User talk:Suessmayr~enwiki

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:
 * some General guidance.
 * Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! -- Kleinzach 13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks your clarifications and additions to Schuppanzigh
What an honor to have Suessmayr himself editing our little article on Ignaz Schuppanzigh. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Haydn's skull
Hello, I have checked what my reference sources say about the various issues you raised concerning Haydn's head and would be curious to know if you have any further remarks in response. For discussion, please visit Talk:Haydn's head. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Für Elise / Steblin
Regarding your two edits at Für Elise: assessment that Steblin's suggestion is without merit has no place in an article on the English Wikipedia. We report reliably sourced notable events – everything else is a personal point of view, comment, synthesis. I suggest you find a reliable source supporting your assertion or remove it. The wording in which Steblin's suggestion is presented in the article allows readers to come to their own conclusion about its merits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Following the rules of Wikipedia the whole paragraph on Steblin's hypothesis ought to be removed altogether, because blurry newspaper articles cannot be regarded a reliable source. If you had done some googling you would know that Steblin herself has admitted that "question marks remain" and the main question mark is the simple fact that Steblin is unable to prove any connection between Barensfeld and Malfatti. And without this connection the whole theory is just worthless hokum and really looks like a parody of Kopitz, whose flawed hypothesis BTW was not allowed to be published on Wikipedia before hehad produced anything in print. The note about Kopitz's "identification" in Spiegel 26/2009 was not regarded as usable source back in 2009 and rightly so. Steblin's current unscholarly musings are in no way different from Kopitz's three years ago. There are several Elisabeths to be found in Beethoven's circle and at some point all of them will have been presented as "The Real Elise". This is a crazy merry-go-round, not scholarship! BTW: Der Nürnberger Elisenlebkuchen. Stammt sein heutiges Rezept von Ludwig van Beethovens Köchin?--Suessmayr (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Steblin's thesis was widely reported, including in the NMZ which is a reliable source. As to the merits: editors don't make that judgment, they only report. I've incoprporated your suggested link from Die Welt into the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there seems to be a misunderstanding. The reports mostly covered the existence of Steblin's thesis. The details and the theory's flimsy evidence were not reported. Small wonder: journalists are not interested in details, but in headlines, caused by (eventually untenable) brain bubbles.--Suessmayr (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

March 2013
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Shawshank Redemption. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  The Old Jacobite The '45  15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * B.S. There is no such thing as neutral point of view policy, because there cannot be a "neutral point of view" in articles written by contributors, who by definition can never be neutral. This "policy" and its supposed rules are completely fictitious.--Suessmayr (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Johann George Stauffer
Please discuss any errors in the article in the talk page. I would like to correct any errors, where references can be provided. Thank you. Design (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=613853989 your edit] to Leopold Mozart may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Beiträge zur Salzburger Musikgeschichte. Festschrift Gerhard Walterskirchen zum 65. Geburtstag''. Salzburg, Selke Verlag, 2004, ISBN 3-901353-32-1, pp. 401–416. Also not buried here are

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Suessmayr. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Suessmayr~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors at Frédéric Chopin. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page, where a section has already been opened regarding the disputed addition. If you continue to revert to their preferred version you may lose editing privileges. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't care. If the "guardians of the Chopin galaxy" keep deleting a simple bibliographic reference to what - according to several noted musicologists - is the most important piece of Chopin research in the last 20 years, it's their decision. They are free to embarrass themselves as much as they want. The fact that Lorenz's article is considered irrelevant (or maybe "fictional", who knows?), proves that these people are really not qualified to judge a piece of scholarship. If these people (who obviously lack all academic credentials) have the final say concerning the quality of an article, it only serves Wikipedia right!--Suessmayr~enwiki (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a section devoted to your proposed addition on the talk page; you're welcome to express your opinion on the matter there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * These people have already shown that a discussion is pointless, because they are obviously ignorant of how scholarship works. The whole thing is utterly hilarious: anonymous people of an internet publication (i.e. Wikipedia), who base an article on mostly non-peer-reviewed printed material (such as articles from The New Grove or flawed Chopin books), declare an internet-published piece of scholarship (which is entirely based on primary sources) "not reliable". Nobody can make this up. This phenomenon is so embarrassing and bizarre that it's a pity it is not broadly addressed in public. Fortunately Chopin scholarship doesn't need to rely on Wikipedia's great "Chopin experts".--Suessmayr~enwiki (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)