Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

high resolution images[edit]

It is very difficult to find high resolution images of most of Mozart's scores. There is a very high resolution image of the last page of his Requiem Mass available here (though through an annoying flash interface). Can this image be extracted and put into the wikicommons? 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that high resolution really, but I uploaded it anyway as Image:Mozart K626 Arbeitspartitur last page.jpg. --Para 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no disputed portrait[edit]

Dear Gmaxwell, there is no disputed portrait. There is a hooligan that arbitrarily creates chaos is Mozart related articles and material collections. The authenticity of the Mozart portrait by Delahaye is established by multiple archival evidence, which is referenced in the image file data. Could you please protect the image collection including the Delahaye images? Béatrice Gallimard 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither my purpose nor my desire is to determine what is correct, for I lack both the authority and the interest to make such a determination. Both of you need to stop edit warring over the images because it will accomplish nothing. I have hopefully protected the page on a version which both of you will find non-ideal, it is my hope that this will give you cause to talk. In general on Wikimedia we strive for verifiability rather than truth. Please read the page on NPOV at meta. I've read your argument on the image pages, and it isn't great from a verifiability perspective, for example Where can I find these letters? I don't see them in wikisource. --Gmaxwell 17:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree there is no dispute. But there is (a supporter of) mr. Braun, who is spamming Brauns theories and "studies" all over wikipedia. I stumbled upon him on de:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart where he was pressing his "studies" and his "proven" Mozart portraits. I then started looking after his spamming to enforce en:Wikipedia:No original research and en:Wikipedia:Verifiability against this en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. In a "Mozart Year" there is real money involved when auctioning or displaying "Mozart Portraits". A good start for following the whole Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is the page User:Stefan h, where you can easily identify the pattern of Braun, Béatrice Gallimard and co. I left the "Edlinger" as "disputed", while there is no neutral supporter of this theory. On the other hand, i enforce a "not authentic", where there is no supporter except Braun. If you know little about scientific studies, you can easyly evaluate the value of Brauns studies. Yes, I am tired of this. --stefan (?!) 21:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Gmaxwell, I am with you on the issue of verifiability. But others seem to hate this concept. As we see, stefan still does not give a reason for his label „not authentic“. Apparently he is unwilling even to consider the referenced literature. Instead he has erased (!) this literature reference from the image pages. If you look at the image pages in their original shape, you see that the letters by Mozart’s sister that describe the portait were published by Bauer and Deutsch, 1963. Béatrice Gallimard 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on a careful analysis of the editing patterns across three wikis, as well as a checkuser query, and the emails I received, I have determined the following to be true beyond any reasonable level of doubt:

  • Mr. Martin Braun has recently Wikimedia commons under the following names:
    • User:Béatrice Gallimard
    • User:Peter Synderman
    • User:Platini34
  • Mr. Braun's contribution has been limited to pushing both his POV and promoting his Mozart related activities.
  • Stefan H's behavior has been completely reasonable and his analysis of Mr. Braun's activity appears to be accurate.

Because of the abuse of sock accounts coupled with the lack of contributions outside of promoting his own agenda, I have decided to indefinitely block Mr. Martin Braun on Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, I will be recommending my enwiki and dewiki admins take a close look at his activities on these sister projects, and I will be recommending his URLs for addition to the foundation wide spam blacklist. I have also removed some derogatory statements on this talkpage about Stefan H, they are still available in the page history.

I draw no conclusion regarding the veracity of Mr. Braun's claims with respect to Mozart; rather, I have concluded that Mr. Braun's deceptive behavior has made it impossible for our community to accept him as a contributor. I trust that Stefan H and the rest of our editors in good standing will respect NPOV and treat Mr. Braun's claims with whatever respect they deserve even though Mr. Braun has himself behaved in a manner which is generally not deserving of our respect.

I would be happy to discuss this decision with any established member of a Wikimedia community, but I do not intend to respond to appeals from mystery "third parties" because of the history of sockpuppetry. --Gmaxwell 07:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of CheckUser tool:
There is nothing “deceptive” with multiple accounts, as long as they are not used to cause damage. In fact, besides this general rule, the declared Wikipedia policy explicitly approves of multiple accounts for several purposes. One of them is:
“Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity.” [1]
To apply the CheckUser tool in a case of legitimate use of multiple accounts is a clear violation of Wikipedia privacy policy:
“The tool is to be used to fight vandalism or check abuse of sockpuppets, for example when there is a suspicion of illegal voting. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. One is not allowed to use the tool for political control, nor to apply pressure on editors, nor as a threat toward an editor with whom you are in disagreement.” [2] 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Please discontinue using this site. You have been banned for your misuse of multiple accounts. Our checkuser authorities have already evaluated your claims and found them to be without merit. Your continued access to the wikimedia systems after being banned may be a crime in our jurisdiction. --Gmaxwell 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

File not found[edit]

Concerto in D for Flute K.314

Works for me. --Gmaxwell 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


For what is the section scores ?. --Mac 12:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of label "Not authentic"[edit]

In the context of portrait images, the label "Not authentic" is justified in cases where it is established that the portrayed person has not been the sitting model when the image (painting or photography) was produced. In cases where authenticity is uncertain other labels need to be used. I will update the gallery accordingly. 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You won't, dear sock puppet. --stefan (?!) 11:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rate it[edit]

You can use {{Ratemusic}} to rate music. --Mac 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Requiem Mozart[edit]

I have found a version that could be uploaded in commons. Someone could check the copyright to see if it can be uploaded?. I do not understand the Russian language --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

De la Croce[edit]

The family-picture with the text: "Mozart mit Schwester Maria Anna und Vater Leopold, an der Wand ein Portrait der verstorbenen Mutter, Anna Maria. Gemälde von" was painted 1778. Constantin Wurzbach is naming its painter (Band 3/211) "De la Croce, Johann Nepomuk" and in (Band 19/page 253 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus: La Croce. Zabia2 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)