply bulking up an entry (although someone did since my change, which remains). (Brangelina is not my favorite, I actually dislike it.) However, I'm arguing that the immediate application of Portmanteau to "supercouples" (or even high profile couples) is the most popular current use of the linguistic phenomena. A phenomenon and has been for quite a number of years. I'd be happy to do the research and find the references, beyond the one I'd already added. Truly, I believe this is worthy of note in a contemporary encyclopedia. Elizabeth BY (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm comfortable with the page as it stands - I went looking for the page of portmanteau words you suggested and? couldn't find it. If one would have a moment...could you possibly give me the link again? (Would like to suggest it for the resent add: "Rock band Flyleaf's song, Red Sam is a portmanteau of the names of fellow band members Jared and Sameer") Deepest thanks, Elizabeth B York/Elizabeth BY (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You have great faith in a WikiNewbie's skill, but I'll try. Elizabeth BY (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - Sunday May 11th
We're hoping to have regular meetups for wikipedia enthusiasts in London. The next one is this Sunday lunchtime (May 11th) see Meetup/London 9. in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:British opera composers
I've posed a couple of questions about this cat on the Opera Project page. Perhaps you'd like to comment? -- Klein zach  05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Dburrowes.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dburrowes.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn article
Hello Smerus:

In the overall scheme of things this is not a major point, but I thought I would mention a note in Talk:Felix Mendelssohn regarding my recent edit and your revert. Your feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Golem (Bretan opera)
YOu may want to consider moving this back - I named it so because some day someone may want to write on John Casken's opera of the same name.............--Smerus (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a guideline on this. The title is either 'Golem (opera)' or 'Golem (Bretan)' (never Golem (Bretan opera)). In this case, as there is no previous opera article, it is 'Golem (opera)' . If there is a later article on the Casken it becomes Golem (Casken). Our system may not be ideal - Grove uses numbers - but it reflects WP realities. If you look at existing titles you will see that they follow this (with a few inevitable exceptions). Best. -- Klein  zach  08:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessments
Hi. Do you want to take part in Opera Project assessments? If so I will be happy to explain the compromise we are hoping all the project will agree to. -- Klein zach  09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take so long to get back to you on assessments. These have been controversial on all the classical music-related projects. Some editors just don't want to be involved with them. Some regard them as a necessary evil to protect our work from inteference, and some are actually enthusiastic about them. I'm somewhere in the middle on this - I don't know where your sympathies lie?


 * I've been trying to craft a sensible approach (proactive compromise?) that everyone can agree on. At the moment I'm thinking we should restrict written assessments to 'B-class' (of which there are now about 75), not use 'C-class' at all, and have nominal assessments (as now) for 'start'. (Stub/FA/GA processes would remain as at present.)


 * Three of us took a mont to rate the 50-odd articles of the Wagner Project, so even doing the 75-100 'B's would be a substantial job. We will need volunteers.


 * I can go into more detail about all this if you like - best. P.S. Just saw your Bentham photo. Say hello for me . . . used to see him quite often . . . -- Klein zach  06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Music Festival
Hi! I hate to bother, but I happened to notice on Kleinzach's page that you were organising a music festival. I'm in charge of Featured sounds, more or less, and was wondering if it might be possible to bring some of the music to Wikipedia (with, say, a strong attribution requirement that asks for the performers and the festival be mentioned at every use, not just on the image page.) What do you think?

Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, do what you can - obviously, neither I nor anyone else wants to get people in trouble over this, but if people are willing, we'd love to feature them =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Levoca festival
As a sound, I think that it's definitely worth trying, and it's certainly a useful addition in articles. The performance is excellent, the only noticeable flaws are a little background noise (which I may be able to edit out). I'd probably extract the sound from the video, though, at least in this case:  you only see the pianist's back, which probably isn't that useful. When uploading, be sure to specify the festival should be credited. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's going on with this, by the way? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tchaik Symphonies
I re-added a section to Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky on the symphonies from a September '07 draft of the article. Thought you might want to know in case you wanted to edit it, since I tend to be (in your terms) rambling and unencyclopedic :). Jonyungk (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Though you did not mention it at the time, I also added a brief section on the ballets since they are among T's more substantial works. Jonyungk (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tartuffe is still among us. So, actually, you're wright, I made a mistake : there is no proof of T homosexuality, this is an alleged one and, I must add, it is actually a horrible CALOMNY, I didn't realize : I just discovered that Modest's autobiography was nothing but a FORGERY, yes : it deals with homosexuality, so it must be so. Congratulations to the enlightened DR Beckman who uncovered the plot before all of us and established for sure that if T was an alcoholic -nobody is perfect-, he was heterosexual, because an orthodox can't be homosexual : he is not allowed by his religious faith to be. So actually, T was heterosexual. He was married, don't forget it, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.13.126 (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your help
Hello Mr. David Conway. I've noticed, that you corrected the English in some of the articles I've written. I'm very appreciative, thank you. Currently I've created this in my sandbox, and I would like to nominate it as a DYK article. Would you mind to look there and skim the English? I hope I don't bother you with this... And by the way, is it appropriate for nomination? What do you think? Thanks. Have a nice day.--Vejvančický (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nikolai Roslavets
I've done the move. Please edit the article to reflect the title. 0 Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tchaik
Thanks very much for the encouragement and suggestions, all of which were appreciated. One question: Would the three paragraphs currently in the music section under the subtitle "Public considerations" actually work better in the lead section of the article? One concern voiced was that the lead should be three or four paragraphs in length and these paragraphs might fit the bill, along with the one paragraph that is the current lead. Or maybe not. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Symphonies by Tchaikovsky; Tchaikovsky and the Five
Thanks for weighing in on keeping Symphonies by Tchaikovsky as a separate article. It may take some time to whip into shape but may make a substantial article once done.

Magicpiano has suggested that Tchaikovsky and the Five might make a plausible candidate for a Good Article or Featured Article. Personally, I think it could use some work before it reaches this point but am not sure where to improve it other than citations and other minor tweaks. If you have the time in the near future, could you peruse the article as a second set of eyes for me, as I value your writing and editing expertise. If not, no problem. Thanks very much! Jonyungk (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking this article over. I think we're both on the same page as to its quality and overall tone. Not a Good Article candidate to me either. :) Jonyungk (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Brühl (Leipzig)
Hello from Germany! I still work at the german atricle of the Brühl in Leipzig. I saw that you wrote in the english version that The street was also a centre of the German tobacco trade. I would like to know from where you got that information? Can be a mistake by a translation? The word "Rauchwaren" means not tobacco, but Fur clothing? Or can you help me to find informations about a tobacco trade at Brühl? Thank you very much, loveley regards --LutzBruno (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thaks for your fast answer, I'm very sure that they made a mistake. The german-version of the file ist all the same, exact that word Rauchwaren they translated wrong in the english version. I also did'nt found other materialt for a tobacco-trade at the brühl, at least nothing important. When you need some help with german-side, please contact me at my german acount, it would be my plesure to help you - so I can... regads to London, a very beautifull city --LutzBruno (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessors needed for Composers Project
Just to say we're looking for assessors for the Composers Project, see here. Best. -- Klein zach  13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerus, if you have limited time now, it would be useful to me if you could look at the tracking page and go over my reviews that recommend an A-class promotion. Thanks!  Magic ♪piano 14:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Smerus, me again. I've been busy reviewing composer articles, and could use your opinion on some.  I've kept the review status page up to date.  If you sort the table by date, you can see which reviews I've added since my above request.  I'm particularly looking for your opinion on Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and others that I've noted as needing what seems to be relatively modest effort to improve.  Thanks!  Magic ♪piano 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Männerlist grösser als Frauenlist
Hi. I see you've put the Opera banner on this. Actually there's a long established practice that the Opera banner doesn't go on descendant projects. If you look at G&S and Wagner articles you'll see that none of them have Opera banners. I'll take it off again - hope that's OK. Best. -- Klein zach  10:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A few composer reviews for you to double-check, if you could
If you could look at my reviews of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Maurice Ravel, Luigi Nono, and (shudder) Ludwig van Beethoven, I'd appreciate it. (I'd desparately like to be wrong about the Beethoven article(s); I think there's a bit of a train wreck there.)  Magic ♪piano 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom
Hi David,

Just to let you know, Carol is again threatening to completely re-write the Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom article, and to rename it. You might want to express your views on the article Talk: page. Cheers, Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty horrifying David. Original research about the meaning of "Lobbying" linked to dictionary definitions, digressions about the founding of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and links to David Irving's website. Sigh. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tchaik
Merry Christmas and thanks for all the encouragement on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and related articles. Hopefully something at least halfway encyclopedic has come out of all the work. :) Wishing you a wonderful holiday. Jonyungk (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Romantic music
Just a note to say that I have deleted the 20th century paragraph as per your suggestion. Not sure what reaction there will be! Best. -- Klein zach  06:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Saminsky and Gnesin
Wow, you're busy! At this rate you will finish all the composers before I even get a chance to start.

Have you started work on Engel yet? If not, I want him. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Great work, by the way. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sahyarms.gif)
You've uploaded File:Sahyarms.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Operas of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Read your comments on the Tchaikovsky talk page. Perhaps this would be a worthwhile article by someone who knows the music? :) I've also added a link to it on the new navbox at the end of the Tchaikovsky article. Jonyungk (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic poem
I removed the section "Alternative to the symphony" for the time being. A good amount of Cooper's essay actually talks about the Romantics in general and problems with classical form, which led to the creation of the symphonic poem. With your comments about that essay being dated, though, and the lack of emphasis on the symphonic poem itself, it made me wonder about the relevance of the section in the first place. Maybe the article is better without it, or it can be re-added and rewritten at another time. Either way, please let me know your thoughts. Jonyungk (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there is a much shortened (and on-topic?) version of the same information within the "Origin" section of Symphonic Poems (Liszt). It seems to work fine there to me but you seem to be more up-to-speed on what may or may not be out of date on these matters. Jonyungk (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Took another look at Symphonic poem. It seems to work better without "Alternative to the symphony," so maybe it's best to leave that section out. Your thoughts? Jonyungk (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The material in the "Liszt" section, plus the link to Symphonic Poems (Liszt) with the technical material in its "Origins" section, might be enough to suffice. Let me know your thoughts. Jonyungk (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Operas of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly on Symphonic Poems (Liszt). Since you seem to be knowledgable about Tchaikovsky's operas, I was wondering if you could help me on a (perhaps barely) related matter. I've been doing a lot of work on the Rimsky-Korsakov article and added something from the New Grove on his operas in the "Compositions" section of the article. I'm concerned, though, that what I added may be out of date or not totally relevant. Could you please let me know whether this part seems off-base to you, as I trust your judgment and suspect you may be more knowledgable in this area than I am? Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Eminescu
This-> Ok, i understand. Goodbye. --FeodorBezuhov (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sergei Rachmaninoff
I've edited down this article but am not sure if more of the "sugar" you mentioned needs to be leached out. Could you give me a second opinion? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
Sorry, but I deleted the new info in the cultural references section. I really don't think it fits, and we worked very hard to keep this section short. I'm about to do more work on the article this weekend. The fact that G&S referred to Pinafore in Pirates does reflect that Pinafore was a success and that the audience would recognize the joke, but I don't think it's that significant in showing the "cultural impact" of the piece. More significant, perhaps, is that a character from Pinafore was re-used 15 years later in Utopia, Limited. But still, those uses by the collaborators, themselves, pale in comparison to the homage paid to Pinafore many decades later in Hollywood Pinafore and in the influence of the show on the development of the art form and in popular media 100 years later. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Note foonote 105, which already has the info.  I put a note on the talk page so that other editors can consider the issue and see if we want to mention it in the text instead of the footnote.  We are hoping to bring the article to FA before too long.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Inogatelogo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Inogatelogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, & thanks for the feedback :) Skier Dude  ( talk ) 15:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

68.173.101.114
I'm following up on your 11 May 2009 message to 68.173.101.114 It appears that there are at least 3 users obsessed with Jewish athletes and singers: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.144.56 (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ethelh
 * Epeefleche
 * 68.173.101.114
 * Mystifying! Life is too short....--Smerus (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Current Opera Project discussions
Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:
 * The use of italics in article titles
 * Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
 * Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month

Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Braham & project tagging
Have replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. Although the bot is generating the occasional false-positive, I'd disagree that this particular tagging was inappropriate – as the operator of two major London theatres, Braham was (to me) clearly a significant figure in relation to London. – irides cent 2  14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic poem
Are you still watching this article? I'm currently tinkering around with the lead section to attempt to give it some sense and substance. If you have suggestions, I'm open. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No hurry. I've only just started yesterday and it may take some time. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done with the lead section of this article. Thanks! However, do you have any citations for your paragraph on Liszt/Wagner? Jonyungk (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We may have to agree to disagree on this one. Wagner's views on combining music and drama might be centrally important for New German School or War of the Romantics, and his essay on Lisszt's symphonic poems may have helped explain what Liszt was attempting to do (at least from what I have gathered from its mention in Alan Walker's biography of Liszt). However, those views are not related directly to the development of symphonic poems in general or Liszt's symphonic poems in particular. At least some of Liszt's works were already composed before Wagner wrote about them, and Wagner did nothing otherwise to further the development of symphonic poems. Wagner perceived their artistic and compositional aim but disagreed on their effectiveness and wrote operas instead. That seems to be the end of the story&mdash;an end more fitting to mention in articles on romantic opera and Wagner's music than in articles on symphonic poems. Jonyungk (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wagner/Liszt
I have reverted the wording to what you quoted from Grove online but kept the citation. A trip to the library proved that the MacDonald article is the same in both New Grove print editions as well as online, so rather than reformat your citation to proper Wiki form, it was easier to keep my own print citation. Since the information in both sources is the same, I did not think you would mind. I did not notice your quote marks till you requoted the statement on my talk page, so I thought you were paraphrasing rather than strictly quoting&mdash;my mistake. Thanks for the clarification. BTW, though we may disagree on some points, I hope we do not go through too many disagreements like this one. Jonyungk (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mendelssohn
Ah, OK, I see your point. There are 3 categories listing him as a Jew, though, which is not exactly entirely kosher either, is it? Except to folks like Wagner and the Nazis. What to do? If only Jewishness were not an ethnicity. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Felixmendelssohngrave.jpg
File:Felixmendelssohngrave.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Felixmendelssohngrave.jpg. 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:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fanelli
Most of the Fanelli conspiracy theories are obviously ridiculous, though I don't think that it's just Antheil. His widow may genuinely have convinced herself that her husband had been cheated out of his dues. Otherwise, the idea may have been suggested to her by others. Such obsession over claimed innovations, and sniping at established artists was commonplace among the first modernist generation. Artists have been known to redate paintings to prove that they were the 'first' with this or that avant-garde innovation. I doubt think there's any April foolery, more the standard modernist rumour mill. Debussy is in a way typical of the precious aesthetes that Ezra Pound hated, so he'd love to stoke up such tales. As for Alkan, I suspect it was just perceived similarities in ther music that led to the suggestion that he'd been taught by Alkan. Paul B (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Biography/Musicians project-related infoboxes
In view of your past interest in this subject, I wonder if you might be interested in the debate here and the following sections. Best. -- Klein zach  00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Braham again
Dear David/Smerus, Do you remember I mentioned a John Braham autographed 'Admit Two' slip? Well eventually I bought it for my (very restricted) singers' autograph book. Then I was looking into the life and times of someone else and I found these references to concerts attended with the Brahams in some journals online:. I expect you are quite aware of them, but thought I should mention them to you just in case! Another example (on page 3) of JB giving letters of admission. Hope you're thriving, best wishes, (Steven/Eebahgum) Eebahgum (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Ukraine
Здравствуйте, Девид. На вашей странице участника прописана категория Category:Wikipedians in Ukraine. Это ошибка ? --Movses (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

AWW
Hello Smerus. Apologies, I could have been clearer; I meant the use of the word "perhaps". Consider this text from AWW: 'Use of "possibly" or "seemingly". If something cannot be verified then it cannot be included. Unsourced use of "possibly" is pure speculation. If a doubtful statement is sourced, then an attribution for the source should be given. Likewise, unsourced use of "seemingly" or "seems to be" is improper synthesis.' Who said it is "perhaps" his most readable work? Gregor-Dellin? If so, please say so, otherwise it looks like AWW (OR). Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I've added a ref for the Nietzsche 'Geyer' remark. Ericoides (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Smerus, re the Alt1 hook for Wagner's autobiography, the cited book indeed says that Nietzsche suggested the crest to Wagner, but it does not go so far as to say that Nietzsche suggested Wagner use it as the frontispiece of his autobiography. Here is another source. It first says that Wagner requested that Nietzsche (who supervised the printing) include the crest, but it also adds testimony from Nietzsche's sister that it was Nietzsche who suggested to Wagner he should use the crest as the frontispiece. Adding this source, quoting Nietzsche's sister, might be enough to make the present hook wording verifiable.

There is a sample chapter of "Wagner beyond good and evil" on the University of California Press website:. This says, Nietzsche's "involvement with Mein Leben even included the invention and supervision of the crest on the title pages of the volumes. The crest merges an image of the seven-star constellation called the Plough (der Wagen) with a vulture (Geier) that was duly provided by Nietzsche, on Wagner’s recommendation, with a distinctive ruff to distinguish it from an eagle.51 The image was meant to symbolize a “double” paternity, the natural father Friedrich Wagner and the stepfather Ludwig Geyer."

My suggestion would be to go for: ... that Friedrich Nietzsche suggested the crest (pictured) on the frontispiece of Richard Wagner's autobiography, Mein Leben, composed of a vulture and the constellation The Plough?

Thanks for the article. Best, -- JN 466  15:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Smerus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Norman Bailey (bass-baritone) -


 * Done--Smerus (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cfd: Category:Essays by Richard Wagner
Hi again, and thanks for the notification. Just a procedural thing: I've merged the two sections into one in the deletion review, since both are about the same CfD and there's no need to have the same discussion in two places. (Feel free to revert if you disagree.) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Works by Richard Wagner
I've just seen this. There may be other similar changes being made by this editor. -- Klein zach  02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see this. -- Klein zach  03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to all members of WikiProject Opera
Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unref'd BLP articles
Hi. Would it be possible to remove Composer Project banners when you remove composer categories from an article? That way the article is not fed back into our system at a later date. Best. -- Klein zach  22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Swraj Paul
Hello, I noticed your edit to Swraj Paul. I've previously edited the article. Do you have any other information on him, especially in relation to his role in the House of Lords? Reading your userpage, I have another question too.... BrainyBabe (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish music in Newington Green
Having randomly found you, I wonder if you would care to add anything to Newington_Green? The matter is confused by transliterations, but one of the Kusevitsky family was cantor there. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Parsifal
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Parsifal/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Music critic
Hi, There is a general goal of preserving information, rather than deleting it. Of editing, trimming, and improving, rather than deleting. Of adding {{fact]] tags where required. Your deletion in Music critic showed an aggressiveness which is normally reserved for vandalism, libel, hate speech, etc. Let us keep in mind the context of this article: it was, and is a "stub" class article. It needs to be expanded. Please edit, tag, trim, etc., but complete deletion? This doesn't help the encyclopedia to move forward. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Complete deletion? I don't think so! I did, after extendng the first part of the article, remove a lot of unencylopaedic waffle. You have replaced that with solid work and have greatly improved the article - for which thanks again - in areas which I am not competent to handle. But there is no need, because you don't agree with my edits, to attack me. If you bother to look at my record, you will see that I completely share your aim of expanding information on WP - perhaps where we differ is as to the removal of non-information - Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * let me by the way quote to you something I have found on an editor's home page (yours, in fact), with which I completely agree:

{{blockquote|text=If you are concerned about an edit that I did, I want to let you know that I follow Wikipedia's "Be Bold" editing guideline. If I come to an article, and find statements that I believe contain Original Research, misleading or biased points of view, incorrect information, or dubious and unsourced claims, I do not put a "needs source" tag or start a discussion on the talk page. Instead, I remove, reword, or rephrase the content.}} Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A fan writes
Smerus, you deleted everything I posted on the Mendelssohn page almost as soon as I had written in and are now doing the same aggressive deleting on the Edmund Chipp page and despite my protestations, seem to persist. Your own opinion of what is true or relevant is not the lsat word, it is just your opinion, and deleting things within hours of them appearing when they may not be finished, or even as you did today, during the actual same session time of their writing, is just not on. As the author above said, your level of aggressive deleting is normally associated with vandalism. I would ask you to not interfere with my work anymore, particularly when they are just stubs and evolving, and if you do continue to delete then I will report you. Your personal comments to me are not of any relevance and I don't want to hear about your wife and children. You clearly want an argument but I regret that I will not allow this to continue. If you want a game, go and persecute some other user with your arrogant deletions. Now if you will kindly leave me alone? regards 92.29.46.165 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * - those who wish to can read previous exchanges with this eccentric character at Talk:Felix Mendelssohn and Talk:Edmund Thomas Chipp.--Smerus (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Organ Sonatas, Op. 65 (Mendelssohn)

 * Just dropping by to say well done on the Mendelssohn Sonatas article - a very well-written/informative summary, and a nice read.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A fan writes further - Smerus's vandalism (impetuous deletions) and harassment
I have a lot of problems with this person wikihounding me. He deletes my posts, rewrites things as soon as i have put them and has followed me  from one page to another. now he has the nerve to accuse me of vandalism by deleting some of the upsetting content he has been posting to me. I dream of a day, or even a half day, when this man is not interfering,  and I object to him calling me an "eccentric character" as he does  below, and telling other people to look at our exchanges. This is clearly all just a game to him. He wants to argue. And he will not stop despite numerous pleas. This is extremely distressing and has really put me off contributing further to wiki. His cheeky placing of the vandalism warning on my talk page corresponds to this:

User space harassment (printed out to make  absolutley clear to him) Placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user  has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the  user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display  material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space  is a common form of harassment. User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk  pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the  user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than  edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user  space.

See also the text under Music Critic above.

I am not "a fan"  as he sarcastlically says. Bvrly (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I, one among many, find Smerus to be pleasant, down to earth, intelligent and thoughtful. He can get a little overzealous at times, perhaps, and some of his comments are ironic to the point of appearing sarcastic or even uncivil.  However, if he is accusing you of vandalism and placing warning templates on your userpage, there is very likely to be substance in his complains.  I will review your exchanges (as I have no idea where this complaint came from) and decide for myself what the situation is.  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - I have yet to see any evidence that Smerus has been uncivil or broken any policies in his exchanges with Bvrly. OTOH, the latter user has violated talkpage policy several times, not least by blanking mainspace talkpages.  I have little doubt that Smerus is the innocent party here.  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawl of comment
Re:

Did you mean to strike your comment rather than remove the subheading by adding you sig in front of it? Other editors may still wish to vote at No! I have noticed quite a few stray sigs from you recently, in fact, and have removed the others but I don't feel I ought to remove this one as you my have a reason for adding it. Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, who made image:Qxz-ad38.gif? Are they available to make one for CTM? --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I have been having some trouble with the sig function for some reason on my home computer, (it selects paragraphs, rather than positioning it at the end of sentence). Thought I had sorted this but evidently not so. I have now corrected. If I have a point to make (and whether I ever have a point to make is a matter of debate I suppose) I always try to do so straightforwardly rather than by messing about with the comments or layouts of others. Don't know who made the gif, I'm afraid.Best - --Smerus (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I have answered on my talkpage, cheers Jubilee♫ clipman  06:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

F**** vs F
Smerus, maybe the source print publication did use asterisks as you say, but Heyse almost certainly did not in manuscript. *No one* at that time, when using only a first initial as was not uncommon for various purposes, would have written out a bunch of asterisks--they would have simply have made a single dash of the approximate length of the missing letters. At most they might have made dots. But the thought of anyone writing out little asterisks is absurd. If anything, the source book is wrong. That in turn raises the question of, when it's clear that a source is in error or at the very least, questionable, (especially on such a picayune point as this), just how literal must a Wikipedia article be in slavishly following and posting any error or questionable detail? The only real solution is to have access to Heyse's actual manuscript. My guess is that either the author or the printer decided to render Heyse's abbreviation of Felix in asterisks pretty much at random, or because of some printing convention.

I may be an ignoramus about Mendelssohn's Lieder, but that doesn't mean I'm always wrong about everything. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but you are quite wrong here. I don't know what Heyse wrote in manuscript (and neither I nor my source says Heyse's coment was in manuscript - it is in fact, if you read the source, in the printed introduction to the translation). In print Heyse used the asterisks and that is the only source I definitiely have. We mustn't second guess our sources - that would be WP:OR. Check up in in source if you don't believe me - I have cited it in full. Best regards --Smerus (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I stand corrected--again. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fictional Jews
A tag has been placed on Category:Fictional Jews, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional Jews
I have nominated fictional jews for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology
Regarding your interactions with user:Bvrly, please be more careful with your use of the term 'vandalism'.

(Major, even fundamental disagreements as to what content should be in an article) don't constitute vandalism. It seems fairly evident that Bvrly, at the very least, means well. Vandals - pretty much by definition - do not.

I completely understand how frustrating it can be to deal with someone who doesn't grasp some of the basic rules, but it can likewise be frustrating for neophytes (or relative neophytes) to be told that they're committing vandalism when they had no such intention. DS (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. If you look you will see that my citation for vandalism (a level one request to 'please stop') relates to user:Bvrly's removal, by blanking out from an article talk page, of a substantial response by myself. This is in fact vandalism as defined by WP. Where I have disagreed with user:Bvrly I have clearly said so; his reaction on this occasion was to wipe out my reply. I hope that is clear. I do not accuse (and never have accused) those who simply disagree with me of vandalism. You might care also to examine the impartial view of Jubilee♫ on this very matter (above - at the bottom of 'A Fan writes Further') - who was drawn to this issue by user:Bvrly's complaints, but considered that I had behaved in accordance with WP procedures, and that user:Bvrly had not. Best regards --Smerus (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What I think may have happened is that Bvrly confused "you can remove messages from your talkpage once you've dealt with them" also meant "you can remove messages from the talkpage of an article you wrote" - a misunderstanding of WP:OWN. Does that make sense? DS (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could be right here. But such an intepretation can only be WP:OR :-}. Maybe he was just feeling self-righteous - even I get that way from time to time. Best - --Smerus (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Bvrly seems to have been, or to have been trying to be, a useful contributor, I strongly suggest that you leave an apology-and-explanation on his/her talkpage. It'd be a shame to lose someone, or to set hostilities simmering, over a misunderstanding. DS (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion here is that least said, soonest mended. Bvrly is off to pasrtures new, writing in articles where I have no wish or interest to interfere with him. He clearly understands what this was all about, as regards explanation. And as regards an apology from me - I don't think so! But respect to you anyway for your pastoral intentions.--Smerus (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anton Rubinstein: Pianism
Hey, are you sure you want to delete your article? I assume this was a mistake from clicking User:Smerus/arp, which redirected to the article target page.  Jamie S93 ❤ 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure (another admin deleted the page already). It seemed like a decent article, so I thought it may have been a mistake. Thanks for letting me know, cheers,  Jamie S93 ❤ 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

La bohème
Hi. Voceditenore archived the French capitalisation stuff just now while I was composing a reply to your post, so I'll reply here. The Grove Opera articles are entitled "Bohème, La". That's because all article titles have to begin with a capital letter. In the text of the Puccini article, "La bohème" is used. There's no analogy with "La Juive" because "La bohème" doesn't mean "The Bohemian girl" - it's a sort of shorthand version of Murger's title, and Grove translates it as "Bohemian life". (The author of the article on the Leoncavallo opera refers to it as "Bohème", but in the article on Leoncavallo and his works it is "La bohème"! Grove isn't completely infallible or consistent, I'm afraid.)  Best. --GuillaumeTell 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * talk page stalking ;-).... Whoops! I didn't see your recent addition to a long dormant topic when I archived. Sorry. You'll find the archived discussion here. It would make sense to use "Bohème" if the title is shortened, you see the same with "Traviata". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Baldaccinigrave.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Musci Drama
Looking at Gesamtkunstwerk, "music drama" is nto a term he favoured. I think it came up elsewhere sometime last year, perhaps in connection with my getting Bayreuth canon to FA.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner
Let me know when you've finished with the article for now. I'm wanting to work on the footnotes which means we could be having edit checks but don't expect to satrt for about an hour in about an hour.

I'm continuing with the end matsplitting out all the source details in the footnotes (e.g. the details of your article) and placing them in the main sources section. This will also mean that your article ceases to be mentioned in the external links section.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm having a go now. You give an entry name not a page number for the reference to the Kennedy/Oxford Dictionary of Music to the bridal march being used for the bride's entry. Is this standard practice or could you not provide the page number because you were using Oxford Music online? oops you do give the page number.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check the page no in footnote 100.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

More nitpicks

And a couple of Magee related ones:
 * Have you a page number for note 137?
 * Is ''The Tristan Chord 2000 or 2001?
 * What is the first page of text in the Influence of Wagner section in your copy of Aspects of Wagner? In footnote 160, I've inserted the one from my copy of the Panther edition, but I think it mnay have been reset.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, some problems here, I am now in Kiev and away from my library. Also I don't have 'the Tristan Chord' (US title) but 'Wagner and Philosophy'(the UK version)so that footnote came from someone else. Note 137 - pp.179-80,183.--Smerus (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How long are you away? (Is this business or pleasure?) On my working through the footnotes, I've now done all up to 184. (It's amazing how long copy-editing can take.) The last few dozen I've got to do still contain a few weblinks which I want to move down to the sources. And I've got another pass to do making consistent whether multi-pages are given as 314-5, 314-15 or 314-315. Then I've got the inconsistencies in the layout of entries in the source section to fix. BTW the Gutenberg translation of The Case of Wagner omits the Vulture/Eagle quote. Fortunately I have my own copy which includes it.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * this is work, I don't expect to be back in London before November alas, (although you are welcome to come to the music festival I run in Slovakia in October - no Wagner this year I fear) - many thanks for your slog through the notes, etc. as I realise I am rather slipshod in that respect - the absence of the Vuture/Eagle quote in Gutenberg is surprising, and really quite serious.......--Smerus (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost finished by slog. See my edit after your last oen for my explanation fo my revert of your revert of me. I'm happy to accept the mention of Rosenberg as a bit remote from RW and have it removed if you so think.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Some help
Hello, I added a new article Richard Wagner's first love. Would it be possible to get help with copy editing, if you have a time and interest? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you live in Kiev now?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner's first love
I've placed this article at afd if you'd like to weigh in.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. While the details of the affair are only sourced via Mein Leben and therefore have been through the usual process of embellishment by RW, it seems to be accepted that something happenned. Checking Google Books, I see that Leah is mentioned in the first chapter of Sabor's book on the Ring, in the introduction to Spencer et al's Selected Letters, in Millington's Wagner etc. Whether or not there is enough to support an article, I'm not sure why there is a problem with a mention in the main article, though there is no clear evidence of a specific year. Perhaps the anti-Semitism section would be appropriate and the controversy article - I notice that you yourself have mentioned her in your Vulture/Eagle piece.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I'm apart from my main reference books at the moment. It could be worth a mention (maybe as you say in the anti-Semitism section) but I can't see it's worth a whole article. The quotations in the article about W's feelings about her are just made up (by the bad sources), as no doubt are the stories about Dutchmen, etc. Whatever is given in the RW article should I think be referenced by 'Main Leben' as the only primary source. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of the various books mentioned, Sabor is the only one I have. He just mentions Leah and then two other young women by way of lead up to Minna. Leah does not get a mention in the version of Mein Leben that is on Gutenberg, so we're dependent on other source.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I think the whole thing is on shaky ground unless we get to anything like a primary source. Where did Sabor get his story from? The problem is I think that in the period about 1870-1920 there was a lot of imaginative writing from Jewish writers who want to 'write in' Jews to European cultural history - thus claims that Beethoven's 'Immortal Beloved' was Rahel Varnhagen, etc. I would distrust anything unless there was a first-hand source. I accept that I once gave Leah a walk-on role, but that was in my misguided youth :-} --Smerus (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Smerus, that everything you have said about the sources in Mbz1's article is WP:OR. I am sure that it is very good quality original research, but still OR in the context of Wikipedia. On the other hand Mbz1's sources really were mostly WP:V. So while your intentions seem good, the result is deleting an article that was of some interest and could have been improved.

You might want to read at least the first sentence of WP:V. Vasio (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Vasio, how charming to find a newcomer to Wikipedia stepping into this controversy - but actually you will note if you read my comments that I have sourced my condemnation of Praeger, so that it is not WP:OR. With best regards - --Smerus (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:P. D. Q. Bach
Following on from the tromboon afd, I'm suggesting we dieal with this in the same way to regularise things.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Hi. Thanks for the message. No, I don't think that the sub cat should go in musical theatre tree. Almost all of these are opera companies or light opera companies; only a few do lots of musicals. These should end up in the opera tree. For particular ones that do a significant number of musicals also, I think you can add the appropriate musicals subcat to them individually. Let me know if you disagree strongly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture issue
I've had a look through the article and have been able to identify sufficiently early death dates for the artists responsibel for most pictures. Just two are potentially problematic:
 * 1) The picture of the birthplace. I've clarified the death date of the photographer, which isn't a problem. The issue is whether the postcard represents a separate work of art. Shall we ask at one of the help pages?
 * 2) The picture of Cosima. The photographer is not identified in the source. The likes of File:Richard and Cosima Wagner.jpg are definitely PD. We could use that instead unless you can find out the details of the current photo.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

André Messager
I have acted on your GA suggestions, for which many thanks. In particular the point about a more prominent and extensive musical analysis has much improved the article. Over to you to finish the GA process as you think appropriate. - Tim riley (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mary Garden - she did indeed sing Mélisande at the premiere, and there was a hell of a row about it as Maeterlinck had been led to expect that the role would go to his wife or girlfriend, I forget which. But this row was chiefly between him and Debussy; Messager doesn't seem to have been caught in the crossfire so I'm inclined not to mention the episode in his article. I've put a pic of Garden as Mélisande into the article at the appropriate point.
 * Sound files - I know someone who is expert in these matters and will approach him. For myself I dare not, as explained at the GA page. Regards. - Tim riley (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and perceptive review. I don't think it showed that you hadn't done a GA before, and I will now confess to you that your Wagner article a few weeks ago was my first attempt as a GA assessor. I am, naturally, delighted to have this article promoted. I think I'll leave André M at GA. I may eventually have more ambitious plans for Fauré. Meanwhile, please don't hesitate to recruit me to cast a reviewer's eye over anything you have on the stocks. There are not enough of us classical music reviewers: for myself I always raise a cheer for User:Brianboulton, a Wagnerite and opera buff of deepest-dyed hue, and to User:Ssilvers for the light opera and musicals articles. - Tim riley (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Smerus for your helpful comments. I agree with Tim that your GA review here improved the article considerably and that it appeared that you were a veteran reviewer!  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar
Hello, Smerus. Another composer article in which you may, perhaps, be interested. I have put Elgar up for FA, and if you have time and inclination to comment it will be greatly appreciated. Regards. – Tim riley (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Warmest thanks for your support and helpful comments. I'll look out the clips you recommend. How wonderful to have such riches available at the click of a mouse! – Tim riley (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Je ne comprends pas
Hi Smerus, I just happened to be idly looking for an old post on your Talk page, and I notice that neither this Talk page nor its archives contain any posts from the period of 9 April 2008 through 18 August 2010. Which is curious, because I see no evidence of deletion, only supposed "archiving" by MiszaBot. The MiszaBot "archive" is supposed to contain 92,507 bytes according to data on the history page, but it actually doesn't. To coin a phrase, what's up with that? Where is all the missing data? Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm. Good question.--Smerus (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cue the Twilight Zone music. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems the stuff is all there - somewhere in cyberspace - as can be seen by comparing earlier versions. Pretty spooky, as you suggest......--Smerus (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential can of worms?
Hi, I see you've just added The Fair at Sorochyntsi to the category "Operas set in Russia". I think it might be better under "Operas set in Ukraine". A whole bunch of Gogol-derived works plus Tchaikovsky's Mazeppa would fit that category too. I know Ukraine was technically part of Russia in the 19th century but these operas tend to have specifically Ukrainian local colour. Anyhow, judging from past experience, this might degenerate into a potential Wikipedia battlefield between "Great Russian" and "Little Russian" editors, so maybe we ought to head it off at the pass. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm revising Iphigénie en Tauride at the moment. Obviously, I draw the line at putting that into the new category! --Folantin (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Henry J. Wood
Hello, Smerus! If (but only if) you have time and disposition, your thoughts on the article on Sir Henry would be gratefully received on its peer review page. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of references to John Keats


The article List of references to John Keats has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * a random collection of references to someone notable is hardly notable nor encyclopedic.

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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Heine on Mendelssohn
Hi Smerus .... I've been on a two-week Wiki-break, and since time has passed, to keep all of the info in one place, I have just now replied on my own Talk page to your comment. I'm kind of "over" the Mendelssohn article at the moment, having gone a little crazy on it, so I'll leave you to continue to make whatever edits you deem appropriate, but I did want to reply in detail to your comment, because I think there may have been some points you may possibly have overlooked. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just now made a reply to your reply; take a peak, and that should suffice me, for now. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good show, old chap. I haven't taken a look at it in all this while, but if you'd like me to just let me know. ~ Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Music, mind and body DRV
The discussion that you participated in that resulted in the deletion of Category:Music, mind and body has been taken to deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Joel Engel (composer)
Many years ago, when you were on a Jewish art music composers binge, I told you I wanted to write the biography of Joel Engel. Well, I did it. you are welcome to add your unique and erudite touch. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for this, I have some stuff about Engel somewhere and will look it up. I will try to be erudite if I add anyhing. I am still I suppose on a Jewish art music composer binge, having wasted several weeks of spare time expanding Felix Mendelssohn inter alia. By the way my book 'Jewry in Music' should be published next year, which is stuffed with Jewish art music characters. Best,--Smerus (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a bit of erudite stuff :-} --Smerus (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great stuff. tnx --Ravpapa (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mendelssohn and others
A great pleasure to promote the Mendelssohn article. Thoroughly deserved. If you find yourself at a loose end on Boxing Day (or any other time) you might like to cast a critical eye over two of my current candidates: Henry J. Wood now at FAC, and John Culshaw now at peer review. All the best for the festive season. Tim riley (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Truly excellent job on Mendelssohn; it was a pleasure to read. Thank you (and others who helped) for all the work you put into that!  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations, great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Variations on a Theme
Hi Smerus, and happy new year!

Re your comment here regarding List of Variations on a Theme by another composer: I addressed this issue in the 3rd para of the introduction. Most of the works I list do indeed contain a significant degree of "theme and variations". If you know of any examples where that is not the case, please make the appropriate edits. But a general claim of a "bad list" won't really cut it. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Handel in the Strand
Hi again. Re this edit:


 * "The germ of 'Handel in the Strand' is a set of variations for piano which Grainger based on Handel's 'Harmonious Blacksmith'. Some material from these variations appears in the present work (subtitled 'Clog Dance') which he set for string 'two-some' and 'three-some' or string orchestra and piano (or massed pianos even!). Henry J. Wood's orchestration adheres well to the original structure of the piece, but remodels it to fit the needs of a symphonic orchestra or large chamber grouping. 'Clog Dance' w as Grainger's title, but that of 'Handel in the Strand' was suggested by William Gair Rathbone, the banker, arts patron and friend of the composer, [The two men had been introduced by John Singer Sargent. --Leslie Howard (Piano 1).] who felt that the work created an image of the jovial old Handel striding down the Strand (then the centre of the world of Music Hall) to the strains of English popular music of the time. Rathbone is the dedicatee of the work. For the energetic Grainger adds the remark tha t the piece is to be performed 'with or without Clog Dancing'."--John Bird (Rambles).

The only question then, is whether or not sufficient "material" from the V on the HB made it into H in the S to qualify the latter as being a work containing a T and Vs. Yours alphabetically. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Delius
Hello, Smerus. Rather a change of gear from Mendelssohn, but I wonder if you would be free and disposed to comment at peer review of the Frederick Delius article, which Brianboulton and I are trying to bring up to FA standard. Any comments you were minded to add would be most gratefully received. Kind regards, Tim riley (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We now have old Fred up for FAC, and if you were minded to comment there it would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Tim riley (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Rabbijacobs.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rabbijacobs.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Closedmouth (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hello, Smerus. If you're interested and have time I should be very glad of any comments you might make at the peer review of Thomas Beecham which I am hoping to get up to FA standard. No hurry, but I'd be grateful for any suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this. A drive-by editor has thought fit to close the PR after less than 2 days and has, for some inexplicable reason, nominated the article for FA. I have naturally opposed the nomination as premature (some might also say discourteous, but let it pass) and will get the PR reinstated as soon as I can. Meanwhile, sorry you are being mucked about by this other editor. Tim riley (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom
WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk)  01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Thankyou. Eebahgum (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cornélie Falcon
Hi Smerus, Apologies for overwriting your changes to this article. We had an edit conflict, and I do not have time to reconcile the differences right now, in particular the year of birth. The sources do not agree. Hopefully we can reconcile the differences later. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have time to quickly add that Jean Gourret and Baker's Dictionary both give the year of her birth as 1814. Perhaps we can add these refs as well and add a footnote. Since Grove Online now gives 1814, perhaps we should use that in the lead, and put the sources with the 1812 date in a footnote. When I get back I will try to make some of these changes. (I've printed out your version and will try to add back some of your other additions as well, if you have not already done so.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I got back to this and tried to restore some of your changes. Please check it over. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Falcon's year of birth, Robinson gave 1912 yet cited Bouvet as his only source in the article in the 1992 New Grove Dictionary of Opera, and Bouvet gave Falcon's year of birth as 1914, so that seems rather odd. I'm curious whether Walton added any more sources for his revision of the article for Grove Music Online. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think I must have missed your red link to Stradella, since I relied on a printout when adding your revisions back and it doesn't show on the printout. I should have looked at it in the edit window. Sorry 'bout that. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a response concerning Dorus as Isabelle on my talk page. As an aside, the Bouvet book is in digital form at Hathi-Trust but cannot be viewed by just anyone because of copyright issues. It does not appear to be readily available for purchase and is not in a library near me. Would you have ready access to it? It sounds interesting. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You deserve a "Gold Star" for finding Braud! Thank you so much! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: now I see you did not find it, it was VdT. Nevertheless, you still deserve the Gold Star for all your contributions! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the date of birth back to 28 January based on a rereading of Braud's footnote. Walton may read Braud's text this way as well, since he stays with 28 January, but revises Robinson's year from 1812 to 1814. Another discrepancy is Braud's description of the lines sung in Stradella when Falcon lost her voice. Cairns gives the lines at the bottom of page 7 (column 1) of the libretto. I've been looking for the lines quoted by Braud, but so far have not located them. Unfortunately, Gallica's image file is not text searchable, so it was a bit tedious, and I may have missed something. (Is it worth trying to figure this out? Perhaps splitting hairs over the day of birth is OK, but this??? Please forgive me, but I do love trying to figure things like this out!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked Cairns' notes: he cites Bouvet p. 115. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I found a copy of Bouvet from a bookseller in Italy. See here. It's a bit expensive, but I ordered one. I will probably end up donating it to the music library of my local university, since they do not have it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see the Met's recent HD telecast (or DVD) of Carmen? I watched it last night. The wonderful playing by the woodwinds was beautifully caught. (I used to play clarinet, oh so long ago.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should mention that Ruth Jordan, in her biography of Halévy, states that Falcon was Jewish, so Chorley, who we should remember was writing in 1844, was probably not incorrect in his very positive characterization of the artist. (Jordan does not cite a source for her information.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the info about Jordan. I thought her statement was a bit difficult to reconcile with Braud, and we should be wary of some of his info as well. (I have not read most of Jordan's book, and just looked in the index to find the sentence on Falcon, so I am not aware of all the other things she says.) BTW, is there a source we can cite for the note which you added to the Chorley quote? I just read Mina Curtiss's article on Halévy in The Musical Quarterly (April 1953). This seems like a pretty good article despite its age. Is she more accurate? How much did it influence Jordan? Also, what do you think of Diana Hallman's book? (Should I buy a copy?) --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed responses. I also have not found anything to corroborate Jordan's or Chorley's statements regarding Falcon's supposed Jewishness. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added Jordan's statement, plus some other info (some resulting from our discussion), to the note on Chorley and Falcon's ancestry in the hope this might help forestall possible future misunderstandings. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sort keys and accented letters
Hi Smerus, Re: Louis-Désiré Véron, check WP:MCSTJR. Apparently accents should be omitted in sort keys. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cornélie Falcon
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stradella (opera)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wolzogen dates
Hi, I notice that in Bayreuther Blätter you say that HvW edited the paper until he died in 1902. Our biography of him says he died in 1938 and the German article references the German National Library which gives the 1938 date. Are you anywhere near your references and able to establish his dates and the editing history of the BB?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom. Thanks. -- Klein zach  00:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Usurping "Sonntag"
Following your moving the song "Sonntag" to Sonntag (song) and then usurping Sonntag for disambigation, all of which I consider to be a good thing, you should finish this with following the guidelines at WP:USURPTITLE and visit the articles which link to "Sonntag" and modify the links in those articles to point to "Sonntag (song)". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In regard to Constantin Frantz
As I see that You are involved in articles on Richard Wagner and probably wish to improve their quality, I want to inform You about secondary sources, I found while working on a revised article on Frantz in the german speaking Wikipedia. If You think, it does not belong onto Your talkpage, You can delete it - but for now I will give You two longer examples:


 * ''Trained as a mathematician, Constantin Frantz became a philosopher, a political publicist, and a unique ﬁgure in the development of antisemitic theory. Frantz planned to unite the ideologies of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism, as well as the warring states of Europe. His federalism, based loosely on Friedrich von Schelling's philosophy, would bring together industry and agriculture and ﬁnally even Protestantism and Catholicism. For a time, Frantz was a publicist for the Prussian government, but after 1860, he vehemently disagreed with Otto von Bismarck's German and European policy and broke the connection.
 * ''Beneﬁciaries and instigators of this fatal political course were, he was certain, mainly the jews.
 * ''Frantz was a proliﬁc writer, and he remained consistent in his views over the decades. His ﬁrst publication on this topic, Ahasverus or the Jewish Question (1844), already contained many of the ideas that were developed at geater length in his World Politics (1883). In the years between these two works, he returned continually to the topic, most intensely in National Liberalism and Jewish Dominance (1874) and in Federalism as the Governing Principle (1879).
 * ''Frantz drew his ideas concerning the proper place of jews from the sphere of religion; some of them seem to have come straight out his favorite time period, the Middle Ages. Although he explicitly rejected the fashionable racial antisemitism of the 1870s and even scoffed at the impreciseness of the term, Frantz thought conversion to Christianity would make no difference: "The Jews will always be jews” (Ahasverus, 28). Thus, racial and religious elements were not distinctly differentiated in his theoretical universe.
 * ''In spite of his repudiation of organized antisemitism, Frantz shared many of the positions adopted by the antisemitic political parties of the 1880s. He believed that Jews should never be full citizens; that they could have no true allegiance to their countries of residence; and that they dominated the newspapers, international trade, and the stock exchange. Although he thought this to he the case all over Europe, it was most acutely so in Bismarck's Germany, which he was fond of calling a German Empire of Jewish Nationality.
 * ''For all his indulgence in anti-Jewish stereotypes, there are a few features in Frantz's system that are not typical of the antisemites in general: he was an ardent paciﬁst. and though he favored a European crusade to free Jerusalern From the Ottoman Empire, he abhorred the idea of a war within Europe because this would impede its “inevitable” uniting under the banner of federalism. And even though jews would undoubtedly be second-class citizens in the Frantzian utopia—denied voting rights, intermarriage with Christians, military careers, or access to the civil service—he drew the line when he just as clearly stated that the basic human rights, including due process and the equal protection of the law in civil and criminal matters, must be guaranteed to all. In the last analysis, Frantz advocated a system of apartheid under the doctrine of separate but equal.


 * ("Judenhass und Antisemitismus bei Constantin Frantz", in "Historisches Jahrbuch" 111, no. I, S. 155-172, Michael Dreyer, 1991)

It is obvious, that professor Dr. Dreyer - who graduated in studies of federal concepts - shows no sympathy for Constantin Frantz, focussing solely on the question of antisemitic concepts. And to defend Frantz from the claim of antisemitism is very hard, though not impossible in my view. But the point remains, that Dreyer makes no claim of nationalism or of any form of chauvinism within the writings of Frantz!


 * ''Constantin Frantz


 * Das ist einer jener Denker, über den die Entwicklung des Bismarckschen Zeitalters scheinbar hinweggegangen ist. Besessen von jenem Drang nach Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit, den die Treitschke-Schüler ein wenig ärgerlich »Ideologie« nannten, und der neurepublikanischen deutschen Politikern als »Fimmel« erscheint. Mitten in einer Zeit unerhörten politischen und wirtschaftlichen Aufstieges, in Machttrunkenheit und Erfolgslüsternheit, wog er ruhig alle Werte ab, die seine Zeitgenossen vergötterten und unbeirrbar klang sein »zu leicht gefunden«. Nicht der rankünebegabte Politiker Windthorst, sondern der Ethiker Constantin Frantz ist der natürliche Widerpart Bismarcks gewesen. Windthorst, gewiß eine eminente politische Potenz, war in seinem ganzen Wirken an die Partei gebunden, Frantz, der Überparteiliche, wollte ein Schärfer der Gewissen sein, und da er aus dem lautersten Born ewiger Menschlichkeit schöpfte, ging er nicht mit der Zeit dahin, die einen solchen Eckart brauchte, sondern kommt immer wieder, wenn Volk in Not ist, wenn die Ungeister der Erfolgsanbeterei, der Staatsverhimmelung die Seele Deutschlands zu verfälschen drohen. Mitten im Weltkrieg erinnerte Friedr. Wilh. Förster in einem glänzenden Essay in der »Friedenswarte« an Bismarcks gefährlichsten Gegner und nunmehr gibt Hans Schwann-Schneider in einer kleinen inhaltsreichen Schrift (Verlag » Friede durch Recht«, Stuttgart, Preis 1,80 Mark) eine ausgezeichnete Übersicht über die Gedanken und Schriften dieses Mannes. » Deutsche Weltpolitik im Lichte Constantin Frantz's« nennt Schwann-Schneider seine Arbeit, und es ist sein Verdienst, daß er als eifriger Interpret seines Meisters darzulegen versteht, wie wenig diese Gedanken aus der Zeit zwischen 1850–1880 veraltet sind, sondern daß Constantin Frantz berufen ist, auch der Weltpolitik von 1920 den Spiegel vorzuhalten.
 * ("Carl von Ossietzky: Sämtliche Schriften", Band 1: "1911 - 1921", Kapitel 59, "Mitteilungen der Deutschen Friedensgesellschaft. April/Mai 1920")

I could not find an english translation in the public domain, but if You are serious about the matter, You will find a way to access the content. The author Carl von Ossietzky should be free from any suspicion of german nationalism. The contrast to Dreyers view is at least quite interesting to me and may suggest, that Frantz is not well studied by present day authors and that claims are based on phrases taken out of context. But this is certainly a matter of original research. The point here is again: a claim of nationalism cannot be verified by sources.

Maybe You pull it off and produce an article by Frantz in the Bayreuther Zeitschrift or some letter towards a member of the Bayreuther Kreis, that proves my point at least as onesided. But even being unfamiliar yet with these sources, I think of it as something most unlikely.

If Your original intention is to underline a relation or evolution from Wagner to National Socialism in Germany, I believe, You will find much better sources than the dedication to Frantz in Wagner's Opera and Drama. Sincerly,--Christophmahler (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Your patience. Since I got my hands on the letters of Constantin Frantz today, I can suggest to You to look into the direction of Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin. In his introduction he expressed concerns similar to Your considerations in regard to a dominating effect of the german speaking parts within a Central European federation. To me his statements appear as unfounded claims and I suspect a political motivation for his depiction of Frantz as an utopist. But at least these statements would be a verifiable secondary source. As he is a member of the British Academy and the Royal Historical Society, maybe You can get him to name You authors, that could solidify Your thesis. From my side, I will take a closer look into Frantz' letters to Hans von Wolzogen to see if Frantz has some responsebility to Wolzogen's later admiration for the NS-movement. Sincerly,--Christophmahler (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for reminding me of WP:Civility. Have You observed it Yourself, when You reverted my changes and delivered no sources for Your claims ? I am quiet suspicious now, that You are in a conflict of interest in regard to the article. We will see, how other editors will perceive and judge the matter. I still hope, that You will settle for a balanced set of references - though it would look silly within an article on Opera and Drama. But if You prefer mere claims, I will continue to challenge them. Sincerly,--Christophmahler (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Eeek!!! Whose tanks are on whose lawns here? --Smerus (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Synagogue of London
Who destroyed it? Chesdovi (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You tell me!-it was evidently destroyed by a bomb or a fire that resulted from the Blitz (as is appropriately categorized). But it was not a 'synagogue destroyed by the Nazis' in that they deliberately sent in, or organized, people to smash it up, as they did for the other synagogues in Category:Synagogues destroyed by Nazi Germany.--Smerus (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom again!
This has come up again, see WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom/Requested move to WikiProject British Music. Regards. -- Klein zach  08:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Grand opera
Warm thanks for your follow-up edits. I think the article will now work for the grandees and for plebs like me. Tim riley (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Operas based on Lermontov works
Category:Operas based on Lermontov works, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Essays on music
Category:Essays on music, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi there. Your signature is supposed to contain a link to at least either your user page or your user talk page. It appears to be doing so on your user talk page, but was not doing so at Templates_for_discussion (I have no horse in that race, although I am writing it up in the Signpost). I just wanted to let you know that if you haven't already fixed it, you probably should make sure that the link always appears. Cheers,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubinstein
Hi Smerus, not sure what the reference to good faith re: my edit of Rubinstein's opening paragraph (Russian-Jewish > Russian) was for. Certainly my edit was in good faith. I understand the WP:OPENPARA policy regarding the inclusion of ethnicity. Given that Rubinstein's ethnicity has no clear connection with his work as a pianist/composer/conductor etc., it should, by that policy, not be included in the opening paragraph (it does get due mention later on). In addition, it should be noted that Rubinstein was officially converted, so the relevance of his ethnicity should be demonstrated and not just assumed. Zwart (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I in fact dispute strongly that R's ethnicity was unconnected to his work, but will reserve further action until I can assemble appropriate sources and refs.--Smerus (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Moonlight Sonata"
Hi Smerus--

I admit to being confused by your response to my POV post in that discussion, and wonder whether you might possibly have misinterpreted what I was saying. Perhaps I expressed myself poorly (as is often the case.) I have argued throughout the entire discussion that the initial move from Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) to Moonlight Sonata was a misguided error, and that the article should be moved back now, as per the Resolution posted by Eusebeus. Is this not what you also were seconding? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Use of the word 'meme' brings me out in a powerful rash and turns me in to a screaming psychopath. --Smerus (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Naughty again, reading what was not addressed to me: I like the quotation marks around the moonlight in the heading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your apology is gladly accepted. My supposition is that your eye must have fallen onto an allergenic term, and glazed over while skimming through the remainder of my post. At least, this is exactly the sort of thing that happens to my eye. Now, in such a circumstance what I would do is go back to the original offending post to re-read it a bit more carefully, then return to my riposte and strikeout any ill-considered statements, and consider adding a brief explanation of my revised understanding. Anyway, that's what I would do - so that readers of the original public discussion might be less confused by the apparent discrepancy in viewpoints if nothing else. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a hint I will take it!--Smerus (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it was meant to be more of a request than a hint, but it's OK if you'd rather not. I'm sort of hanging out to dry there. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, sounds like I'd better do something before the hit-men call around.....--Smerus (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could make a joke about "hit-men calling around", what with some of the knock-down-drag-outs I've run across here. But thank you - your post is greatly appreciated. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The miller who was a wizard, a cheat and a matchmaker
Orlady (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR
Please see the requirement at WP:FAR to first discuss issues and improvements on article talk-- prior to FAR nomination. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I will delete FAR--Smerus (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK College of Arms
Hi Smerus,

I am not sure how to do this, but is it possible to change the hook for the DYK now? I would like to change it to: Did you know... "...that the College of Arms (pictured) was reincorporated by royal charter in 1555 by Queen Mary I of England, despite the fact that the heralds of the College initially proclaimed her rival Lady Jane Gray as rightful Queen in 1553?"

This is a better hook and the article might get more traffic as a result, is changing it now even possible? Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay I will try that, I will also put it back on the nominating page again, since it had been deleted (probably waiting somewhere in the queue). See what happens, at least we could learn something new! Thanks, Sodacan (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Template:Did you know nominations/College of Arms. Sodacan (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky
Wow, I thought I had a tough job with the unoperatic, but sparse, Britten. "Your" unoperatic, but rambling, Tchaikovsky is a nightmare. I looked in to see if I could throw in some effort, but I think I'll just slink away ... Scarabocchio (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tchaikovsky is a Featured Article. I'd suggest reading its FA review first and bringing the issue up on the article's talk page before radically altering it. One of the issues is that FAs aren't supposed to be overly long, but need to cover all the main aspects of the subject without undue weight given to any of them. The article is currently about 70K of "readable prose". There may way well be a case for a split-off article specifically on his operas which can be linked in the main article. Read Splitting for more on the issue. Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * not my Tchaikovsky, I beg you..... it's pretty awful isn't it, and would put off most readers, but you should have seen it before, at the point when I first set to it.......At some later point, (not due to me) it was worked up to FA but it has sunk back since then, and really ought to be demoted; ach, life's too short ......However, your comments could point a way of dealing with the double representation of composers in Wikiproject:Composers and Wikiproject:Opera. Although some composers (say, Verdi, Rossini, Meyerbeer...) clearly should be featured in both, perhaps for others (e.g. Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky....) we should create separate articles XX and opera and have the opera banner only on those pages. The articles need not be very long (unless people want to make them so) but should give background to the composer's career as an opera composer and list/template of operas......--Smerus (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * apologies for the use of "your" ... I understand. I wouldn't (yet) want my name associated with Britten, but I would argue (strongly) that the operatic parts of a composers output need to remain (and be highlighted) in their general corpus. Making a separate "List of operas by X" just panders to the editors in WP-Composers who haven't yet discovered opera. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments at the bottom of Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and note that I will go through the article. Jonyungk (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * that will be great, many thanks ---Smerus (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And thank you for copy editing ahead of me. What you're doing looks great so far. Will follow up as time allows. Jonyungk (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm debating whether to keep the article in its current two parts (a strictly chronological but thematically wandering Life section and Works) or to restructure it into four (a streamlined bio section, personal life (homosexuality, marriage, von Meck), peer relations (The Five, Belayev Circle) and music). As tempting as a restructuring is, my two concerns are the thematic practicality and meddlers who would start adding material already written which would come later in the article. Your thoughts? Jonyungk (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you back, at least on Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. I've been hard at work on the article, mainly on the early sections since they needed a large amount of rewriting, clarification and connecting info. This part of the article now seems solid but could still use a second set of eyes to make sure everything is covered and find anything that I might have missed. Did you want to do that at this point or would you rather wait until work on the Life section has progressed further? Either way is fine with me. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I know the article lead will possibly have to be revised in light of the info I've added. I plan to do so once the rest of the Life section is firm. Doing so before that seems premature; you never know what other info might have to be considered for inclusion. Jonyungk (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your note regarding the current state of the Sexuality section is phrased very threateningly ("Will you trim it or shall I?"&mdash;in other words, trim it or else). When you put things this way, why should I work with you?

I've read the page on WP:UNDUE and understand what you're saying. However, I also understand that the official and cultural atmosphere in 19th century Russia is relevant and has been made an issue, pro and con, by several biographers of Tchaikovsky. Without it, a reader is left without all the facts to understand why the composer may or may not have acted or possibly composed the music that he did. Therefore, its place in a biographical article on Tchaikovsky, at least to some degree, becomes essential.

Have you read the LGBT article currently linked to the section? It's skeletal. If I had to choose between losing the link or the material, I'd rather lose the link. Ideally, someone should import the material in Tchaikovsky to that article, then flesh out the rest of the LGBT article and leave just a few sentences for context and as a "teaser" for the other article.

Also, I'd contacted SatyrTN and Hyacinth, asking for a read-through to ensure fairness and sensitivity in coverage. SatyrTN agreed. When the article went through PR a couple of years ago, we caught considerable flak for deficiencies in the Sexuality section. Because, among other things, those issues were addressed, the article passed GAR and FAR. We cannot ignore the issue now and keep the article as FA.

Here's what I'll do. I'll cut down the section for now but also submit the issue, with a link to the diff for the article at its current status, to the article's talk page for review. This is an issue that, honestly, should be decided by more than two people. I'll also inform SatyrTN of this development to give a chance for feedback.

BTW, please don't threaten me again or I'll take the issue to an admin and let him deal with you accordingly.Jonyungk (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I agree that LGBT history in Russia is where fixes should take place. However, the question then becomes what to do if your fixing one part of the article (the 19th century, in this case) could unbalance the rest of the article and you have no idea who might come upon the scent to add material to other sections? Am I over-thinking this or is there a shade of relevance here?


 * Also, part of my intent in adding the material to Tchaik was to give SatyrTN as much material as possible to form a well-rounded, fair overview. SatyrTN admitted lacking knowledge about Tchaik's life re. homosexuality and issues thereof. When I looked over the section myself, things seemed deficient. Adding the material was an attempt to solve both issues.


 * I've still submitted the issue on the Tchaik talk page, not out of stubbornness or because I think you are wrong (you may actually be very right here) but because I really believe it is an issue that ultimately should be decided by consensus, not just by two people. In a sense, we're not just revamping a biographical article; we're also providing a service, which means making sure that service is adequate for as many readers as possible.


 * I'd also appreciate some feedback not just on the edits made to Sexuality but also on other amendments made to the first 2/3 of the Life section (The Five, Anton Rubinstein, all that). I'm a good editor and researcher but without commentary I'm basically working in the dark. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ruhrfisch left a message for you on my talk page regarding this subject. Jonyungk (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see above: I've already moved the discussion there and would encourage as much interaction as possible. Please feel free to contribute. Jonyungk (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Operas
If you can give me 30 minutes, I could set one up at User:Scarabocchio/Tchaikovsky —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Wagner Dream
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Anton Rubinstein
Saw your comments on this article's talk page suggesting a rewrite and mentioning the article's heavy dependence on Schonberg and Sachs as source material. Those two sources were all that were available to me at the time I worked on Rubinstein; the Philip Taylor bio (reportedly the first in English in quite some time) became available to me only after the majority of my work had been done. As a consequence of reworking Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, I am slowly going through articles related to it. This will eventually include Rubinstein. I already have MagicPiano's comments available from his Composers Project review but would appreciate any suggestions you might have, as well. (In one way, Rubinstein is more complex than Tchaikovsky as R's life, compositions and performances all have to be addressed and balanced accordingly. Should be interesting.) Thanks in advance for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will look but I am snowed under at present (launch of my book which incidentally has something on Rubinstein's early career). I have vol. 2 of the definitive Lev Barenboim biography in Russian which I confess I haven't got round to ploughing through yet .....also the Russian edition of Rubinstein's collected prose and a number of musicological pamphlets. Could look impressive if I can digest them.--Smerus (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No hurry but will appreciate your input whenever you get to it. Still have to finish plowing through Tchaikovsky and PIT+5, so there's plenty of time. And yes, it would look fabulous if you did digest all that Russian prose (with or without a comforting bowl of borscht at your side?). Jonyungk (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari's picture
Thanks for removing this pic! As you may have seen, Maproom and I were discussing it, without reaching a clear decision! Jpaulm (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Music matters
Spotted your name in the Radio Times. Will be interested to listen to the programme (probably later, on the iPlayer). Best. --GuillaumeTell 11:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Clari
It looked like you kept putting your draft in article space (at Smerus/clari) rather than user space (User:Smerus/clari). The last draft had a source and looked acceptable as a stub, so I moved it to Clari. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, I am having a dozy day--Smerus (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. When you recently edited Clari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Home, Sweet Home (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) 10:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. When you recently edited Whitaker Wright, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swindle (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) 10:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

La tentation
Nice addition. I left a couple of questions on the Talk page for you. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
I've split most of the material covered in this article between the new Music section of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (compositional style, aesthetic concerns and reception) and List of compositions by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (specific genres), either rewriting or replacing with better material in the process. The only sections left in genres will be gone soon as well, so having a third article with redundant, lesser-quality material seems unnecessary and pointless. Would you please support the article's deletion on Talk:Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good observation. Please see my comments on Talk:Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposed a solution on Talk:Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Care to comment? Jonyungk (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you're in agreement. I'll make the list a straight list, then, and import applicable copy to the Music article. Thanks for your two cents. Jonyungk (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles-Edmond Duponchel
Hi Smerus, I left a note at Talk:Charles-Edmond Duponchel (architect) about the name of the article and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for La tentation
The DYK project (nominate) 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations in Tchaikovsky
Thanks very much for the kind words&mdash;I appreciate them and know, coming from you, they are well-earned. You bring up an excellent point about citations, one that I've wondered about for some time. It looks like we are both on the same page that when a citation is given, it it either for the text continuing from a previous footnote or, if the text is in a fresh paragraph, from the start of that paragraph. In other words, more than one sentence could be covered under the same footnote. That, to me (and, it sounds like, to you) makes perfect sense. The reason I've been seemingly over-citing is from experience on FAC, where some insist that every point that could be questioned must be cited. Heavens, you could question practically anything on the planet by stretching that logic. I think you have the right idea, though. The bottom line is that the article, as with Wikipedia in general, is a service to readers and should be as user-friendly as possible. This would include making the article as readable as possible. I'll go through it over the next day or two as time permits and merge footnotes where applicable. As long as nobody complains, I think that's the best course of action. Thanks for making the suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for La tentation
The DYK project (nominate) 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations in Tchaikovsky
Thanks very much for the kind words&mdash;I appreciate them and know, coming from you, they are well-earned. You bring up an excellent point about citations, one that I've wondered about for some time. It looks like we are both on the same page that when a citation is given, it it either for the text continuing from a previous footnote or, if the text is in a fresh paragraph, from the start of that paragraph. In other words, more than one sentence could be covered under the same footnote. That, to me (and, it sounds like, to you) makes perfect sense. The reason I've been seemingly over-citing is from experience on FAC, where some insist that every point that could be questioned must be cited. Heavens, you could question practically anything on the planet by stretching that logic. I think you have the right idea, though. The bottom line is that the article, as with Wikipedia in general, is a service to readers and should be as user-friendly as possible. This would include making the article as readable as possible. I'll go through it over the next day or two as time permits and merge footnotes where applicable. As long as nobody complains, I think that's the best course of action. Thanks for making the suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for La tentation
The DYK project (nominate) 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations in Tchaikovsky
Thanks very much for the kind words&mdash;I appreciate them and know, coming from you, they are well-earned. You bring up an excellent point about citations, one that I've wondered about for some time. It looks like we are both on the same page that when a citation is given, it it either for the text continuing from a previous footnote or, if the text is in a fresh paragraph, from the start of that paragraph. In other words, more than one sentence could be covered under the same footnote. That, to me (and, it sounds like, to you) makes perfect sense. The reason I've been seemingly over-citing is from experience on FAC, where some insist that every point that could be questioned must be cited. Heavens, you could question practically anything on the planet by stretching that logic. I think you have the right idea, though. The bottom line is that the article, as with Wikipedia in general, is a service to readers and should be as user-friendly as possible. This would include making the article as readable as possible. I'll go through it over the next day or two as time permits and merge footnotes where applicable. As long as nobody complains, I think that's the best course of action. Thanks for making the suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Information for photo File:Pguggenheimgrave.jpg
I have transferred the photo to. There is asked for additional information. Could you please add that? Thanks, Wouterhagens (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, done. --Smerus (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Adolfo Fumagalli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Erard


 * Le dilettante d'Avignon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Dilettante

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Maxliebermannreal grave.jpg
Hi Smerus, since you uploaded the original, I was wondering if you could make a copy from the original or (if you think it necessary) have the new version retouched. It would serve to replace the actual file in the Max Liebermann article. Thnks. Lotje ツ (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Prokofiev opera template
 Copied from User_talk:Drbogdan:

Prokofiev opera template Hi there - I see you have added a new template  to the articles in this category. You may not have noted that there is already an established template on all the articles, which your template duplicates - I have mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera. I didn't want to remove your template without notifying you - but if it is OK with you I will edit it out. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Smerus - Thank you *very much* for your comments about the newly made Prokofiev opera template - yes, I knew of the other Prokofiev opera/image template but thought the new one, more complete and more consistent w/ other Prokofiev templates, could coexist on the same article page - and provide another way, more familiar perhaps to some, of accessing related articles about Prokofiev - also, I was considering expanding the various templates for other Prokofiev articles, including the Prokofiev Opera ones, in the same way as had been done w/ the Prokofiev Ballet articles - like, for example, the various related Ballet templates at the bottom of the Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev) and Trapeze (Prokofiev) articles - in any case - hope my reply helps in some way - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your comments - and encouragement - if interested, my *very beginning* efforts re the "Sergei Prokofiev" mega-template may be viewed (& edited if you like) at the following -> - comments, additions, modifications, etc, always welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems the "Sergei Prokofiev" mega-template may now be sufficiently ready for posting - and has been posted to several relevant Prokofiev articles (notably, Sergei Prokofiev & Romeo and Juliet) - at least for starters - editing and/or updating, as with any Wikipedia article/template, may be needed and is expected to be ongoing -but much of the basic Template effort may now be done - please feel free to edit, modify, change and related as needed of course - Thanks for the recent help and comments with this project - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert le diable
Congrats on the work that you are doing with this article It makes we want to come to London in December to see it at Covent Garden! Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is now a GA. Congratulations on a fine article. I've left some comments at Talk:Robert le diable/GA1, prose and Lead for instance, but I'm awarding GA-status without waiting for any corrective actions. Pyrotec (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for fixing my typo in "Meyerbeer". :-)  Happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Lie Down in Darkness (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stream of consciousness (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) 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Meyerbeer operas: das Prozess?
that Meyerbeer's work Der Admiral is subtitled oder verlorne Prozess? "Prozess" is normally of masculine grammatical gender, in which case it should be oder verlorne Prozess, although the word's usage in the early 19th century might of course have been different. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Rubinstein: Fantasia for Orchestra Eroica Op. 110
I am currently working on a stub article on this composition using the Piano Reduction from the IMSLP and the liner notes to the Naxos/Marco Polo recording. Information I am lacking is anything on the circumstances of composition, any program that lay behind the music and if there is any connection with Beethoven's Symphony No.3 in E-flat major Op. 55 "Eroica".Graham1973 (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Rimski-Korsakov quote seems to be his comment on the entire body of Rubinsteins work. The Naxos/Marco Polo recording calls with work Eroica Fantasia Op. 110, as does the piano reduction score on imslp so I suspect you are right on the second count. As for quality I'd call it patchy, my own preference (of what I've heard) is for the Piano Concerto Op. 70.Graham1973 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some Alkan works
I've started adding some articles on his études, and added an Alkan études template similar to Chopin's. Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Antonín Dvořák
Hi, Smerus. I commend you for your work on the Antonín Dvořák article so far. It's looking very nicely. By the way, I am thinking about expanding the New York City section in the biography to include premieres and reception of his works as well (see for example Edward Elgar). Can you please provide some sources that would be beneficial to the article? Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Giacomo Meyerbeer
The article Giacomo Meyerbeer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Giacomo Meyerbeer for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Wagner Peer Review
Hello. Per the peer review for Richard Wagner, Brianboulton was concerned about that the peer review should take place after some of the necessary work has been done so we can make this article a TFA on 13 February 2013. As one of the main editors of the article, I was wondering if you would be kind and helpful enough to help upgrade the article so we can get the article to FA status during the available amount of time if we should feature it as a TFA. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in the middle of the music festival I run in Slovakia, available as from next week --Smerus (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reporting vandals
Hi, Smerus. Thank you for reporting the vandal earlier. An admin has blocked him. In the future, the best place to make such notices is at WP:AIV. Happy editing! -- Jprg1966  (talk)  21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wagner comments
I have left some comments on the Wagner talkpage, for you and Peter to consider. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wagner typo
Hi David, the quote from Queen Vitoria at ref 64, should that be "quiet" or is it more garbled than that?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles
Pls see Village pump (policy) - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Image Eislergrave.jpg
This image is credited to you as photographer and is dated as 2006. This year must be wrong, since the stone does not carry yet the name of his wife Steffy Eisler who died in 2003 and was buried right there, too. There is another image of the stone which is dated 2004 and does show here name. Could you please clarify? Thanks, L.Willms (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi David! Regarding at User talk:L.Willms: the image has not been deleted but I arranged for it to be transferred to Commons.
 * I don't think L.Willms has any particular beef – they were just questioning the details at Commons:File:Eislergrave.jpg; at least that's what I understand his comments at Commons:File talk:Eislergrave.jpg to mean. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Holländer
Thanks for your comment in the FAC! Not to clutter that page further: the move request is on the opera's talk, linked in the FAC ;) - I will take your offer to insert the lang template, but not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Francis Pagnon
Hello, I've created the article about Francis Pagnon. Please stop saying that Guy Debord had a poor opinion of Pagnon's book. Those bad comments are about another book that Pagnon wrote after "Evoking Wagner". As you can see the comments of Debord are dated 1984, whereas Pagnon's book was published in 1981. Debord appreciated "Evoking Wagner", but he didn't like what Pagnon wrote later. Thank you. Geronimo355 (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In 1984, Francis Pagnon submitted a new book to the publisher (Champ libre) who had released Evoking Wagner, but it was rejected. So, Evoking Wagner is the only book ever published by Pagnon.

Geronimo355 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kreuzschule
Perhaps the school could be made a bit more interesting by adding a few lines from the building. - The Parsifal section looks good to me, - I could do without the "summary" in "late years". More tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kreuzschule
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of August Röckel
Hello! Your submission of August Röckel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for August Röckel
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now I expanded Ulf Schirmer for the Wagner Year festivities. Have a look at the refs, feel free to copy to Wagner, one is actually the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the composer links! - I don't link the composer when the piece has an article, thinking that whoever really needs a link to Mozart will know to find it in "Die Entführung" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wagner: sources from de, I also like some of their pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

about Felix Mendelssohn
Hello! I'm still working on Felix Mendelssohn and related articles both in Enlish and Japanese versions. The current version, at the subsection 'Conductor', says "...conducting at the Lower Rhine music festival of 1836 that led to him...". But I can find at the section above, 'Düsseldorf', the description that he resigned his position at Düsseldorf in 1834 .(it also says that he directed Lower Rheinish Festival at 1833) I guess that the year 1836 is typo of 1833. Could you please check this point? Thank you.--Ponruy (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your quick response and adding information. I totally understand and your edit will be soon reflected also in Japanese version. Please pay a visit to see the article translated into Japanese!--Ponruy (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Friedrich Rungenhagen
Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Guess what I heard on radio on Wagner's anniversary of death? That "Trauergondel" piece by Liszt. Only they announced it was composed in 1882, before his death, and so says La lugubre gondola. - Why mention it at all in Wagner's article, when so many other facts have to be missed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Grocer da Ponte
Hi there - thanks for the edit and fair enough. I've mentioned it on the talk page but am extremely unlikely to pursue it through the courts, stalk you, make legal threats etc. I suppose it just reflects my personal view that it's one of those interesting/quirky music facts that I love. But I am really not planning Category Warz&trade; over this! :)

On the other hand I did just want to say that I have been looking at your user page and website and how very much I've enjoyed them and found them interesting. A number of things rang quite loud bells for me. And your music festival sounds absolutely stunning! Cheers and happy editing DBaK (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will have a look at the Grocers article. I will come to the music festival ... erm ... when possible! But I've enjoyed hearing about it. :) DBaK (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
While I remember - if you'll be around in London in mid-April, we'll be having someone from Wikidata (probably User:Aude) around to give a workshop at wmuk:GLAM-WIKI 2013 on what the plans are and how it's all expected to fit together. They can probably explain it more confidently than me :-)

Hope all is well! Andrew Gray (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

RW@FA
Hi, The horrible piece of text speak above is to thank you for getting the main Wagner article to featured status. Your contributions are invaluable in reminding me that not all Wikipedians are dedicated to meaningless trivia or self-promotion or propaganda.

I've moved from a state of low energy to one of needing to spend that which I have gained on making up for the work I didn't do earlier in the financial year. Hoepfully I'll be up to doing some more serious stuff here after April 5th.

It hardly seems worth saying congratulations on someone who has completed a related PhD, but congratulations on getting through a different sort of obstacle course.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Italian Jews
Category:Italian Jews, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes:
I've archived the debate. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise.  Giano  19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fanelli again
re this edit. See the talk page. I raised this back in 2011. I tried to phrase it so that the article did not assert it was a work by him, but that's what the source says. I suspect that the source has simply misinterpreted some document. Paul B (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Opera
I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Written on Skin
Hi. Holy Moley, what a show, eh? We went tonight: amazing. Well done for getting the article started. I hope you do not mind that I zapped this on the grounds that they aren't! They are actually her sister and brother-in-law, but I am not convinced that they need to be specified in the table anyway: if eventually the synopsis got more detailed then perhaps it could fit in there? Anyway, thanks again, best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I really hope you do - it was fantastic! Hope also that you are keeping warm out there. :) Thanks for the nice message. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and the singers - as you've shown, same principals as Aix - incredible! They were all three great and it seems wrong to single out one but Mehta, the counter-tenor, has the most wonderful sound. I've got to hear more of this guy. Absolutely electrifying. And I say that as a Scholl loyalist. :) DBaK (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (watching) did you know that we are improving Scholl (and look at the stats, amazing change)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd seen that you had work in progress there; it's looking great. Sadly I am too ignorant on this topic (and many others) to help much - I just love the noise he makes, is all. :) DBaK (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS Gerda - Rahel Hirsch says hi! I've got a couple of books about her now, but limited time to do much other than look at them ... no pressure though. DBaK (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited Dvorak Quartet Movement, reason for your edits?
Hi,

Altered the Dvorak Quartet Movement article to conform with your edits. Would just like to clarify your reason for making the change, as I thought that I had got the article layouts correct based on other similar articles.Graham1973 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Griegs String Quartets
Thanks, now does this apply to multi movement works? I ask because I've started on the Grieg Quartet in F Major, the composer completed two movements, almost finished the third movement and left the last in an incomplete state at death.Graham1973 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've slightly updated the article on Griegs String Quartet in G Major using what I had available.Graham1973 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with the Grieg article. I've taken your advice and updated the other articles I've written to conform. I'm going to hold off on uploading the Quartet in F Major article until confirmed just who wrote the Naxos liner notes as the name is not given online. I currenly have a partially completed draft lacking the background and details on the various completions I've been able to uncover.Graham1973 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've further updated the article on the String Quartet in G minor, Op 27 with some details on problems getting it published. Unfortunately my source did not include details on who published it first, when & where.Graham1973 (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ukhta
Hello, David! You said you visited Ukhta about 20 years ago. I wonder what did you do there. It is my native town, where I lived until October 2006. --Murashev (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DAB link
Hi, looks like a non-merge edit restoring link to DAB page. Widefox ; talk 14:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Er....doubtless.--Smerus (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Lienau Musikverlag
Robert Lienau Musikverlag, historically the publishing house of Robert Lienau, merged in 1991 with Zimmermann. When a piece appears now, I feel that a link to Zimmermann is more helpful. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in my manor, guv. But I suggest that the Lienau article might mention the takeover by Zimmerman, and the Zimmerman article might mention that items are still published under the Lienau name.--Smerus (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your name appeared more than others in the history ;) - Robert Lienau is a person, so are the cats. The corresponding German article is a company. - In the person article, the merge is mentioned, I will change Zimmermann, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I copied it there to the lead, was already mentioned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked for the year of the merge, 1990 (Lienau) or 1991 (Zimmermann), didn't find it but "Die Tradition der Verlage wird fortgeführt. Im Musikverlag Zimmermann erscheint die neue Reihe „Piano Moments“ mit neuen Klavierstücken, die Aufforderung zum Crossover jenseits der üblichen Klassik-Alben. Lienau setzt u.a. auf zeitgenössische Komponisten wie Graham Waterhouse und Ivan Shekov. Das Hieber-Programm wird um CDs aus dem Bereich musikalisches Kabarett, wie Sabine Fischmann, ausgebaut." - saying that three different publishing traditions are continued, - how can that be worded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead
Hello, I've removed the sentence that you added to Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead:
 * As the copyright for the song is owned by Time-Warner, the sales resulting from Thatcher protests will ironically enrich an American corporation.

as this is not NPOV. --jftsang 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Alkan
Looks like we're not going to be able to get an Alkan FA in time for his 200th birthday :-( Double sharp (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Double sharp (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering, what Alkan pieces do you play (if any)? I am somewhat familiar with Op.10 and Op.39 (and a few other minor works). Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Me, I'm in the nursery with op. 31, op. 63 and some of the Chants. If you want to hear how I get professionals to do it for me, come to the music festival I organise or see videos of Jonathan Powell and Tomasz Kamieniak from previous years' festivals.--Smerus (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I read about that one in an old Alkan Society bulletin.
 * BTW, the Op.63 score in IMSLP is missing #49 (Laus Deo). http://piano.francais.free.fr/PARTITIONSCORES/alkan_WO_LausDeo_DOUTE.PDF That may be remedied]. (Someone should really post it there...) Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not just in past years - this year we have CVA's complete chamber music, plus Le Festin d'Esope, L'incendie au village voisin, etc., and music of Delaborde.....Be there or be square, Oct. 4th-8th......--Smerus (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spiš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pawn (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) 19:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles-Valentin Alkan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archives Nationales (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) 13:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

op.30b perpetuum mobile
What do we do with this? It's not Alkan's arrangement, but it is an arrangement of one of his compositions. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we cn just igore it. The 'op. 30b' is just a name given by IMSLP - the score does not use it, simply calls it an 'etude....after the trio of C.V. Alkan'.--Smerus (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, Bombardo-Carillon's "Op.47c" label is even more sketchy. Did it even receive an opus number? I've seen it referred to both as Op.47 and also as without opus number. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit separating out the piano-and-orchestra and chamber works. My reasoning is that (1) there are very few of those anyway, and since there are real gaps in the opus numbering, it could confuse the reader somewhat, and that (2) doing so makes it more of a list of works by genre, which is not a bad idea, but is not what the list declares itself to be. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Op. 47 c is completely spurious and so are the op. 26a/b, 27a/b etc. Where op. no. is duplicate, mark it as such (e.g. op. 27). Where no opus no., it should be listed as such.

As regards format, a long list like this is not very user friendly. I recommend two suggestions to improve it, if you agree: Smerus (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) make it a list by genre (if necessary changing the title of the article) as has been done with List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by genre
 * 2)where a work has a number of components (e.g. op. 39, op. 63), format lists of components in two or three columns as appropriate. Where there are only three or four compnonets (e.g. sonatas), string them out in a single line rather than a new line for each one.


 * Would support both (1) and (2) being applied.
 * The a/b labels do serve a small purpose in disambiguating between works which would otherwise have the same opus number when referring to works by just their opus numbers (op. 32, op. 38 especially). And they have at least been used in independent sources. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with the a/b labels is that they were not used, either by the composer, or the publisher, or by subsequent musicologists; that is, we cannot cite any source for them. We can't I think just invent them because they are convenient - that traduces WP:VERIFY. So it is probably best simply to explain them.--Smerus (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (still thinking how to diambiguate Op.32a No.1 from Op.32b No.1) Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alkan Halelouyoh
Found on YouTube Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell
I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)