User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Influence of Friedrich Christoph Oetinger and Philipp Matthäus Hahn on Schiller's Ode to Joy; connection between Philipp Matthäus Hahn and the Vienna families Thun und Hohenstein and Lichnowsky (patrons of Mozart and Beethoven), newly detected

Dear Michael Brednarek, thank you very much for your critical attention. But my statement about the influence of the love theology of the famous pietist Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (1702–1782) and his pietistic friend and vicar Philipp Matthäus Hahn (1739–1790) on the love philosophy of Friedrich Schiller may be misunderstood. These influences on Schiller and especially on Schiller’s entire Ode to Joy aren’t marginal but large and essential. My contribution demonstrates on 35 pages Oetinger’s doctrine (influenced by Leibniz’s and Clüver’s astronomy teacher Erhard Weigel) and his own influence. The verses „Brüder – überm Sternenzelt/ muß ein lieber Vater wohnen“ are a special example for the evidence of the pietistic influence. In the case of Oetinger it is known, but the important influence of the love theology of the astronome and pastor Philipp Matthäus Hahn not only on two verses is unknown and newly detected by me. A removal of my contribution would be a retrograde step. A book of Ivo Cerman (Budweis) was helpful: Aufklärung oder Illuminismus? Die Enzyklopädie des Grafen Franz Josef Thun. Stuttgart 2015. Cerman detected the influence of Friedrich Christoph Oetinger on Franz Joseph count von Thun und Hohenstein, owner of a palace in Vienna. His wife, Maria Wilhelmina countess von Thun und Hohenstein née countess von Uhlfeld, owning a musical salon in the palace was a well-known patron of Mozart and Beethoven, the son-in-law Karl Alois prince of Lichnowsky too. My own detection is the connexion between Oetinger’s friend Hahn to Franz Joseph count von Thun und Hohenstein, a nephew of Joseph Friedrich Wilhelm prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen in Hechingen. Both, the count and his uncle ordered an astronomic machine constructed by Hahn (formerly pastor of Onstmettingen near Hechingen) and produced by his coworker Philipp Gottfried Schaudt in Onstmettingen. I have an experience of 50 years in pietism research, 48 years in research about Oetinger, and my research about Hahn is well-known too (cf. my well-endowed award “Philipp-Matthäus-Hahn-Preis” proposed by the president of the Tübingen University for the years 1989 and 1990). My researches are accepted by prominent specialists. Finally: we may modify, explain, clarify something.Breymayer (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Reinhard Breymayer,

I don't see how any of that lengthy and obscure material is of any interest to listeners of Beethoven's Ninth or to readers of the Wikipedia article on it. As for Schiller's poem: I think you overestimate the ordinary reader's interest in love theology, love philosophy, pietism, and your assertions about their influence on "An die Freude". An incisive assertion supported by a concise citation might be useful to a deeper understanding of Schiller's text, but I suggest that your version of Ode to Joy was unnecessarily detailed (and, like this section here, used extravangantly long section headers). In short: less is more. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

the opinion of the “man in the street” or the ordinary reader or listener cannot obligate scholars of rank nor good experts nor excellent connoisseurs. You are perhaps a remarkable generalist but not an exstanding expert on Friedrich Schiller nor Ludwig van Beethoven. Therefore we must make the conclusion: the deletion of Reinhard Breymayer’s text about the newly detected influence of the astronome and pastor Philipp Matthäus Hahn, formerly a vicar of Friedrich Christoph Oetinger, upon Friedrich Schiller and Hahn’s newly detected connection to the Vienna musical scene of the families Thun-Hohenstein and Lichnowsky is retrograde step more than stagnation. Famous Schiller experts as Hans-Jürgen Schings, Wolfgang Riedel and Peter-André Alt underline Schiller’s philosophy of love and the influence of the famous pietist Friedrich Christoph Oetinger on this philosophy. We may recognize indeed a trace of your critic by clarifying somewhat for the generalists and for the man in the street. Greetings, Reinhard Breymayer

Literature

a. Hans-Jürgen Schings: Philosophie der Liebe [Philosophy of love] und Tragödie des Universalhasses. „Die Räuber“ im Kontext von Schillers Jugendphilosophie [Schiller’s youth philosophy] (I). In: Jahrbuch des Wiener Goethe-Vereins. Hrsg. von Herbert Zeman, vol. 84/85 (1980/1981), pp. 71–95, here especially pp. 80 f. to Oetinger und Karl Friedrich Harttmanns (ib., note 45, to Reinhard Breymayer’s research).

b. Wolfgang Riedel: Die Anthropologie des jungen Schiller. Zur Ideengeschichte der medizinischen Schriften und der „Philosophischen Briefe“. (Würzburg) 1985 (Epistemata. Würzburger Wissenschaftliche Schriften. Reihe Literaturwissenschaft, vol. 17 <1985>). Vorher Phil. Diss. Würzburg Wintersemester 1983/1984. – Zur Kette der Wesen cf. 76 with notes 68 f., pp. 114–121, here esp. pp. 114 f. with notes 56–58; p. 229 with note 113. Cf. also pp. 182–198: „Liebe gleich Schwerkraft. Bausteine zu einer Metapherngeschichte“, here pp. 194 f. with notes 206–212 to Jacob Hermann Obereit; pp. 198–203: „Theosophie“, here esp. pp. 200 f. with note 242 to Oetinger and Detlev Clüver;, ib, pp. 201 f. with notes 248–253 to Jacob Hermann Obereit. Riedel mentions often Oetinger and ib., p. 81 in the note 96 (pp. 80 f.) to p. 80, also [Philipp Matthäus Hahn]: Fingerzeig […]. Winterthur 1778. [Riedel, indeed, does not know the connection between Hahn and Schillers’s philosophy nor the connection between Hahn and the Vienna musical scene.]

c. Peter-André Alt: Schiller. Leben – Werk – Zeit. (München 2009) (C[arl] H[einrich] Beck’sche Reihe), vol. 1. (Mit 28 Abbildungen.) (1759–1791), pp. 108–110 with note 121 zu pp. 108 f. on p. 677; pp. 232. 299; vol. 2. (Mit 22 Abbildungen.) (1791–1805). Cf. especially vol. 1, p. 56 with note 54 on p. 676: „Karl Friedrich Harttmann, der als Bebenhausener Klosterschüler in enge Verbindung mit Oetinger trat, trug seit 1774 im Rahmen des von ihm versehenen Religionsunterrichts Prinzipien der pietistischen Lehre an der herzoglichen Akademie vor. Daß sie Spuren auch beim jungen Schiller hinterließ, demonstriert seine Liebesphilosophie [philosophy of love], die man als weltlichen Gegenentwurf zur Idee der Gefühlsgemeinschaft des Gläubigen mit Christus betrachten kann.“

d. Rüdiger Safranski: Friedrich Schiller oder Die Erfindung des Deutschen Idealismus. (München, Wien 2004), about „die große Kette der empfindenden Wesen“ in der philoso-phischen Tradition und besonders in Scbillers Liebesphilosophie [Schillers’ Philosophy of love] ib., pp. 86–89. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.30.63 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Breymayer (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Breymayer (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR – copied to Talk:Ode to Joy where other editors can chime in. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

S Husarik

What are we going to do about this guy? He keeps mucking around in the article on Grosse Fuge, adding irrelevant and unintelligible quotes from his own hairbrained theories about the piece, and generally making hash. I hesitate to be to aggressive with him, as I am the principle author of this article, and don't want to impose myself too much when others make contributions of value. But this, I think, is over the top. What do you think? Ravpapa (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I find his prose as unintelligible and baffling just as you do, but it seems he's a well-credentialled guy, writing in reputable publications. There are lots of people in the humanities using this kind of oblique language – exhibition catalogues are full of it. If these writers find their way to Wikipedia, there's not much that can be done until a similarly reputable source can be found calling them out. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No stewards of native traditions

Good day Michael,

You have suggested removing the paragraph on the absence of Aboriginal artists in the list of the National Living Treasures of Australia. If you take a close look at Living National Treasure (Japan) or the National Heritage Fellowship in the US, it is all artisans and artists of arts and crafts. The Aboriginal Australians you have listed in the talk page mainly includes social activists, politicians, etc. and one singer who sings in the country music style. Is there such a list or recognition in Australia that only recognises artisans and artists? Gryffindor (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse my intrusion, but see National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award and National Indigenous Music Awards for examples. WWGB (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place, I'll copy this to Talk:National Living Treasure (Australia). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mozarts

FYI: There will be an article on Hans Hansen, in English, within the next two hours (or so). I guess I jumped the gun. WQUlrich (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Done! Have a look and see what you think. (There were some questions about the year on Constanze's portrait, but the file uploader appears to be correct.) WQUlrich (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Germaine Greer

Your reversion "not without citation now, not "to follow" " is perhaps a little "previous". I intended to add the citation once I'd found the article, but in the meantime why not give other editors the chance to jog their memories and add a citation? I think your comments "shouldn't do a running commentary – it's supposed to be an encyclopedia." are wide of the mark. Anyway, I'll restore the text in a few days (the article is in my office 60 miles away). Arrivisto (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The important influence of Philipp Matthäus Hahn's Theology of Love to Friedrich Schiller and Beethoven's ninth Symphony

My detection of the connection between Philipp Matthäus Hahn and the family of Maria Wilhelmine von Thun und Hohenstein, the sponsor of a musically and intellectually outstanding salon with patronage of music, notably that of Mozart and Beethoven, isn't marginal but central accordingly important connoisseurs. What have you published about Mozart or Beethoven? 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breymayer (talk • contribs)

Dear Mr. Bednarek, you are an intelligent man, but you consult too much the sometimes restricted interest and repetitive behaviour of the man in the street with few preoccupation or of people with mediocre or lower intelligence. David von Rudisill says about the “lack of curiosity”: “People with lower intelligence have a lower drive to learn new things.” He says about the “inability to deal with novelty”: “Such people can only deal with the routine and familiar. Problems or situations that require a new approach are avoided. […] Highly intelligent people have a deeper insight and understanding that is similar to looking through a microscope. They can see detail, subtleties, and connections that less intelligent people can't see.” (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-symptoms-of-low-IQ-as-well-as-low-EQ-in-adults ; Sep. 17, 2015).

For the very erudite the knowledge of biography, historical context and influences is useful to the understanding of Beethoven’s music. Three of my universities were the University of Bonn, the University of Cologne and the Cologne University of Music. This explicate my interest of Beethoven. I came in connection with Professor Martin Staehelin, the former director of the Beethoven Archive and Beethoven House in Bonn. Greetings, Reinhard BreymayerBreymayer (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Gelsenkirchen people

Hello Michael Bednarek, before you delete the photos, please have a look at Solingen famous people. Since a few weeks I expand articles in enwiki about German towns, and this is the first time that another user delets the photos. I can't see the reason why this should be handled in another way than in dewiki.Thanks--Buchbibliothek (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

To give other editors who might be interested in the subject an opportunity to chime in, I'll move this to Talk:Gelsenkirchen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Caloundra Lighthouses. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Esthetics

You can best decide if the crop and the whole image need be displayed. I think they are fine together. Your image is still displayed from the Commons link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diane Lane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electra (play). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

English Bach Festival

You removed the mention for English Bach Festival. As for 'references', the easiest for you might be the NGD 2001 article by N. Goodwin (The festival’s object was initially defined in the 1963 programme book: ‘To present the music of Bach, his family and their contemporaries in as authentic a manner as historical research will allow; but this, though a guiding principle, is not a limiting feature’. Festival programmes have included all the principal works of Bach, and representative selections of other music of his time, mainly by French, German and Italian composers.). Later the accent of the English Bach Festival has been changed from Bach to early music (mainly opera), that's true, but Bach was also there. Olorulus (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean my edit at Bach festival, so the discussion ought to be conducted there, so other editors interested in that subject can chime in. The entry you added was different to the 20 already listed festivals because it was the only one that had neither a Wikipedia article nor a reference. If it had, I wouldn't have removed it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Michael and Olorulus, I saw this conversation in passing and have created an article for it. I'm amazed it didn't have one before. It has an entry in the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, amongst other things. I've re-added it to Bach festival with a ref. Hope that's OK. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jake Gyllenhaal page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Kathryn Erbe

Hi. I rv your edit. The correct date of birth is July 5, 1965 as per IBDB (which you cited as confirming the 1966 year of birth) and Intelius, which are more reliable than filmreference.com. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This ought to be discussed at Talk:Kathryn Erbe where the matter has been raised before and to give other interested editors an opportunity to chime in. I'm surprised to see IBDB giving 1965 now; when I looked at it, they gave July 02, 1966. What's more, those authority control records which specify a YoB give 1966, as does AlloCiné and AllMovie. There are of course other sources for July 5, 1965, so the sensible thing to do is either a) mention both (which is difficult for the YoB category); b) omit the date; c) try to find a truly authoritative source. The current situation where one group of sources is preferred over another is unsatisfactory. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is. Please see most recent updates on talk page (here). Quis separabit? 13:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You, um, forgot to sign your last comment (see [1]). Yours, Quis separabit? 05:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Michael Bednarek. 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)

THANK YOU

	THANK YOU
	Thanks for your kind help about my question on The Great Gatsby (2013) Film article. hitu (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dami Im page

Hello, Michael Bednarek, I noticed you removed the X-Factor succession box from Dami Im's page. I don't know why you would have done that. Also, you removed quite a number of categories that are legitimate and not necessarily duplicated or redundant. Can you please justify your edits? Thanks. Rwphan (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Dami Im#Categories &c. because it's better discussed there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Buon Natale!

May you have very Happy Holidays, Michael

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Breuer

You appear to have removed the mention of the Breuer from the lead section of the Met article. The mention of the Breuer at the Met article in the lead section would be consistent with the mention of the Cloisters which is already in the lead section there. Leaving mention of the Breuer only embedded deep within the article seems to give the appearance that you prefer the Cloisters to the Breuer, which does not recognize the Breuer as consistent in quality, leading to your preference for including only the Cloisters in the lead section. Both venues have merits and both appear to be deserving of being included in the lead section. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You may have noticed that it was me who first mentioned the Met Breuer in the Met's article on 5 March 2016, using exactly the same NYT article that you used, so accusing me of attempting to play down the Breuer doesn't wash. After reading your message, I looked at the article's lead again and decided that mentioning the Met Breuer was indeed warranted, so I inserted it again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

New version looks good. Cheers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

YouTube link in Fausta being discussed

Discussion here. The concerns are that it might be a copyright violation. I couldn't find any copyright information in the video. You hade added the video here. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In other languages than English, rules of capitalization are different. For example, in German, all nouns must be capitalized. German is our #2 Wiki. Thus my clarification was necessary, snarkhead

You could have just fixed the dab link next time. Thanks!24.188.103.14 (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to your misguided edits at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. That guideline has never needed to explain how English capitalisation varies from other languages, because it's clearly meant for the English Wikipedia – it says so clearly on top of the page, before the 1st paragraph. Any further verbiage is unnecessary – less is more (just as your utterance above would have been much better without "next time"). You should restore the previous, long-standing phrase.

As for your section heading above: I have a reasonable grasp of German spelling rules, and your are quite wrong in your categorical assertion that "all nouns must be capitalized" (quite apart from the occasional difficulty of determining whether a word is a noun); search for verblasste Nomen and you'll find examples where e.g. angst, feind, klasse, pleite, recht, schuld, wurst are not capitalised. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Neopalpa

In your edit summary on the article Neopalpa you asked "Why is an image of the species N. donaldtrumpi in the infobox of this genus?". A genus is an intangible category that groups together closely related species, and so a genus cannot be depicted except by showing an example/examples of species within that genus. See Escherichia, Pinus, Amanita, or Canis for examples. Ypna (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I report edit-warring?

Hi Michael Bednarek, I am considering reporting User: Vlastimil Svoboda for edit-warring on the DON GIOVANNI article SYNOPSIS section. But I have never complained against another user before, so I don't know how to begin. Can you let me know how to do this? Also, how many times should I wait for him to revert me without seeking consensus on the TALK page, before I report him? Maybe he'll wise up and stop. How many bites is an edit-warrer supposed to be allowed? Please reply on my TALK page. Thank you very much, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Glossary of musical terminology

Thanks for setting up the archive bot. Do you have any idea why it leaves the first few ancient threads? No doubt it's worth just waiting for the next round to see what happens... Imaginatorium (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why the archive bot omitted some bits, but another user seems to have taken care of it now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for your email. I totally agree, and I have done what you suggested. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks... (Bis)

About Madame Butterfly's roles, I have checked all the names of 1904 productions (looking to locandinas of la Scala and Teatro Grande). Paolo Wulman, born in Rome, has no double N ou double L (even if the old German name was probably like that). Because Ersilia Ghissoni was a young child, I also think that she is not the "zia" soprano, but a mistake in the locandina, repeated in all sources. You could check on French article to find the documents. If you speak Polish, I did not find many things about mezzo Giannina Lukaszewska, born in Varsaw. Puccini wrote her name Lucaceska. Reply here please...--Enzino (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

Btw, Christmas Oratorio in 2017. I don't know yet if to improve one cantata to GA or work on the whole, - which may be too much of a good thing. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Take Five's tonality

Hello Michael Bednarek, give your opinion on the subject !! Hippo75 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ganz

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganz&diff=767008843&oldid=762885084

maybe a bot should fix those links...68.151.25.115 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but until then the target of Ganz, the original name of the article Ganz Works, has to be the article intended by those incoming links, Ganz Works. See also the hatnote at that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this reversion [2]. In addition to promotional content, the user has added non notables and copyright violations. If it continues I'll ask for a block. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Hendricks

You reverted my edit with the explanation "she may not be a US citizen (do we know?), but she's still African-American". Huh? If you don't know whether she is American, then how do you know she is African-American? You can't be African-American without being American. Hence the word.
Vmavanti (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I copied your remark to Talk:Barbara Hendricks where this ought to be discussed so other interested readers can participate in this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Anita Rachvelishvili

I'm Anita's friend! on english wikipedia you have article about this person. on this article is picture of woman! THIS WOMAN ISN'T Anita Rachvelishvili! please take on (remove) this image from page. Anita Rachvelishvili

yours faitfully Jabavashadze12 21:59, 3 april 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabavashadze12 (talk • contribs)

This message was sent to me also with the addition of "p.s plese visit this page and try to convince, that that woman on wiki page isn't famous georgian mezzo-soprano. enclosure: https://www.google.ge/search?q=anita+rachvelishvili&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2-Gn8ojTAhWBXRQKHRmEBCcQ_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=662"

What do you think?Smeat75 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Anita Rachvelishvili. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

references responsive

In the article Willemijn Verkaik the tag <references responsive /> is used. The keyword responsive is not mentioned at Help:Footnotes. Where is the definition for it? What is the meaning? --GünniX (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw it first discussed at Template talk:Reflist#Responsive where a (very unhelpful) announcement at Meta:Tech/News/2017/11 and a better explanation at phab:T33597#3082884 were mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I am here for the same reason! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to see the answer. Now I know. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rjwilmsi: if they can hep with the AWB part for it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Came for the same reason, Maria Callas, don't get columns [3]. Should I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That depends on your screen resolution. I get 2 columns with 1280 pixels horizontally, and 3 with 1920. It reduces here to 1 column at about 1100 pixels. From mw:Talk:Editing/Projects/Columns for references I gather that the column width of this feature is about 39em. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no time to dig into the details (need/want to expand a Bach cantata for Easter), - can you give a short explanation 1) why you'd prefer it to reflist|30em, and 2) if yes: could it become part of the reflist template? I don't like the idea of changing hundreds of articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer <references responsive /> over {{Reflist}} because it seems simpler to me. You, or anyone else, may have a different preference, although as happened at Callas, merely using {{Reflist}} without any parameters is never an improvement. There's no need to change any article; I only do it when I edit an article for another substantive reason. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, helps. I use reflist|30em for most articles, but reflist|20em for articles with harv referencing, because then the Biobliography is long, but the refs tend to be shorter. Could that be done with the other? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not that I know; there's a place for both methods. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Safina

Hi, I was just getting to the beginning of his opera background and into the "popera" music and I started having problems everywhere. Hopefully, I will be able to put that in there at some point.CyranoAS 02:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mama1229 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid Alessandro Safina its outside my area of expertise & interest. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrei Bondarenko

Could you please explain why there are different representation of Андрі́й Бондаре́нко vs. Андрій Шевченко or other Andriys? Why should this one be AndrEI??? Thanx, 80.99.208.111 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Talk:Andrei Bondarenko so other interested readers can participate in this discussion. My reasons were that a) "Andrei" is in the page's title, so the headword should be the same. b) As I wrote in my edit summary, Askonas Holt uses that spelling – as does every other source used in that article. Normally, I would now create a WP:REDIRECT from Andriy Bondarenko to Andrei Bondarenko, but the incoming links to that not yet existing REDIRECT seem to indicate that there's a mathematician and a composer/pianist/Wikipedian (uk:Бондаренко Андрій Ігорович) by that name. Note that none of those incoming links refer to the baritone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hungarian dance number 5 in Chaplin

Hi there. Do you think it is not worth mentioning, even though it is one of the most important films of the decade, and that is memorable gag in the history of cinema in which the whole song is played? Don't you think the article deserves a "in popular culture" section and we should enrich it instead of avoid its very existence? --Jbaranao (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I copied this to Talk:Hungarian Dances (Brahms) so other interested readers can participate in this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Patronymic surnames

This probably is a discussion to move to the surnames page, but since you raised the question, I'd like to ask you first. There are many surnames derived from a given name that never had or do not retain a possessive or prefix or suffix, e.g. British Owen, Lewis and Alexander, German Lorenz, Werner and Ludwig, and many of the most common French surnames (Martin, Bernard, Thomas, Simon, etc.). When a name is derived from a clear patronymic, like Alexander above, it probably is uncontroversial to name these patronymic surnames, but the other names seem to be left in the lurch, despite them being most likely of patronymic origin. An amateur site like wiktionary seems to lean to naming them patronymic surnames (e.g. Werner) as well as an authority like the Surname Handbook: to quote from this page: "Patronymic surnames usually denote the relationship to the father either by the use of the possessive form (...) or by the addition of a prefix or suffix with the meaning of son (...). There are also surnames in this category that derive from given names without any prefixes or suffixes". What's your thought? Afasmit (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the main article for Category:Patronymic surnames, Patronymic surname, is rather poor, and Patronymic doesn't provide any formal explanations either. I understand patronymic surnames in line with the first part of your quote ("... relationship ... possessive ... prefix or suffix"), but I don't understand how surnames that are also used as first names can be called "patronymic". That would include every surname that's also used as a first name, e.g. John, Peter, Michael; same for Werner (name) and Lorenz where I removed the category you added. Note that in most such differences of opinion, I (try to) voluntarily follow WP:1RR. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about your revision

Regarding your reversion, the Latin words and abbreviations should be italicized according to MOS:WORDSASWORDS, which is on the same MOS page.

It is not contradictory to follow Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. It is contradictory, however, to break the guidelines that are on exactly the same page that we’re talking about.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) no, words from Latin and other languages that became part of English (loanwords) are not italic, for example Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

They shouldn’t be italicized normally, but because the page refers to them as words, they should be italicized, per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This ought to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting so other interested readers can participate in this discussion. In short: I stand by my edit summary, "not confusing readers by contradictory usage of illustrative examples is more important than the guideline MOS:WORDSASWORDS; otherwise, half this article would be in italics." Note that User:Redrose64 reverted your edit as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michael Bednarek

Hi User:Michael Bednarek, can you make an edit (when your not busy) to Maiorana surname article, because you've made great edits to surname pages in past:

• "Daniel Maiorana (born 1977), leader of the criminal network Fucked For Life" -
• And there's a new source on page ([4], saying famiglia francese) for French origin at the bottom of "references" section that User:Narky Blert kindly added, you'd just have to turn into a proper reference and change the top sentence to "Maiorana is a surname of french origin". That's it, I'd just rather a surname user do it than myself. All best.--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never edited that article before, and without pressing concerns, I'm not going to start. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Apposition

In a non-restrictive apposition, there's a comma before and after the appositive --Distelfinck (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal

Hi. Your reason for deleting the image I posted does not seem to me. Well the idea is to have a current image of the actor, this image is 2016, unfortunately there is not one of 2017. But I think the right thing would be to place a current image. Or is that in case only images are placed in Jake's article just because it came out pretty in it ?.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 11:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts

Apologies. I've added a check. I skipped a few that had responsive, but the check will skip them automatically. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know that it worked without a />. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't. I assume you refer to the situation at David Letterman. Look again; WP:LDR & WP:LDRHOW explain it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you tor finding the singers!

Here's one of them: Heinrich Hölzlin, in prep, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Solti discography underlinking discussion

Hi Michael Bednarek, I realize that Wikipedia revision descriptions don't have much space, but can you clarify your comment on the Georg Solti discography revision: "Undid revision 783557142 by Dk3298371 (talk): restore

which still applies; please read the notice – I've done the 1st 3 & some orchestras/choirs."?

"I've done the first 3 & some orchestra/choirs." I'm not sure what you mean by this. There were 3 non-special incoming links (4 now since I just added CSO). The first was from Solti presumably created by the article's original author, and at the time I had added 2 more (now 3 more). Your comment "I've done the first 3" could be mis-read to imply you had added the first 3 incoming links to this article, but unless those links were subsequently deleted this does not appear to be a true statement. Can you clarity?

While Solti is perhaps the most notable discography in all of Wikipedia, I will note it wasn't even in Wikiproject Discography (which requests all Discographies be added to the project) until I added it.

"I've done .. some orchestras/choirs." You could have linked-in orchestras & choirs Solti has recorded with link to Solti's discography, but this doesn't appear to have been done. If you meant that you've added orchestras/choir recordings to Solti's discography, that doesn't seem to be the case. If you mean that you've created many orchestras/choirs elsewhere on Wikipedia you can perhaps suggest an appropriate number of interlinks for this kind of article.

"Please read the notice." I'm not sure what notice you are referring to --- there doesn't seem to be a comment in the article that I could see, or on the talk page. I did look at "WP:Underlink" was special classical music guidance or discography guidance, and wasn't able to find any.

My understanding is 3 incoming non-special links is enough for a Wikipedia article. While might both wish for more incoming links to this highly notable discography, it is useful to have objective criteria for removal of cleanup tags (and this is an area where objective criteria are more readily possible). You could also always put a request for additional links in the article's talk page, arguing the article's notability, even if it no longer meets the objective standard for a cleanup tag in the article. Putting the cleanup tag up there prevents peer review of this otherwise high-quality article, and this article is potentially IMHO a candidate for promotion.

Do you have guidance for how many incoming links this article should have? I think we both agree this highly notable discography article *could* have a lot more incoming links. However, I will point that, prior to my edits, it had all of ONE incoming link, and wasn't even a member of the correct Wikiproect, for an otherwise well-done the most highly notable discography on Wikipedia.

There does seem to be more unproductive politics (and potential disruptive editing) in some classical music articles than in other areas of Wikipedia, sometimes against objective standards that have widely and successfully applied in other subject matters, which is partially promoting my concern here.

Adding an interlink to an article link this one is not particularly difficult. It would seem to me that, since we both agree this article could use more interlinks (just haven't reached consensus about a threshold for tag removal), it would seem much easier to actually go in an add another incoming link to this article, then removing and un-removing the tag. Perhaps, given the absurdly low number of interlinks this article started with, we should have a rule, that to add back the "underlinked" tag on this article, you actually need to go in and first add a few more incoming links (as I have now done), before complaining about the lack of incoming links.

What do you think is appropriate standard (as a hard, objective number) of non-special incoming links for this particular article?Dk3298371 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dk3298371. I'm an occasional visitor to Michael's talk page. I think you have misunderstood what the {{Underlinked}} tag means. It does not refer to incoming links. It refers to the fact that the article itself has many, many items which should be linked to their Wikipedia articles but aren't, i.e. virtually all the works recorded and also many of the names of the performers (which should be linked on first mention). Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Voceditenore and Michael Bednarek, Thank you for the clarification. We were discussing separate issues --- this article had one non-special link previously, far too few for a discography of this notability. The problems might be related -- with too few outgoing links, it might have been hard to find to create incoming links. I have taken a first stab an properly linking this article. Is it still underlinked?Dk3298371 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

As Voceditenore explained, the template {{Underlinked}} starts with the sentence, "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia." That's the "notice" I mentioned in my edit summary. "1st 3 & some orchestras/choirs" in my edit summary refers to links I added for the first three the works in the list, plus links for most choruses and orchestras. Your addition of further links to works is welcome, but many links to composers and performers are incorrect. E.g. Mascagni doesn't link to Pietro Mascagni, and George London doesn't link to George London (bass-baritone). Some links to works need attention: Missa Solemnis doesn't link to Missa solemnis (Beethoven) and Egmont doesn't link to Egmont (Beethoven). Still, that template can now be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Vasilenko, IMSLP, List of symphonies in G minor

The reason I linked to the workpage for Vasilenko's symphony is because, unlike the other pages which talk about the symphony, that page allows you to download the symphony (or a print source which claims to be, but I haven't found a digitized holograph- for that work, anyway) and determine its key for yourself. Firsthand source vs. second or third or fourth. (I quite agree when it comes to the IMSLP worklists, which don't necessarily have advantages over others, except in being editable - it being a Wiki - whereas Onno's site is archived, its advantages and errors both forever preserved. But that's not, I agree, sufficient reason.) Thanks! Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

a) That page is only three clicks away from that list: Sergei Vasilenko – Free scores by Sergei Vasilenko at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP) – Symphony No.1, Op. 10: Scores at the International Music Score Library Project.

b) I see your point, though. BUT the template {{IMSLP}} ought to be used, not {{cite web}}, so when you want to add it again, please use {{IMSLP|work=Symphony No.1, Op.10 (Vasilenko, Sergey)|cname=Symphony No.1, Op. 10}} and similar. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks once again

I see that Mr Blades has switched from mass AfDs and replacing 50+ pages with redirections per day, to adding page improvement tags. Thanks for restoring the Rossini content, and thanks again for the invaluable link preview code ... (btw, I am not nearly as bad tempered as some of my edit summaries might imply :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Humperdinck operas

Template:Humperdinck operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ode to Joy

In my opinion "whoever" is not a poetic and sounds crass, I feel strongly that it should be "whomsoever". — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Matthew English (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume you refer to your edit at Ode to Joy where you replaced "And whoever never managed" with "And whomsoever never managed" as the translation for "Und wer's nie gekonnt" and which I reverted. Poetry and crassness don't come into it, grammar does. "whomsoever" is the objective case of "whosoever". In both languages, the pronoun "wer"/"who" is the subject of the phrase, not the object, and so only "who" is correct. In fact, that would be even better than the current "whoever" – less is more. You'll find some help in determining proper use at wikt:whomever and Who (pronoun). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your translation is 'not the yellow of an egg, but it goes'--> do you see what I mean? Translation is not just about the closest word for word match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Matthew English (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SIGN and sign your messages.

I know what idiomatic translation is. "Whomsoever" (object) for German "wer" (subject) is never correct or idiomatic; for "wem" or "wen", maybe. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hoffentlich nicht tödlicher Wunsch

The nice "beloved wife Lore" is in the article from the initial "skeleton". I can't find a ref, - one of the 2 refs supplied then is dead. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Added a source: Klassika.info. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Die tödlichen Wünsche

On 21 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Die tödlichen Wünsche, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the composer Giselher Klebe wrote the libretto for his opera Die tödlichen Wünsche based on Balzac's La Peau de chagrin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Die tödlichen Wünsche. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Die tödlichen Wünsche), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Victor de Sabata

Hi - I hope this is the correct way to comment on the subject of the alledged friendship of Victor de Sabata with Mussolini. This news comes as a surprise. as none in Victor de Sabata's closest circle is aware of it. Indeed such friendship eould be hardly likely, given that Victor de Sabata's mother was Jewish. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edesabata (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

a) This ought to be discussed at Talk:Victor de Sabata where other editors can comment. b) Those statements are verified by sources; we can't ignore them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

David Lee Roth Vocal Range

Hello, Michael Bednarek

I was the one who added David Lee Roth to the category of 'Singers with a five-octave vocal range'. I saw that my edit was undone since I didn't demonstrate where I got my "research" from. I'm not taking this personally, as I should've explained where I got information from. These were the articles where I got my information about David Lee Roth's vocal range.

I'm not sure if they are the best sources, so I'll let you be the judge. If you feel that the sources are reliable, however, would you consider re-adding David Lee Roth to the category?

Rotten Tardises (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I assume you refer to this edit I made at David Lee Roth. a) This ought to be discussed at Talk:David Lee Roth where other editors can comment. b) To me, the only reputable source of those 3 seems to be Chris Coplan from Consequence of Sound. I suspect that no-one will object if you add a sentence explaining his range with this source to the article. On the other hand, there's currently no mention of his voice type or range in the article, and I have no idea in which section this could reasonably be mentioned, and adding just the category as you did before is not sufficient – it must be sourced. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Kitten say "meow-thanks," for the lesson

Thank you, for teaching me that the use of contractions is discouraged on Wikipedia. And for inspiring me to re-examine my own work.

catsmoke (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Splitting out musical groups by number cats

I have nominated several specific categories today and yesterday (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 4#Category:Musical sextets for example) which you may wish to comment on, based on the previous discussion. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Salieri edit reversion

Hello, you have just now undone an edit of mine, on the Saieri article. My edit accomplished several things, especially clarifying excessive ambiguity in the original phrasing.

I would be happy to give you an annotated, detailed explanation of why I made all my changes, if you'd like. I'll offer one example, for now: the current version of the sentence I'd changed begins with the pronoun "This". Pronouns refer to antecedents (which must be nouns, or noun phrases), when used properly. What is the antecedent of "This" in this case? To what word does it refer? It seems to perhaps point back to "popularly remembered", that is, it seems to refer to the (hypothetically constructed, for the purposes of this illustration) "popular memory [of the rivalry]", yet "popularly remembered" is not a noun, it is an adjective (adjectival phrase) and therefore the use of "This" in the following sentence is grammatically improper English.

My edit corrected several such errors. Please share with me your reasoning, regarding your reversion of my edit. Thank you. catsmoke (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

My reversal of your edit at Antonio Salieri ought to be discussed at that article's talk page so that other editors can comment, too.

My action may seem to have been hasty, but here is what I thought at the time. The reversal was triggered by several items: your prose introduced an awkward repetition (rival/rivalry) and a colloquial use of a contraction (it's) which is frowned upon per MOS:CONTRACT. There was also a questionable comma before "out of jealousy", and you added an extraneous blank line, resulting in a gap above the table of contents. Your analysis above of the shortcomings your edit was trying to correct seems overly strict. "This" can be seen as referring to the whole of the preceding sentence (what Salieri is popularly remembered for). (And the Purdue Online Writing Lab you quote above is clearly out of date – the singular they is now widely used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun.) On the whole, your edit added verbosity and was no net improvement.

On reflection, the usual remedy for bad writing should be applied – rephrase. What about rewriting the two sentences as: "He is popularly remembered for rumours that he poisoned his supposedly bitter rival Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, when most likely, they were at least mutually respectful peers." This could be further improved if a link to the article Death of Mozart could be worked into it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, for the prompt response. Please tell me the best way to move this discussion to the venue which you have recommended (I do not, for example, know the protocol, regarding preservation, repetition, or transfer of what we have already written, so far). I would like to do so, and to continue to work out—and hopefully settle—our differences, regarding my reverted edit. catsmoke (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Once at least 48 hours have passed, from the time of my request for further instruction from you, I am going to restart my defense of my edit, and do so on the Salieri article's Talk page, just as you have asked. I suppose that a link back to this page, with a short note that the discussion had started here, will suffice. We must make our exchange, from its very beginning, easily seen, for forensic purposes. You clearly have a concern that others will, at least, observe our debate; this suits me, as well, for I am confident that all of the changes made by my reverted edit (except for my contraction construction) were not only improvements, they were vital to the semantic clarity of the information that we mean to convey by that text. I am going to give the reasons for the changes I intend to make; in its final form, my proposed edit is very similar to the one you reverted, but not identical to it. Your only valid criticism is the one regarding my use of a contraction, and I appreciate your pointing it out. You have shown me something important, of which I had been unaware. My explanation of my potential contribution will include the reason for my insertion of the comma which, although obligatory, and functioning to resolve an erroneous syntactical construction, you called "questionable." So, perhaps I can teach you something, in return. I shall henceforth be addressing this matter in the venue where you have requested that I do so. I hope you find that satisfactory, and I am edified to have been moved, by you, to have grown in my knowledge of Wikipedia best practices, and to have had to examine my own writing more closely and critically. Thank you, for your efforts to improve my work. I wish you the best, and I hope, if you have anything more to say, that I shall be seeing a response from you, soon. catsmoke (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion immediately after your contribution above from 13:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC) to Talk:Antonio Salieri#Lead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Now I see that you had promptly moved our discussion, and also written a notice here, of having done so. I came here several times, after the time stated on the datestamp of your post (the post which immediately precedes this one), and looked closely, for a response from you, and I never saw one, before now. I'm sorry. I cannot explain why my effort repeatedly failed. Although it may seem unlikely, I routinely succeed when I try to conduct such simple online activity. That was my entire attempt to follow up on this matter, until I was ready to re-start the whole discussion without allusion to what you and I had already discussed. Then I went to the Talk page of the Salieri article, and I saw that you had already acted, a good while before. I apologize for taking so long, to have followed up. My delay was intended to give you more time to respond (a mistake on my part, since you did not need more time, and had already responded), and to give myself more time to formulate an approach and its justification. I sincerely appreciate your having acted so quickly, and for doing what I'd asked, so soon after I'd made my request. I admit that I was stung by your characterization of my writing as "bad." It may sometimes seem more wordy than is necessary, but I strive to avoid ambiguous phrases and constructions, when I write non-fiction. I hope that my writing here did not impose on you. I wish you the best. catsmoke (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Herbert von Karajan

Thank you for your improvement to the Herbert von Karajan article earlier today. We would like to let you know that we will be organizing a Karajan Edit-a-thon in the next few weeks. You are cordially invited to participate. More information will be posted on our user page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Karajaninstitute Again thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karajaninstitute (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in an article about the de:Eliette und Herbert von Karajan Institut on the English Wikipedia, although I think that deleting Draft:Eliette and Herbert von Karajan Institute might have been hasty. If you think that reliable independent sources to indicate the institute's notability can be found, you should ask the deleting administrator User:Alex Shih for a WP:REFUND into your user space. I'm a bit baffled about the speed of the deletion and that you were notified only when the deletion tag was placed, not when the deletion occurred. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

THank you very much for your message. I discussed the issue and they reverted the article to draft. Just to clarify, our Edith-a-thon is not about the institute but about Karajan and the artists he worked with. Thanks again! Matthias Röder (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Belmone's aria "Wenn der Freude"

Hi, I'm quite sure I've seen recordings from which the aria was omitted, but I can't seem to find any right now. Or maybe I'm thinking of the other aria "Ich baue ganz"? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Die Entführung aus dem Serail where anything had been cut, but a quick search shows that the Baumeisterarie "Ich baue ganz auf deine Stärke" is indeed sometimes omitted. If a reputable source discusses this or other cuts, it might be worth mentioning. This ought to be discussed at Talk:Die Entführung aus dem Serail, so other editors can chime in. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to perform in BARBER OF SEVILLE in a company which does everything with no cuts at all. Last year we did DON GIOVANNI with both tenor arias, AND Donna E's aria "mi tradi", AND her short recit immediately after Leporello's Catalogue aria, AND the scene where Zerlina threatens Leporello with a razor and ties him to a chair, AND the full-length finale and epilogue. Royal fun! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

C-Prüfung

Firstly, thank you for correcting and adding countless times! Now Siegfried Fietz clarification required "C exam". In German "C-Prüfung", in der Quelle "C-Schein", - see de:Organist, but I think it's undue weight to explain that he took a test for organists, - A or at least B required for full church positions, C and D nice for people assisting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I had a fair idea what "C exam" ([C-Schein] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) might mean, but I suspect many readers might not. If a short explanation can't be found, it would be better to rephrase the sentence or remove this part, instead of removing the template {{Clarify}}. The same can be said for the German article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a description for that formal thing, but on the third level of four? - The German article could just link to the section in de:Organist, but I found nothing here, and it's probably too specifically German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Turnage operas

Template:Turnage operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Edison Classical Music Awards

Greetings. I'm fairly confused by this article and its tag that says it's a rough translation from this Dutch article. The Dutch article is merely about the 2003 occurence of the Edison Award, not the annual classical music component of the awards. It seems both articles have little to do with each other. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This would better be discussed at Talk:Edison Classical Music Awards, so other editors can chime in. To the point: Terms like "Oeuvreprijs", "olv"/"o.l.v.", "e.a.", "Bijzondere Uitgaven van Historische Aard", and the spelling of "Pjotr Iljitsj Tsjaikovski", "­Symfonie" leave most English-language readers baffled. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I initially did want to copyedit the article but now I'm actually considering filing it for deletion or merging it. Should it exist? I mean, it's really just a list that could easily be integrated into the also-short Edison Award article. The link to the 2003 Dutch article was added here, and it seems user:Hyacinth used this here to add something more to the article. Aside from that edit by Hyacinth the article hasn't grown in over 12 years. I don't think the article will attract many users to its talk page. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yma Sumac: confusion

Hi! Seems you reverted my edit to the Yma Sumac article, for which my edit summary correct frequency of lowest claimed note "E2" to "approximately 82 Hz" (not 107 Hz!) was, I believe, accurate. Yet many other things also changed according to the diff. Perhaps what you did was remove all text ultimately attributable an "unreliable source"? In which case, you would have reverted, not just my little edit, but also the prior edit[s] by other editors that inserted that text in the first place. Either way, I'm confused as to why this appears as "reverting my edit" …! Can you please clarify what actually happened? yoyo (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right; I shouldn't have marked my edit as reverting yours. Your edit only triggered me to inspect the sources for her range, and it turned out that several of them either didn't mention her or didn't support the claim of 5 octaves, which I documented by providing quotes what the sources actually said about her range. Another editor has since removed those citations that didn't support the claim of 5 octaves. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Nico Muhly

Hello, Michael Bednarek. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
While as you note "there are blue links and references in those lists" there is a preponderance of unsourced information that tarnishes this article with the appearance of COI or Paid editing. CitationsAreGood (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

1. This would better be discussed at Talk:Nico Muhly, so other editors can chime in.
2. Your suggestion of COI or paid editing is offensive; you have no evidence or reason to for it. Please withdraw it.
3. I suggest you read WP:Don't template the regulars.
4. Your blanket removal of substantial material is contrary to several Wikipedia etiquettes. Lists of works are frequently unsourced; they can easily be verified by consulting catalogues, the author's or their publishers' websites, sites like Discogs, AllMusic, CD Universe. If you seriously doubt the veracity of some material, citation requests are the first step. WP:V is mainly concerned with contentious material, which a factual list of works is not. It also requires that facts should be verifiable, not verified, and it warns against frivolous challenges.
5. Your edit mangled the article badly. To edit Wikipedia, some competence is required.

In summary, I suggest you revert your edit and find some constructive way of adding to Wikipedia; finding sources seems an obvious candidate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite Correct on the Latin

Hi. Your reversion to the dative of morti on the page Media vita in morte sumus was entirely correct and my mistake. Amarae morti is dative as in "to a bitter death [lead us not]" with amarae as adjectival. I thought it was "to the bitterness of death". That would be amaritudini mortis or possibly amaro mortis. I added the notation about the BCP below because it is not a literal translation of the Latin. Ironically, the BCP translation led me to believe that it should be mortis rather than morti. --IACOBVS (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Zweig

Michael, thanks for the caution but they are my own contributions! I thought that might be obvious from the sarcasm but I will make it explicit when I redo it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, many thanks for setting up the archiving, which was very long overdue. I had been meaning to do it for some time but every time I've tried (in other articles) I seem to have had the gift of messing it up, so I'm thrilled that someone competent stepped in to save me and the Talk page both! Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't and isn't apparent that the paragraphs at Talk:Stefan Zweig#Older comments signed by User:Nevilley contained contributions by anyone else. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I was nevilley. Now I am disillusioned, bitter and knackered. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

Dear Michael, thank you for manually archiving that last remaining ancient comment at Zweig. I was wondering if I should, so I was pleased that you did! But what gets me is that I cannot see why it was necessary - what was wrong with that one section that got it excluded? I've seen this before when trying to set up archiving (I'm thinking of Talk:Dunstanburgh Castle for example) and it drove me nuts. I seem to recall being told that it was something about a bad date format and the archiver not coping with it, but I cannot for the life of me see what was wrong with the leftover one. I also seem to recall that trying to alter existing sections to get the archiver to swallow them was not easy. Of course it doesn't really matter if it's just a one-off and then it's OK - it's just that I wondered if there was a known cause for it, or should we just shrug, manually archive, and move on? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why that thread was omitted by lowercase sigmabot III. I vaguely remember having read documentation or a talk page where the rules for archiving were explained, but I can't find that now, but I remember that proper signatures and dates were mentioned. However, like you, I can't find anything wrong with the omitted section, but the days when I doggedly tried to figure out why something unexpected happens are over, I now just find a kludge. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah fine and thanks. That is literally all I need to know, and I'm making a note of it elsewhere as I try to hedge against my increasing forgetfulness! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for guiding me to the categories "Category: Year of Birth missing" and "Category: Year of Birth missing (Living People)". It was probably just the case that the two examples I had come across had not been entered into this category. Vorbee (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't me

Hello! You directed an edit summary to me today at Musical theatre, but the changes that you reverted were not made by me, they were made by an IP. Please review this. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstood the edit summary. It said, "Revert to revision 812689326 dated 2017-11-29 08:20:06 by Ssilvers ..." In other words, I reverted two edits by a disruptive (now blocked) IP editor and restored your version, as seen here. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing Uxía Martínez Botana

Dear Michael, you seem to have an issue with the verifiability of this article's sources, maybe it's a conflict of interest as I have read on this Talk page before. I thank you for showing me how to nominate for deletion though, hopefully you'll see how bogus that "world's top 10" affirmation is and that the whole article is exaggerated and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevialover (talk • contribs) 08:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:Talk page guidelines, in particular WP:BOTTOMPOST and also WP:Signatures.

I never had a conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia articles, and I emphatically reject your suggestion. As for your AfD for Uxía Martínez Botana: your nomination doesn't mention a single point from WP:DEL-REASON. Maybe you mistake AfD as a mechanism to improve articles; it's not – see the 1st bullet point in the big box at the top of WP:AFD, WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Michael, thank you for taking the time to show me all those Wikipedia guidelines. I'll keep them in mind. Best wishes. Stevialover (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Auguri

May you have very Happy Holidays, Michael ...

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

opera film

not sure why contributions to opera film were removed. did you look at listal or just remove the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.178.82 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

a) You have to provide some context to your question.

b) If you refer to this edit at Opera film:

b1) I didn't remove any reference because none was added.

b2) I didn't understand what "Relatively recent examples of opera films that are not films or videos of stage productions ..." added to the article.

b3) As I wrote in my edit summary, I didn't understand what "Listal" referred to. I now searched for it and,

c) listal.com is not an acceptable source for several Wikipedia policy reasons. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)