User talk:Smerus/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
      • What a
        team. Martinevans123 (talk
        ) 17:34, 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)

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)

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)

		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 have a horrible foreboding that your mention of "departing" at

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)

• All I can say is that I strongly concur with Tim riley. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 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.--

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)

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, —

Archived discussion

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,

I've replied to your e-mail. Best wishes,

[•]

14:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

..is up for deletion. --

Thank you for your message, and also the note on the

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)

This is a note to let the main editors of

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...

)

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

Chopin

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)

	Belated happy christmas and a happy new year.
	Wishing you all the best for 2014, and its great to see you back. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

		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)

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)

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)

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: http://www.seiten.faz-archiv.de/faz/20131227/fd2201312274099143.html

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)

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)

Nice; thank you for stubbing all those Chopin-related bios. This one ~30 words short of start class and thus being eligible for

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)

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)

	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)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs