User talk:Suessmayr~enwiki

Hello Suessmayr~enwiki, 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 Edit this page 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 (~~~~).
• 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 {{helpme}} 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)[reply]

What an honor to have Suessmayr himself editing our little article on Ignaz Schuppanzigh. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding your two edits at Für Elise: your 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)[reply]

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"[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Beiträge zur Salzburger Musikgeschichte. Festschrift Gerhard Walterskirchen zum 65. Geburtstag''. (Salzburg, Selke Verlag, 2004, ISBN 3-901353-32-1, pp. 401–416.</ref> Also not buried here are

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)[reply]

02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Suessmayr~enwiki. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Suessmayr~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor Suessmayr,

Could you please explain to the lay public when Dr. Peter von Genzinger was ennobled? This is in response to a query someone posted at the Talk page for Maria Anna von Genzinger. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opus33! This account hasn't edited since August 2017. OTOH, Special:Contributions/Suessmayr has edited recently, so maybe it's better to ask him at User talk:Suessmayr or de:Benutzer Diskussion:Suessmayr. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint! Opus33 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]