User talk:Smerus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Alkan op.14 Allelujah in F

Do you know anything about it? Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be an old designation, rather than a new one: [1] Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Richard Wagner

This is a note to let the main editors of Richard Wagner know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 22, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 22, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard Wagner

Richard Wagner (1813–83) was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas. His compositions, particularly those of his later period, are notable for their complex textures, rich harmonies and orchestration, and the elaborate use of leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements. These innovations greatly influenced the development of classical music; his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music. Wagner revolutionised opera through his concept of synthesising the poetic, visual, musical and dramatic arts. He first realised these ideas in his four-opera cycle The Ring of the Nibelung. He had his own opera house built at Bayreuth, containing many novel design features, where his most important stage works continue to be performed in an annual festival run by his descendants. Wagner's controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment in recent decades, especially where they express antisemitic sentiments. The effect of his ideas can be traced in many of the arts throughout the 20th century. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


"But 1024 isn't divisible by 6!! Or is this part of the whole affair's inexplicability?" Yes. In the column (5-Aug-1977) Rasp signs a document handed to him by a besuited man carrying a briefcase who appears from a chasm in the pitch. The column the following week makes the same indivisibilty point, suggesting that the contract was with ". . . Certain Agencies, which in cases like this usually try to suggest at an early stage that there is no limit to their thaumaturgic powers". Denham062 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Richard Wagner, you may be blocked from editing. This covers the premature archiving of discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I leave this on display for public merriment and edification. Unlike others who choose to hide their shame.--Smerus (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I got one as well. Anyone else in the club? --Kleinzach 10:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It could be construed that someone is evading an ANI community ban [2]. Or is Richard Wagner not Featured Article of the Day today? --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles, based on scientific background and a life in Europe, with a passion for music shown in playing instruments and organising a music festival, crowned by Richard Wagner to celebrate 200 years, a life of drama, for progress, without compromise, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, you are very kind. I will try to believe that I really deserve your approbation ! --Smerus (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Don't try to hard to believe, sure you deserve. I saw the pictured Chereau Götterdämmerung, quite unforgettable, not the Gielen/Berghaus Ring, though, but their Aida. Let's turn to Verdi after this celebration ;) - Did you know that my only article deleted and not restored was Parsifal, an EU project? (It's in the history of the redirect.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


...Das Judenthum in der Musik (itself a redirect from Wagner and anti-Semitism) is in the publications subcategory, but actually I think that might be better off redirecting to Wagner_controversies#Antisemitism. Then the redirect could be put in useful categories. What do you think? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You meant that Wagner and anti-Semitism should redirect to Wagner_controversies#Antisemitism? If so I agree.--Smerus (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Also that we can usefully put Wagner and anti-Semitism in a category, rather than leaving people with no way to find Wagner from the anti-Semitism categories. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense! I find it difficult to understand the (supposed) sensitivity about Jew-hatred/antisemitism in categories; if it's properly sourced in the article, it's a perfectly acceptable descriptor.--Smerus (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(Re Howard Goodall on Wagner)

Dear Smerus,

Thanks for your response on the talk page of the article Richard Wagner. As per your suggestion on the talk page, I am adding the text quoting Howard Goodall on Wagner music in the article Wagner controversies. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


Also a discussion started here, if you're interested, on placement of bios in anti-semitic categories. Category_talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I never really apologized for the snarky comment in the nomination. So, allow me to do so now - I'm sorry, I know you created these categories in good faith. I apologize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, understood. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

from Meyerbeer13

Why do you call my edits disruptive? I don't believe saying Meyerbeer wasn't inventive in terms of harmony (or music in general) is a verifiable statement. Certainly his contemporaries wouldn't have agreed! And they especially praised his rhythmic sense. Meyerbeer's contemporaries (the ones in the best position to judge) thought he was a revolutionary figure. Moreover, I don't see why this type of statement is obligatory on Meyerbeer but is never found in Mozart or Wagner pages. A professional violinist I know said if Mozart had died 5 years sooner, no one would have ever heard of him. I'm not going to put that on his wikipedia article, even though it's probably a true statement. I know a professional cellist who told me she thought Boccherini was better than Mozart because Mozart stole most of his ideas from Boccherini. (And plenty from Piccini) I'm not putting that on his web page. So leave Meyerbeer alone! He was a great man. Talk about the good things he did, no unverifiable meaningless criticisms please! Everybody has feet of clay. EVERYBODY. Meyerbeer13 (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

1) Please respond on editors' talk pages, not their main pages, to avoid disruption.

2) As I tried to explain to you on your own talk page, what you or I think is not of interest to Wikipedia. It is interested in reporting sourced material from respected commentators (whether or not you or I as individuals respect them). See WP:NPOV. Please take some time to read the Wikipedia standards which are referred to in the comments by myself and others on your talk page. If of course you decide that these standards are not for you, there is no compulsion for you to continue editing Wikipedia.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I mean when I say unverifiable. No matter how respected someone is, something that is unverifiable and/or meaningless for different reasons should be mercilessly deleted not only from wikipedia but from musicology in general, because it makes us look ridiculous. For example, saying something you could say about anyone, for instance saying a composer at his best is a good composer -- that is meaningless but it has a negative connotation, you always look at the best work, not the bad work. Beethoven was pretty uneven, but "respected commentators" don't point that out. So when people make that kind of comment about Meyerbeer I find it not only annoying but worthless. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it often has much more interesting criticism than the standard things people write. Certain figures like Meyerbeer attract a lot of garbage, found (unfortunately) throughout the "respected commentator" literature, but that doesn't make it any less garbage. You can also learn things from Wikipedia that no one ever has (to my knowledge) pointed out, for instance there was a discussion about how little Meyerbeer wrote of Africaine, some people apparently think he didn't really write much of the version completed after his death. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's a very interesting point. Certainly he got the libretto early on, I believe before he even did Prophete, and he was locked in a death struggle with Scribe over the Indian religion scenes Scribe wanted. That's what makes the two comedies interesting -- I personally believe they were the real operas of Meyerbeer's final maturity.

Another point: all these things only exist with good performances. Most performances of obscure works tend not to do them justice. Now when we hear a bad performance of Mozart, we chalk it up to the performers. With Meyerbeer, Auber, Piccinni, Traetta etc etc we blame the music. But music doesn't exist without the performer. Check out my two le philtre excerpts on my youtube channel to see if you don't hear the difference between the tenor and soprano there and most of today's singers.


Meyerbeer13 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Alas for you, the nature of Wikipedia is that it seeks to rule out the subjective. That is one of the rules of the club, if you want to play along. I disagree with a lot of stuff that is up there but that is just my opinion, and editors' own opinions count as WP:OR and are inelgible. You just have to live with it - or live without it. As long as you put up your own opinons without citations, expect to have them reverted, and/or expect some editor to seek to exclude you permanently. Again, I urge you to read the rules. Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is it OK for you to post something subjective, just because it's said by an "authority"? That doesn't make it any less subjective. My so called disruptive editing was trying to get rid of gratuitous subjective comments that were disparaging to the subjects of the article.

If there are no opinions allowed, then it shouldn't matter who has those opinions; I would respect that. But that's apparently not the way it works.

Best, Meyerbeer13 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Wagner (1813–83) was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas. His compositions, particularly those of his later period, are notable for their complex textures, rich harmonies and orchestration, and the elaborate use of leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements. These innovations greatly influenced the development of classical music; his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music.

Isn't all this subjective?

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I adumbrate, for the amusement and edification of my many friends and enemies on WP, that Meyerbeer13 tagged the above edit "are you an antisemite?" (see page history). As they can see I have tried painstakingly asking this editor to read and understand the Wikipedia norms, but would he listen? He would not. --Smerus (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: A discussion regarding User:Meyerbeer13 is currently taking place at WP:ANI. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Jewry in Music: Entry to the Profession from the Enlightenment to Richard Wagner" Do you think Wagner was Jewish? Just asking! Meyerbeer13 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested can read the book. --Smerus (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmatian Metropolitans

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bassoon Quintet

After the move to more specific, I repaired most of the broken links, but still find a link to Bassoon Quintet to the other works listed in {{Graham Waterhouse}}. What is it that I don't see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is solved, I fixed the last wrong link in Epitaphium (for WW). Thanks for doing the Bach cantata review! For amusement: on the German Wikipedia I was asked if I could get something similar to the Bach composition infobox to de. The one who asked (and had made a navbox for the cantatas) had no idea that I designed it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


Will do. I have in the last hour cleared my decks of promised reviews at GAN and FAC, and so will be pleased to give old Alkan a review. I know next to nothing about him except for his macabre end, and shall enjoy learning more. Tim riley (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was easy (see page). A Rolls Royce of an article and I only needed to judge it against Volkswagen standards. If you are moved to reciprocate beady-eye-services, I have Royal Philharmonic Orchestra at peer review, and would welcome any thoughts you might care to make when you have a moment. Unlike Alkan, the RPO is not intended for FAC, just GAN in due course. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
You found time. Thank you so much. Best wishes. – Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Brilliant work on Charles-Valentin Alkan! Expect to see it at FAC soon! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh I'm certain you'll have it at FA long before then. It already looks like an FA candidate as Tim said! I'd be happy to help you promote it. My favourite pianist is Chopin but I also like Liszt and Alkan among others! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent reading! What a surprise to meet the great names of art in Paris at the time, Bach and the Talmud, good examples of his music, (smiling at "misanthropic and misogynous", to my knowledge there should by a space before an ellipse that doesn't belong to the previous word,) and "he sought incessantly to transcend", - great work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You surprised me

Your reaction to Jusdafax at ANI surprised me.

I know that ANI is for behavior not content, so while I think the disagreement between Andy and Nikkimaria is rooted in disagreements about content, I accepted that the ANI thread should concentrate on behavior. Roughly speaking, I think neither party is close to exemplary, both have afield to take ordinary steps we expect editors with a few hundred edits to follow. Behavior such as this by editors with tens of thousands of edits deserves community disapproval. However, I do not see that blocks are warranted, and both deserve trouts. Obviously, my position hasn't been supported, but I haven't seen any other proposal gain consensus.

That said, I don't see the problem going away unless we either solve the underlying problem, or get them to agree to stay away from each other, which simply means pretending the problems don't exist. Those two aren't the only ones who disagree about when infoboxes are appropriate, which fields in infoboxes should exist, whether collapsing infoboxes is desirable, whether empty fields should be removed, or a few other related issues swirling about. It has been claimed (I haven't seen the evidence, so I am agnostic) that many fine editors have been drive away because of fights over these issues. However, you claim that if the community reaches a conclusion of best practices, this will drive away good editors. It sounds like failure to do so has already driven away good editors. I find it astounding to contemplate that leaving the answers muddled is somehow better.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

answered on your talk page. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Alkan on the pédalier

Greetings. Two recordings of Alkan works performed on the pédalier:

Jean Dubé JEAN DUBÉ Oeuvres originales pour piano-pédalier de Alkan, Dubois, Franck, Liszt, Schumann
Olivier Latry OLIVIER LATRY Piano Pédalier Oliver Latry Plays Alkan, Boëly, Brahms, Liszt, Schumann

There's Peter Sykes, American organist ( who's played Alkan on the pedal piano in one recital, on October 5, 2010, at Southern Adventist University. Guess it didn't bring the house down. Dubé and Latry play the historical Érard. Prosseda used to play the Borgato and now uses the Pinchi system with various grands. Miklavčič, an organist and harpsichordist from Slovenia which you mentioned, plays the Borgato if I recall correctly. Cheers, Contact Basemetal here 04:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - now noted in article (and in Alkan Society website).--Smerus (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


Re [3]. The person in question not an administrator. ;) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also: I thought of you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, whom I know personally, is an admistrator on Wikipedia UK. he doesn't make any other claims. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Smerus. Look Andy and his friends are very verbose and will try and grind you down with side issues and questions of character and that, but I hope you can see through it. I realise you are fustrated, but your not alone. This has all been gone through many times over years, but I think part of the problem is that today's admin corp come from after, and dont have a full picture. I'm glad to see you taking a stand though. The reflex tactic seems to be intimatition, one article at a time, and when the local editor voices up, the friends swarm in, then "concensus", usually in a classic passive agressive manner. Its not really good enough. Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your voice was hatted on AN/I, I think because the closing admin didnt know the context or was so focused on the rules, he lost sight. This is an old story, and is a considerable source of stress to a great many people who have stood up. Ceoil (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom etiquette

Smerus, it seems that for you (same as for me), it's the first ArbCom case. Please read the instructions: everybody is confined to their own space making comments. I (sadly) watched enough of them to know that. I will not change, please move your comment. Privately: how come you find Andy aggressive and I don't? I try to stay factual, Zelot(citation required) that I am ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda - as you say, I am a newcomer to this world. I will move my comment. Maybe Andy is politer to ladies than he is to his own sex? As you see, I am not the only one on this thread to have found his style unpleasant. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) You just taught me another new word, thank you! - Do me a favour, look at Andy's recent (!) contributions, for example his comments to the Signpost article. I observe that he came to be politer in time, to both sexes. - You know that I have a history of being against infoboxes (took me about six months to understand), and that I wiki-linked bollocks once? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I looked now at your "I stand corrected". It doesn't show that "Wikipedian inresidence" is not a paid job. It also doesn't show that Andy didn't breach a ban, because he wasn't banned from a talk page. - What you describe ("aggression", "zealots", "agitate" ...) seems much more what you felt than what happened ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I note your opinion.--Smerus (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Opinion yes: to describe the wish not to archive a "fresh" discussion (and install automatic archiving as a means to support objectivity) as "agitate[d]" shows opinion. That Andy was not banned from any talk page is fact. It would be fair to acknowledge that, and would look so much nicer if you also did it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, my apologies, but we have to differ here, I am afraid. He was not banned by the letter, but he was in my opinion clearly banned by the spirit of the ruling and he was intelligent enough to realise that, and to know that he was crossing the line when he behaved as he did.--Smerus (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Semerus. Is that really a photo? It looks so much like a picture from a book! I wonder, did you give it some kind of "radical treatment" to produce this result? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's my own photo! Possibly sightly touched up on Picasa, I can't remember. Took it when working in St. Petersburg, in the next street actually. The building is now a school. Best --Smerus (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
How curious. It's almost like a still from some 50s Hollywood dream sequence! Great to hear the Rondo from Moscheles' "Piano Concerto No 4 in E major" on the radio this morning. Sounded to me a bit like "Liberace meets the Grenadier Guards" (but in a good way, of course!) Oh dear, maybe not the best analysis you've ever heard. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This may just be a function of the unique quality of St. Petersburg light, especially at the moment (when this photo was taken as I recall) when afternoon shades towards evening. I'm no expert photographer (or Photoshopper) so I couldn't have created this effect if I tried! By the way there is a good recording (perhaps you know it) of Piers Lane playing some of the later Moscheles studies, which are quite something - at times, almost Alkanesque. I think it was in writing about these that Moscheles commented 'of course, I do not have the grasp of Liszt - but then, I am not a grasping man.' Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
What a great quote. There are some Piers Lane gems on YT, I'm glad to say. I find this particularly brilliant. I must admit that I know next to nothing about that famous brand of kitchen foil, so I must take a good look at the GA here. I guess he's yet another in that I-Spy Book of Victorian Musical Jews, or whatever it's called. But thanks for the top baking tip! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm going to go ahead and add you to the "parties" of the infobox RFAR. — Ched :  ?  04:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Move question

Can you tell me why you moved the page Night on Bald Mountain the most common English name to another name without seeking consensus on the talk page? Ultra Venia (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The title was 'Night on Bald Mountain', whereas the text throughout the article (and in the lead sentence) gave,and gives, 'Bare Mountain'. One or other had to go. As the talk page had failed to resolve this in the past, I moved the article to the correct name of the piece and the redirects will take both bald and bare users to the article. Best, --Smerus (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alistair Hinton

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Good to relax bans ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Gerda for your assistance in getting this here.--Smerus (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, learning, - I had no idea of both personalities, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorabji is tremendous. My friend Jonathan Powell is giving the first ever performance later this year of the 6 hour "Piano Symphony no. 6".--Smerus (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Your friend is interesting, too. I added him here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - here's the world premiere of his Violin Sonata at Levoca a couple of years ago. The page turner by the way is Morgan Hayes, another good composer (without a WP article .... yet).--Smerus (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Emailed!Tibetan Prayer 20:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for your help with this. It's my first new article in a while, so it's great to get a little help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A pleasure!--Smerus (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Smerus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).
Message added 21:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NeilN talk to me 21:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Mega-Templates - Mozart & Beethoven

Based on a recent suggestion by Gerda Arendt for a "collapsible" type of mega-template for Mozart in a recent Mozart Template Discussion, I created a "Collapsible Version" Mozart Mega-Template - and a similar "Collapsible Version" Beethoven Mega-Template - if interested, and if possible, your comments, objections and related on the talk pages about the newly created templates would be appreciated - thanks in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Alkan fragment

Hi! I noticed your comments in a discussion a while ago on manuscripts from the British Library. I just wrote a piece based on the Alkan string quartet fragent (British Library shelfmark: Hirsch IV.1455, f. 10v) and as I have a typeset version of the fragment I was wondering if you were interested! As I haven't looked at the original myself (a friend who works there typeset the manuscript to begin with) I am not sure if I have the whole thing (I have the first six measures - but is it the whole thing?) but I can send that over if you are interested! Let me know! :) ¬ laonikoss (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to reply here or on my page? I presume here you will get notified.
Yes, it's quite funny you mention that concert - it's part-organised by a good friend who also commissioned me to write a piece for it, so actually my (newly finished) composition will be part of that concert :)
I'll upload the original to IMSLP/Petrucci soon and I'll send you a link, I just need to touch it up a bit. ¬ laonikoss (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No infobox

Your interpretation of my entry "No infobox" on the Wagner talk as "demanding an infobox" (as done on arb evidence) is absurd. It's about the opposite, do I have to explain that to the arbs, or will you change your wording? I can't study the rest of your entry now, off for real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Gerda - 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe', as others have pointed out.--Smerus (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Those who pointed made the same mistake. True, I would have liked an infobox but, also true, I saw no chance with the current - how I should I call them? I am working on evidence that deserves the name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, I have given you strong credit for your positive contributions - Now just listening to Siegfried being broadcast from London.--Smerus (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking forward to your strong credit, - but the opening is so "unbelievable" in the true sense of the word, - how will the arbs believe the rest of it? Happy listening! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude again: "This is a weaselly evasion of the clear spirit of the ruling." is also unbelievable. The spirit of the ruling is not so "clear" for me. The "ruling" was meant to prevent Andy from changing the FA (itself) on the day of TFA and before (nomination and scheduling). Otherwise the spirit said clearly: "There is nothing at all in the topic ban that says Andy is banned from the talk page of the FA of the day and the talk pages of any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day, nor from any pages in the Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk, User, User Talk or indeed anything other than the main article name space. The ban is unhelpful as it's unclear and it allows pretty rubbish interpretations, but as it stands, Andy has violated no part of the topic ban as it stands and will not be blocked (not that he would be blocked assuming he had violated anything, blocks are preventative, not punitive and we would not take action against infractions in April and May when we are now almost into July). I've asked for clarification on the namespace(s) in which the topic ban should apply at WP:AN. Thanks all.". (AN/I), "Clarified, move along. It appears the matter has in fact been clarified, Andy is not banned from any talk pages by the scope of that topic ban." (AN). Is that not clear enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You see, Gerda, what is clear is that on some matters we have very different opinions. That's life. If you disagree withwhat I say, you are free to argue it in the arb discussion. I won't complain.--Smerus (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you see that the quotes come from two admins, not me? Andy did not breach his topic ban, period. No different views of that fact are possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Did you know this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't understand.--Smerus (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you know about this edit summary? Toccata quarta (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
What about it? More specifically, why a thread on my talkpage about it? There is enough clutter here altready without samples of the hysteria of third parties.--Smerus (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
So you did not know that I listened to Götterdämmerung from Bayreuth yesterday. Hysteria? Sorry, I don't understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
My question was obviously directed at Gerda. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies TQ, I now understand the intent of your contribution which initially mystified me - I am not too awake this morning, too much travelling. The hysteria was the bizarre comment of Melodia. But Gerda, what on earth are you going on about? You are giving me cause for concern!--Smerus (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not going about something, I just didn't know until yesterday that GFHandel was not the only victim of the the so-called Wagner affair, and wondered if you knew sooner. Discovered today: "There are few things that can't be fixed by a dose of calmness and reasoned debate.". Let's ban hysteria ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
GFHandel left during the Bach infobox discussion, not the Wagner one. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You are right, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Useless items of decor

Am I right that "useless items of decor", as mentioned on Fatinitza, refers to infoboxes? If that's what they are, why do you fight them? Among other things, they ARE decorative, why not keep that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ask questions relating to articles on their talkpages, not here.--Smerus (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It seemed much more related to your personal general thinking, which I at times have trouble to understand, than any specific article. I drop the question. Congratulations to your FA, well deserved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda!!!--Smerus (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Alkan FA

Sincerest congratulations! I take my earlier comment back (that he might not get it before his 200th). :-) Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks!!!--Smerus (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Stop icon Your recent edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks.--Smerus (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

More bollocks.--Smerus (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Lumley article's radical makeover

As an editor who has previous worked on this article, I'm seeking your opinion on what you make of the whole chunk of unwikilinked text that's been plonked into the article and everything else removed. does it appear to come from a source stated below, since it doesn't read like something that would be written today. Regardless, it may be copyright material. Any thoughts? Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the lot, as it was filched from an edition of the Dictionary of National Biography. If the present arb case on Infoboxes succeeds in preventing idiots like the above two from persecuting me and wasting my time, I will try to improve the article. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Good idea and well done. I added a note on the "Talk" page regard what has happened. Thanks, John in Santa Fe aka:Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


Not sure if you like jazz but I'm heavily into it, love the pianists Bill Evans, Oscar Peterson and Michel Petrucciani in particular. [4] See if you recognize it at 3:52!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for this, just finally had the chance to listen thru. Jazz is largely a blank area for me - was not in my upbringing - so apart from the universally acknowledged greats and a very few others my knowledge is very limited. I had not previously even heard of Petrucciani but am very gratrful to you for introducing me.--Smerus (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Verdi templates

Please let me understand what this means, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't think I understand your question, but in any case doesn't it belong on the Rigoletto talk page?--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

William Herschel

Hi Smerus. I see that you commented on the Talk Page, back in March 2013, that: "Two biographers (earlier than the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia) cite him as decended from converted Moravian Jews, and these are now cited as notes in the article.". I wonder which are/were those? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • They're both cited in note 2 to the article, so can be left there unless anyone has a source indicating the contrary. The anon editor(s) can be safely ignored in these circumstances unless they delete article content. Best,--Smerus (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I have replied to his Talk Page comments anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I have anyway placed a warning on his talk page for vandalism.--Smerus (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello Smerus, I noticed some time ago that you are in favour of removing notes opposing the addition of infoboxes from articles. However, if those notes get removed, then how do you want to enforce a "discuss the infobox on talk first" rule? Unless a policy/guideline is created, the removal of the notes will probably lead to the mass addition of infoboxes to articles, since infoboxes routinely get added to articles without edit summaries (see for instance the recent editing history of the FA Peter Warlock). Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sibelius's Eighth

I have been researching this mythical work, and the results of my efforts are now at peer review, here. Any comment you care to make would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

...and a further note to say that, thanks to your help among others, the article has now been nominated at FAC. Please feel free to add thoughts or comments as appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Variations sur un thème de Händel, Op.29

Found a video of someone performing this work Ignaz Moscheles: Handel-Variationen, Op.29 and will be posting a stub article on this as soon as I've got the score sorted out. If you are interested in adding to it at some point please let me know.Graham1973 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Spiffing! Await with interest. When you've done the stub don't omit to link it here. Best, --Smerus (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Found that the IMSLP copy of the score dates from 1969, I have a sneaking suspicion that the tempo markings have been altered, but without access to an earlier version of the score proving that is going to be tricky.Graham1973 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
.. any further suggestions? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ein Heldenleben/A Hero's Life

I posted a suggestion on the article talk page back in April to the effect that as orchestras, Grove, record companies, concert promoters and all comers refer to the piece as "Ein Heldenleben" it would make sense if WP followed suit. Since then no-one has added any comment, pro or con, and I'd be interested, if you have a few minutes, to see what you think about the suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


I have a horrible foreboding that your mention of "departing" at Talk:A Hero's Life means that you are withdrawing from editing WP. I sympathise (and did the same thing myself for several months last year, driven out by the same bullying (as I saw it)) and I shan't be so insensitive as to urge you to ignore the nastiness and carry on. What I will urge is that if you are thinking of "departing" you will come back when you're good and ready. Please! We need you. Very happy indeed to be told I've leapt to the wrong conclusion here. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Smerus, I echo everything Tim says above - I hope this is merely temporary and that you will be back soon. If you have indeed gone, you will be sorely missed. Eusebeus (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I miss you also, and hope it wasn't me who gave you the idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Another top-notch contributor leaves the project! Smerus and his contributions will be much missed. A learned and wise editor – why do we allow them to be driven away? Tim riley (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I said on 16 July: "@Smerus: I have high respect for you as an editor, author of FA Richard Wagner, and I thank you for a GA review of my BWV 103 (with an infobox).". I also said about you, Tim: "Tim asked Andy for help with an infobox, asked about his health and greeted him on his return, - if we had more of that attitude the "problem" was solved." - I question the arbitrators' findings on you, David, as on others, they differ from the evidence that I see, and nothing is solved. I would still sign both earlier statements, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
How about "why do people tolerate rudeness?"? Toccata quarta (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree completely with Tim riley, Eusebeus, and Kudpung. You were one of the best music editors Wikipedia has ever had. Kleinzach 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What Tim Riley and Kleinzach said. This is a sad day. Wikipedia isn't what it was back in 2006. I thought we were creating an encyclopaedia, not a database for commercial re-users. It used to be an unpaid, volunteer project, but now it seems some editors are making a living from it. Moreover, genuine content editors are being replaced by editors obsessed with "bells and whistles" like disinfoboxes. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What Tim Riley, Kleinzach, Kudpung, Eusebius, and Folantin said. Even if you never contribute again, Smerus, you will always be one of our finest editors. Your contribution to Wikipedia is enormous and enduring. Voceditenore (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I expect Smerus will return. He's too good an editor to leave permanently. I think he just needed a break. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW - Thank you for your comments on the several articles we've worked on together - your comments were *greatly* appreciated - hope you return soon (assuming you're really departing Wikipedia for now of course) - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm sorry that you are joining the mass of content writer's who have been driven away from Wikipedia by the obnoxious community and it's quasi-police and quasi-judiciary. In view of my latest message to the Arbclowns it will be hypocritical of me to try to make you change your mind. Do feel free to notify me by email if you are giving a talk again in London.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Half Million Award

Million award logo.svg The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Richard Wagner (estimated annual readership: 813,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, I'm not sure we've ever interacted before, but I was extremely sorry to see that you're leaving Wikipedia--I hope it'll prove to be "for a while" rather than "for good". I owed you the above award, and I still wanted to belatedly post it in recognition of all you've done for Wikipedia's readers. I hope we'll see you back again here someday, but either way, thanks for your lasting contributions, which are literally serving millions of readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know that I've ever met you, but I noticed discussion elsewhere about your leaving, and really hate seeing it. If the departure is in some way related to infoboxes, something I personally probably support, because I think a lot of our content might be read by foreign language readers who don't have similar pages in their own languages, and the infoboxes clear up some of the possible translation problems, even though I probably disagree with you, I don't think that something like that is or should be important enough for anyone to leave, but can well understand frustration about having to deal with it. I would have dropped you an e-mail, which you don't have enabled right now, to indicate that I think and hope that maybe, sometime in the near future, we might, maybe, get around to creating some sort of regularly scheduled centralized discussion about some of these topics, which, if we can get it done, would at least hopefully bring about some stability in the situation regarding infoboxes. Otherwise, working in a lot of the religion content, I know firsthand just how, well, pathological some editors can get about some subjects about which they are deeply interested, and that probably includes some people on both sides of the discussion about infoboxes. A lot of other religion editors have become less active because of the contentious there, so I really can't blame you for leaving for at least a short time, but I do hope that at least once in a while you check in if you see fit in the future, because I think that there might, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, be some sort of way to reduce the problems involved in a lot of these contentious topics, and, anyway, losing any effective editors is something that I really don't like seeing anywhere, even if some might think that some people like me, with the opinions I expressed above, might be among the reasons you left.
Please, if you see fit, at least check in once in a while in the near future. Like I said, I think that maybe, at this point just maybe, there might be possible some way to if not end such arguments, at least compartmentalize them regularly so that they don't remain continuous interruptions. But, whatever you do, best of luck with everything and thanks for all you've done here. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I really hope you stick around

Hi Smerus. I'm the arbitrator who proposed the remedies against you in the Infoboxes case. This may come as a surprise to you, but I was gutted to hear on the grapevine that you don't intend to stick around if you're sanctioned. I understand you to be annoyed about a couple of issues, which I will try my best to address in this message. I hope you'll hear me out.

The first issue seems to be that you are being sanctioned at all. I don't know if you'd maintain your conduct on infoboxes has been acceptable, but my colleagues and looked at this matter in great detail then decided (in a 9–1 vote) that it hasn't. However, is being directed to stay away from this difficult and intense dispute really worth sacrificing all you have to offer the encyclopedia? I really hope you'll decide it isn't.

Second, that the finding of fact against you was written up quite late. Even if you consider a couple of weeks (out of a case lasting several months) to confer lateness, this actually happens quite frequently. In arbitration cases, a 'drafting arbitrator' who does the bulk of the work will present an initial batch of findings, but they rarely write up the complete decision. Attention by other arbitrators is always needed so that missing findings (in this case, one about you, because you're a party to the case) are noticed and written up. If this dispute was dealt with by the community, you may have been sanctioned in a matter of hours, with no process of extended scrutiny or attention (that, certainly, would be degrading to an editor). I promise that even if the finding was put up late, we haven't rushed our work, and you aren't being singled out for mistreatment.

I don't know if I've missed anything out. If I have, feel free to point it out, and I'll try to explain my position if you wish me to do so. Otherwise, I wish you the very best, whether you remain a Wikipedia contributor or move on to other hobbies. Yours, AGK [•] 23:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your e-mail. Best wishes, AGK [•] 14:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Là ci darem la mano

Please read Talk, History before applying changes to article. Thanks! ("Literal translation" specification, which you removed, was a subject of debate).--Majorbolz (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes closed

An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
  2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
  3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
  4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
  5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
  6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
  7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Tie vote prevents them all being (fill in the blank)s

Sort of saved by the ArbCom tie vote - but the actual "finding of fact" still shows a remarkable series of "unfortunate events" for that body, for which solutions well ought be found. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Loud cheers

Delighted and relieved to see you in diesen heil'gen Hallen! Please drop in again and again and again! We need you, sir! Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

well said, that man! [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks gents, much appreciated.--Smerus (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back, Smerus! We need editors like you around here. Don't let abusive behaviors get to you. I just got back from a two-month semi-retirement as well because of stress and feeling exhausted in general. Once again, welcome back. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I interest you (Smerus, after the last GA review for me, and all) in my first for peer review, linked under the first word on my user page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Delighted to see you around. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I am also very pleased to see you are editing again (and thanks for quoting me on your user page). Welcome back, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

Welcome back. I don't know how active you intend to be for the moment, but Tippett is at FAC, here, awaiting any comments, should you feel so inclined. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Charles-Valentin Alkan

This is a note to let the main editors of Charles-Valentin Alkan know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 30, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 30, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Charles-Valentin Alkan

Charles-Valentin Alkan (1813–88) was a French composer and pianist. Alongside his friends and colleagues Frédéric Chopin and Franz Liszt, he was among the leading virtuoso pianists in Paris. His career was marked by his occasional long withdrawals for personal reasons from public performance, and from 1848 he began to adopt a reclusive life style, while continuing with his compositions, virtually all of which are for the keyboard. During this period he published his collections of large-scale studies in all the major keys (Op. 35) and all the minor keys (Op. 39). The latter includes his Symphony for Piano Solo and Concerto for Piano Solo, considered among his masterpieces, of great musical and technical complexity. Alkan's attachment to his Jewish origins is displayed both in his life and his work. He was the first composer to incorporate Jewish melodies in art music. Fluent in Hebrew and Greek, he devoted much time to a complete new translation of the Bible into French. After his death (which according to a persistent myth was caused by a falling bookcase), his music was neglected, but since the late 1960s many pianists have recorded it and brought it back into the repertoire. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A great achievement! A radio station here broadcasts one of his pieces every Saturday throughout 2013, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

...which is more than the BBC has done! Thanks Gerda.--Smerus (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Vedontakal Vrop up for deletion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wagner Apocalyptica edit

Thank you for your message, and also the note on the WP:3RR rule. I had not previously witnessed such apparent opposition to an edit, so I was not aware of it. We all learn from our experiences. I have added a reply to your comment on the Wagner talk page, but will now broadly support your rationale. Thank you again User:Ianatheling —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

String Quartet (Jadassohn)

Welcome back, I've just added a new quartet article on a work by a Jewish composer you might be interested in. Only thing is that some sources say this is the only quartet he wrote and I've seen another source that gives the number as four. Any help clarifying this would be greatly appreciated as would any information on the details of the first performance.Graham1973 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


I just created Slaka (fiction), just in case the AfD goes the wrong direction. Not saying it's an ideal solution, but threw it in the mix to see if others are going to act in good faith or just dig in. Probably should have run this past you, but decided to just BB and do it. No worries either way. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Vedontakal Vrop

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I've requested a deletion review of the outcome from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedontakal Vrop. The review request has been posted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad you are back

Hi Smerus, I visited your user page to see if you had published your book (have you? -- EDIT: a quick Google search shows you have; congratulations!), and was surprised to see that you'd deleted the user page and replaced it with a short section. I miss the old user page! I see by edit histories and this Talk page that you left for a period, and then came back. Very glad you came back! Please focus on the good you are doing here, and don't let the bullies get you down. Please seek support when you need it; kind people need to support each other to keep Wikipedia pleasant and top-quality. Hope you are doing well, and that your book is faring well also. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thnaks for this kind posting! I am back on a rather smaller scale. The book gets good comments and reviews, but not enough alas for me to retire on. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Bradbury pic

Hi Smerus, I agree with you that the Bradbury image can be used on the imaginary opera (and books, for that matter) page as fair use, but I'm not going to go in there with both barrels blazing about it solo. You want to take it on, or let it go? I'm in if you are, but my drama quota is limited... Montanabw(talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Can't really be bothered to piddle around with this as I am in Kiev and all sorts of exciting things (real drama) happening round here. Look me up on Facebook (if you go for that sort of thing) for pictures (or see here for demonstrators at the remains of Lenin's statue today). Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That stuff IS amazing, and nothing like real life drama to help us all keep things in perspective! Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


thanks for all the great pics, keep it up!--Львівське (говорити) 08:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest! --Smerus (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Music article without music?! Your vision of Wikipedia is ...

You deleted following recordings link:
Public domain music of Frederic Chopin. Funded by Kickstarter project of Musopen, which raised $92,452 of $75,000 goal during 45 days(Sep 5, 2013 - Oct 20, 2013).

I really don't known what to say about Your strange(very) vision of Wikipedia. You probably are one of two persons 1) Completely deletionist 2) An artist who earn money on his works. In both cases You should stop deleting the content. What is a reason to insert a link in Wikipedia - to illustrate subject, and in future to transfer if possible this to commons. Did You illustrated every work of Chopin? No! Do are there free examples on Wikipedia? No! According to this link anyone can hear freely his works, and because of license somebody can transfer it to Wikipedia. You want to discuss about "quality" - ok, provide better commons public domain music and illustrate articles(most Chopin have separate page on Wikipedia).

You don't want links? Just move the music to Wikipedia Commons(it have free license) and add as Commons link. Imagine that for example some guy/girl in school have a homework on Chopin - what would he/she do? Probably if it is A-grade would check Internet, write own version of story/presentation basing on many articles, and if he isn't a deaf person he would like to attach music. Do he/she would go to Royalty Free paid library or play the sheet on the piano? No if he/she don't have money and piano knowledge would want to listen a music. This is what an external link(if something is not on the commons) is for - to illustrate and fastly redirect to direct illustration of subject...

Sorry but what would be next - You will delete paintings, because You paint in that style? Yeah Chopin scores are nice, but if You have an article about music - for example main anthem of country - You HAVE music, and nobody discuss the need of it, despite most are Public Domain done only by govt. orchestra of ONE country.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these kind words.--Smerus (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

From London

St. Paul's Cathedral...
Happy Holidays, Smerus, and a very happy music-filled new year! Voceditenore
2013 Christmas Tree.jpg

Happy Holidays and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


Merry Christmas! I gather you are working on Chopin after all. I will begin working on it soon, although don't want to cause edit conflicts! We will get him up to FA eventually!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Pine cone on pine tree.jpg Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

John Braham

Dear Smerus, I feel sure you must be familiar with the comments of William Hazlitt on Braham's style of delivery, which I have just read for the first time... here. As a description of his delivery it seems almost worth including in the article - especially the bit about 'the transition from con furio style to affetuoso in their greatest extremes... something of a trick' etc. However you have already put in several descriptions, and rather than distorting your article by adding it myself, and as you are the man for John Braham, I just thought I'd suggest it to you. Every good wish for the season and New Year. yours Eebahgum (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes

Colmar (9625058240).jpg Belated happy christmas and a happy new year. Gil de Siloe-del retablo de la capilla de San Pedro-catedral de Burgos-DSC 0516b.jpg
Wishing you all the best for 2014, and its great to see you back.

Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Alkan FAZ

Alkan was covered by an long article in the FAZ on 27 December, probably nothing in it you don't know, but good to know:

Happy musical year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I like to see Chopin on my watchlist, music on my mind! Have boldly nominated BWV 172 for PR, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Chopin GA review

I am not sure if I'll review it (I am not an expert on music), but at least in my role as a Polish-history-topics reviewer, I'll offer some comments. I started at Talk:Frédéric_Chopin#Few_pe-GA_comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Benjamincookememorial.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Jan Matuszyński

Nice; thank you for stubbing all those Chopin-related bios. This one ~30 words short of start class and thus being eligible for T:TDYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:Piotrus....Hmm, I've added a bit more if you want to go for TDYK - I suggest "DYK that.... Jan Matuszyński died of tuberculosis in the arms of Frédéric Chopin and George Sand?".--Smerus (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a great one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It's ready to be TTYKed. Do you need any help with the procedure? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Piotrus, could you or Gerda Arendt do the DYK nomination as I am now travelling over the next 36 hours and the timing is almost up for nominating? Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Will do that now, hope if it's ok? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Bless you, Gerda, thanks, I am in tearing hurry....--Smerus (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Done, link on the talk, expanded your suggestion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I was about to do it, but you beat me to it, thanks. I think it's missing the QPQ (a review of another nomination); otherwise it's ready. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Jan Matuszyński

Sigh, congratulations on re-adding unreferenced material to the article, while violating our MOS in the process! GiantSnowman 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What a creep, eh lads?--Smerus (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I know you are, you said you are etc. GiantSnowman 22:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For your work on Chopin. I hope it becomes a GA. And all other articles you have helped you promote to high-quality level. By the way, I love your chin-stroking picture. Երևանցի talk 03:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Jan Matuszyński

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that one, my 99th nomination. (I wonder why the credit arrived much later than mine, but it probably doesn't matter.) Enjoy your trip and keep playing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


I have taken the liberty of deleting the bot messages purporting to come from me, and replacing them with my own words, viz (i) so good to see you in diesen heil'gen Hallen again, and (ii) the Chopin is a fine article, which I enjoyed greatly and learnt a lot from. Bravo! – Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Afterthought: I hope you're not in Kiev at the moment, or are safely away from the action if you are there. Tim riley (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey you forgot to let me know, I thought we supposed to be working on Chopin together! Last I heard you were busy. Can you give me a shot at it before taking to FAC? Congrats on the GA anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


If you had time and disposition, any thoughts you might have at the peer review of Verdi's masterpiece would be most gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Frédéric Chopin

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin edit

You reverted two edits I made on the Frédéric Chopin article, citing overlinking. However:

  • Four composers are mentioned in one sentence, only two of whom are linked. (All were linked earlier in the article.) In my opinion they should either all be linked or none of them should be linked in this paragraph.
  • 'Overlinking' doesn't explain the Clara Schumann/Clara Wieck revert.

What are your thoughts about this? Buxtehude (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Your name came up on a Wikipediocracy thread about solid content writers who don't get the credit they deserve and I just wanted to drop by and do a little of that. Thanks for your work on behalf of The Project! Carrite (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


I thought of you when I wrote DYK ... that baritone Eike Wilm Schulte, who performed more than 100 roles since 1966, stepped in at the Bayreuth Festival as Gunther in Götterdämmerung? (6 April) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons License