User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Ruslan and Ludmila

Names of works of art are always used with quotation marks in a text in Russian, unlike English, that's why the quotation marks need to be there. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you refer to my edit at Ruslan and Lyudmila (opera). Guillemets are used in several languages as a type of quotation mark, but not in the English Wikipedia; see MOS:QUOTEMARKS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Then why are they in the editing form? WikiArticleEditor (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit toolbar and CharInsert box contains many symbols that are inappropriate for general usage and not inline with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. They may be helpful on talk pages, project pages, pages that deal with special characters (like Guillemet), and similar. Just because they're there doesn't mean they may be used in Wikipedia's main article space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Image's talk page

File:PikiWiki Israel 13773 AIDA AT MASADA 2011.jpg is featured in English Wikipedia: link. Wikiproject template is needed to categorize featured pictures: Category:FM-Class Israel-related articles. Don't remove it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Opera maintains no such category for files that are hosted at Commons, so I've removed {{WikiProject Opera}} from that file's talk page. I wasn't aware that other projects do (and Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk doesn't mention it) and I'm sorry for this gap in my knowledge about Wikipedia customs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Neapolitan School

"a group of 18th-century composers who studied or worked together ... In what sense is this not an organisation? Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you refer to my reversal of your edit at Neapolitan School and a similar sequence at Mannheim school.

Where does "together" come from? The article questions extensively whether there was such a school at all. It gives no indication that there was an organization of any kind. The same applies to the Mannheim, Roman and Venetian schools, where Category:Music organisations based in Italy ought to be removed as well. "In what sense is this not an organisation?" – they were not organised, and their name was applied retrospectively. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup

I totally didn't notice that at all. :) My computer crashed when I was in the middle of composing that message; when I rebooted, I was pleasantly surprised that Firefox had saved the message for me, but I didn't notice that it had switched from section view to page view... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of a contribution to page "Yuja Wang"

Dear user,

In Yuja Wang's Wikipedia page, I had inserted a paragraph entitled "Posture", with a link to an article entitled "Pianist Yuja Wang's high heel shoes and the pedal techniques" by (Redacted) at URL: http://hugues.bedouelle.free.fr/music.html. The quoted article is well documented and both paragraph "Posture" and article are elogious towards Yuja Wang.

In your edit [11:19, 1 February 2018, Yuja Wang ‎ (Revert to revision 823073896 dated 2018-01-30 02:40:35 by Underbar dk: -paragraph from a dead (& dubious) source], you removed this paragraph and gave two reasons: i) paragraph from a dead source; ii) paragraph from a dubious source. These two reasons are erroneous.

Indeed: i) I carefully checked that the Web link was working after saving my edit. The link leads to a page where you have to click on the title of the article to view it. I chose this way of doing because other articles on music will be added to this Web page later on, because this page gives links to the home page and biography of the author of the article, and for copyright reasons. I assume that you have not read this article and assessed its value before suppressing the link.

ii) The source of the edit is not dubious. User Hgs.bdll has already made numerous contributions to Wikipedia, in particular on scientific subjects, as can be checked by clicking the link "contribs" in the history page of Yuja Wang's page. Moreover, the author of the quoted article, (Redacted), is a well known scientific researcher. This can be easily checked by following the links "home" or "biography" in the quoted web page or searching his name in google or scholar.google.

It is not obvious to me why you are a more reliable source than me, user Hgs.bdll and what gives you the authority to censor other users' contributions. I wanted to talk directly to you and have your reply before restoring my contribution or bringing this discussion to the main talk page. I hope to hear from you soon. --Hgs.bdll (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That weblink doesn't work for me (Windows 7, Firefox or Chrome, from Australia), nor does http://hugues.bedouelle.free.fr/msc/Bedouelle2018-Yuja_Wang.pdf; they time out. Consequently, I can't verify your edit. I did inspect your contributions before my edit, and while I noticed in some internet search results that you are an amateur musician, your contributions on Wikipedia or elsewhere didn't show anything related to performance techniques of pianists. This raises concerns per WP:RS. I now managed to view a cached copy of your paper, and it seems that you quoted it very closely in the Yuja Wang article. This is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia by WP:Copyright violations and WP:Close paraphrasing, even if you quote material that is your own. Frankly, the whole thing, despite its footnotes, reads like a blog, especially where it argues that Wang's "short and tightfitting dresses" and "daring clothing" "give the watchful observer a mine of technical and anatomical details" of "this exceptional artist". Sounds more like a wet dream than physiological analysis to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

After checking Wikipedia's policy, I agree that (Redacted)'s article is not considered as a reliable source for the biography of a living person (WP:BLPSPS). As regards your vicious and insulting comment about "wet dream", the author will modify the end of his article to protect himself against twisted minds. Thus, we shall leave music critics write, in quotable journals and against logic, that Yuja Wang's high-heel shoes induce heavy pedaling. Too bad!--Hgs.bdll (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:American composers

Isn't listed on the category page as non-diffusing...at least if it is I'm not seeing it. Am I missing something? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

But Category:American male composers is so marked: "It includes composers that can also be found in the parent category" and "there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory." Do I misunderstand the concept of category diffusion? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!

Precious

Six years!

It's lovely to see your thoughtful corrections on my watchlist, - I don't click thank-you for every single one I like, - so once a year I repeat how valuable you are! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rotating images!

This is an image

13 September 2018: Apparently, terminating a <span>...</span> in this fashion no longer works:
<span style="{{Transform-rotate|90}}">[[File:image.gif|thumb|100px|</span>This is an image]]

Thanks! I had searched everywhere but just couldn't find any way. However, I still can't find any way to rotate an image in a thumb like this. (which is what I had been searching for) I mean, yes, it's rotated but it's all gone wrong. Is there a way to do this as well? (without entering a lot of code to create a thumbbox as that's not very flexible) Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong how? Do you mean the rotated caption? I simply adjusted the location of </span> to exclude the caption in your example. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What the.. I tried that, exactly that! Turns (hee-haw) out, the exact same code that works here does not work on Dutch Wikipedia. Some templates are missing I think. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Judith Beckmann

Please can you confirm where, in the article, the place of birth is actually referenced? GiantSnowman 10:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts. Your edit summary said, "per MOS, see WP:OPENPARA"; I responded that that guideline did not recommend to remove the PoB altogether. If you had doubts about the veracity of the PoB as stated, you should have expressed that more clearly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Don Quichotte edit

I am new to attempting editing. You deleted my edit rather than asking for a citation ( which I have now re-edited and provided a citation). Why not ask for a citation instead of deleting ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiepax (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To avoid the pitfalls of WP:CRYSTAL, wouldn't it be more appropriate to wait until Don Quichotte has opened, and then use a review from a reputable source as a reference, instead of the primary source, which might disappear in the long run, you provided? As it is, your edit needs to be amended very soon. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Image notes/descriptions Das Walkure

Good afternoon. You took out the below the image descriptions on several pictures. Was that intentional? Rybkovich (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove any descriptions from pictures in Die Walküre, I just trimmed them (I made 1 mistake for the multiple sound files which has since been corrected). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think sometimes the descriptions are bigger than the pics themselves so I agree on the trimming. I think we should keep Hoffman's name in the description for end of Act I pic as he is the author of that work. Also I think there should be info re the source of the Hunding kills Siegmund pic. How about "Illustration from a german newspaper, 1876" or "... a Leipzig newspaper.." Rybkovich (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Or take out "newspaper" and keep Illustrirten Zeitung, Leipzig 1876 Rybkovich (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:Die Walküre so other interested editors can voice their opinion.
PS: Please consult Help:Show preview and consider the benefits of using it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Test edit??

I don't get it. How is Special:Diff/830522430, replacing a manual {{#ifeq:}} with the {{Sandbox other}} template, a test edit? Wouldn't its use make the syntax a bit less complicated? (Please ping me on your reply.) --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 11:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Stranger195: I was hasty and misunderstood your edit – I'm sorry. I got the impression the Wikipedia:Sandbox was transcluded into that page. When I realized that was not the case, I thought it wasn't worth self-reverting because nothing had changed functionally. I've now self-reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Haydn's anthem

I was wrong about Memel Anyway, I am right about Haydn's Concerto for clarin (or trumpet), composed a year before the anthem. You have a power to revert my writing, but it is out of the might of Wikipedia to revert neither the fact nor the melody. I will not insist, do as you wish. --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to your edit and my revert at Deutschlandlied. I think my edit summary is clear: the source you provided, AllMusic, does not support your claim that the melody first appeared in Haydn's Trumpet Concerto. It's true that the first five notes in that concert's andante are the same as the "Kaiserhymne" and the phrase structure is quite similar, but that's not what you wrote. The andante – in Ab major and 6/8 – opens with Ab–Bb–C–Bb–Db, the "Kaiserhymne" – in G major and alla breve – with G–A–B–A–C, but no other element of the "Kaiserhymne" appears in the concerto. If you find a reputable published source for this comparison or any other analysis, I encourage you to add it to both articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I should call it variation. [1] :) --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Alto

Thank you for your expert reversion of my edit to Template:Voice type.

I have belonged to a number of choruses, and I have always heard the main women's parts referred to as alto and soprano, and was given to understand that a contralto was a lower range than alto, as countertenor was higher than tenor. The example that comes to mind is Cynthia Gooding; I was a Theo Bikel fan, and their LP A Young Man And A Maid: Love Songs of Many Lands (Elektra, 1957) was one of my very favorites. I'm also familiar with the abbreviation SATB abbreviating the names of (what I thought of as) the four main parts in a choral arrangement, Soprano Alto Tenor Bass.

Consulting Merriam-Webster just now, though, I see "alto" defined as

1 a : countertenor

b : contralto

2 : the second highest voice part in a 4-part chorus

3 : a member of a family of instruments having a range lower than that of the treble or soprano; especially : an alto saxophone

You are clearly more familiar with the terminology than I am. I was going to say "evidently", but a quick look at your user page and *boxes shows that you are FAR more familiar with the whole field than this dabbler. :-)

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(watching) my simple understanding: contralto is operatic, in choirs (whether instruments or voices) it's alto. That's me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I'm aware of the use of the alto vocal range in choirs, but in English usage, it's not a voice type. No opera singer calls herself an alto, and (almost) no opera score calls for one. If you want to discuss this further, you should raise it at Template talk:Voice type (where it has been discussed before), or at Talk:Voice type. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you but no. As I implied above, you know your stuff in this area far better than I do, and I'm convinced that you are right. Cheers! --Thnidu (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot deletion

Hello Michael, Thank you for your diligent attention to so many Wikipedia articles. I do have a concern though. You deleted an entry I added to the "Waiting for Godot" page on a satire of the play called "Waiting for Godomino's," indicating in the page history that it was a "non-notable Hollywood Fringe parody." I agree that perhaps the play doesn't meet the notability guidelines to warrant its own separate Wikipedia article, but as the notability guidelines are different for material within an article, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article, I think the play does belong here. It was nominated for Best Comedy and for an Encore Producers' Award at the Hollywood Fringe Festival, and was on TheTVolution.com's Los Angeles Theatre: Best of 2017 list. Most mainstream publications in the L.A. area do not cover theater unless it's a show at a major venue, so many smaller productions go unnoticed in those sources, but are covered by very reliable lesser-known media. That does not mean these productions are any less notable, referring to both the general definition of the term as well as Wikipedia's guidelines. Forthearts (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume you refer to your 3 edits at Waiting for Godot. To get the opinion of other editors in this matter, this ought to be discussed at Talk:Waiting for Godot. I expressed my view in my edit summary, which was informed by the lack of reviews of the parody and the lack of an article for its creator. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Michael. I moved the discussion to the Waiting for Godot talk page, and appreciate your additional input and comments. Forthearts (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

My edit

It’s true it’s on other Wikipedia articles. Chefboiardee23 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Dave Brubeck

Regarding my recent edit on Dave Brubeck's page. For clarification, the first edit I made in the lead section was simply a rewording of the original text, which was very vague. I simply expanded the simplified phrasing which was already there. The terms used, such as 'deficiency', are very vague terms and have no value as to what that 'deficiency' is. A deficiency is a lack of something, I reworded it so that the something was given.

Second edit. Recall removing the information on George Patton. George Patton's Wikipedia page (which was by the way linked to the name) mention's his leadership in the third army. If you would wish me to find a source that exactly states Dave Brubeck's affiliation with George Patton, I will gladly do that. I believe that information is necessary, and therefore should be included in the text.

Could you briefly explain why you objected the edit in the lead section, as well as in the later section on his service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwrite New Mind (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This ought to be discussed at Talk:Dave Brubeck so other editors can express their views. I explained my reasoning in my edit summary: "source 1 makes no such connection; source 2 doesn't mention Patton." The source you provided doesn't say that Brubeck faked his way through his lack of reading music by creating melodies. The other source does not mention that Brubeck and Patton had any personal connection. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It's called F♯ major, without spelling out the word "sharp"

I disagree with your reason "use key names consistent with article names" for your edit to F♯ major. Articles are named "F-sharp major" etc rather than "F♯ major" for technical wiki-related reasons (e.g. for better searching and to avoid unicode) not because those are the more common or correct names. Musicians much more commonly write F♯ major rather than spelling out the word "sharp". Tayste (edits) 01:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Both terms are used in the literature, but a) the long version is predominant; b) Wikipedia articles are so named, despite, contrary what you assert, they don't have to be – see F♯ (musical note). It's not helpful for readers to change nomenclature for the same thing within an article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Travesti

Hi Michael, regarding your latest edit at the article La Salustia, I'd suggest you take a look at the incipit of the article Travesti (theatre), where the usage of the terms "travesti" and "en travesti" is dealt with. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jeanambr, regarding your edit where you linked to travesti, I suggest you take a look at that article – and at my replacement for your edit, en travesti. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Michael, of course you are completely right: my link was not correct at all, my original intention being to direct the link to the article Travesti (theatre). I apologise for my inattention. Nevertheless, the substantial problem I wished to point out to you remains unsolved, that is whether or not the use of the term "en travesti" is to be encouraged. The article En travesti is just a redirect to Travesti (theatre) and the latter states the term "en travesti" is possibly only of a "pseudo-French" origin. Sorry for bothering you.--Jeanambr (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the linguistic argument against the widely used term en travesti is weak. It's concise, and well understood. Even the French use it (fr:en travesti), as do Italians and Germans. I have no position on whether in travesti is preferable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Renée Fleming

I think that we'll have our hands full with Luluplatz, re: Renée Fleming. I've restored your last edit, with some touchup from my side. But I don't think that it'll take much time for Luluplatz to muck things up again. Will keep an eye on it. DJRafe (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Bavarian State Opera

Your edit of Bavarian State Opera is incorrect. The opera house was called "Residenztheater" at the time of inaugaration (1753) and later, today it is called "Cuvilliés-Theater" (at another location). So the correct link is "Cuvilliés Theatre|Residence Theatre" http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/jahre-cuvillies-theater-eine-buehne-fuer-den-goettlichen-herrscher-1.667403 Grimes2 (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Grimes2 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Beethoven 9th: staccato in 2nd movement theme

You removed some staccato dots from the 4th bar of the 2nd movement theme. But those dots were correct, according to the Breitkopf & Hartel edition of the score. (There should be dots in bars 2,3 & 4 but not elsewhere.) Or were you following a different source? JRB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.143.83 (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I was following Eulenburg No. 411 where the 1st violin in bar 12 has no staccatos. However, reading further in the score where every occurrence of that theme has staccatos for the theme's first descending line that may well be a mistake. If your B&H score shows staccatos there, please revert my edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. But the first edition is different again, so I've raised a question about it on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBritnell (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Carmina Burana

What is your logic in asking for more references, and your background in music, please? I would have thought that the existing mixture is entirely adequate: the absence of references in the last sentence is self-evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre d'Ailly (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Angelique Rockas

Re: Angelique Rockas Posted On Dear Doc James you cannot hurl accusations of a paid editors for Angelique Rockas when there is no need for proving what was produced. If you are way on holiday have you read the material? Making accusations of payment constiture libel. The same applies to you {Signed __Nescu23__} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nescu23 (talk • contribs) 10:31 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I made no such allegations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Link to Open Music Library

Dear Michael, I just noticed that you removed the link I added to the Open Music Library site from Mozart's page. My intention was to complement the list of external links to a site offering 1,376 digital scores by Mozart, plus thousands of articles from music journals and magazines, a curated list of YouTube videos, and more. I thought that by adding a link to the Open Music Library from Wikipedia, we would be enhancing users' experience when researching a composer, or discovering their works. I noticed that there are links to other sites that complements Wikipedia's content, e.g. IMDb, and I thought links to the Open Music Library would be an interesting addition. I'm very interested in understanding your objection to that link. Thank you. Avorio (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The objections to links to OML are outlined on your talk page, at User talk:Just-victor-santos, and more substantially at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Spam links to "Online Music Library" and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Spam links to "Online Music Library". I suggest to discuss this at the latter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope I may butt in here... Neither of the OML editors seems to have responded elsewhere. Apart from anything else, supposing that the OML entry for Daniel James Wolf (for example) was useful, for example based on an argument that his scores are all in copyright and do not appear at IMSLP, for example, why would the OML link be at the top of the list, ahead of the composer's own webpage? Imaginatorium (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries

No hard feelings. Just a personal thing. I'm not fond of interwiki links in the middle of Wikipedia articles. Although generally my stance would be, "surely we can use a simpler word". I've been reading Simple English Wikipedia a lot recently and I can't help but notice how often there are sentence structures which are far too hard for people learning basic English to understand. Not to mention dozens and dozens of basic spelling and grammatical errors! :) Stay well. Bobo. 14:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Brummell

Hi! I originally took down the poster for Brummell from the article because it is not free copyright (artist died 1976). I can't say that I worry much about this myself, but I thought that WP procedures don't like it. By the rules, the picture should be removed from Commons. There is some get-out I think if the picture is placed on Wikipedia as a file rather than on Commons, but I don't myself understand the niceties of the procedures. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Both. I moved the article to Brummell (opera) from the misspelled Brummel (opera). As for the poster, you're right, Smerus. It should be deleted from Commons where it currently has no license at all! As for uploading and using it locally on English Wikipedia, that would only be possible by using a "fair use" rationale. It's pretty hard to make the case for a poster. There's one here to justify the image at the top of Il Postino (opera), but I'm not sure of it would work in this case. Pity, really, but there you have it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't pay any attention to the copyright situation of File:Affiche brumel folies wagr.jpg, simply assuming that a file at Commons since 2014 and used at several article here and in other languages would have no problems in that regard. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The commons page previously had a PD saying creator unknown, and at the same time claiming the creator had been dead for over 70 years. However the creator's name is clearly on the poster and his dates are easily ascertainable. I edited the page accordingly and removed the PD, I've now nominated it for deletion.--Smerus (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Julian Lloyd Webber here. Your photo was taken at an event where photography was expressly forbidden. Please take it down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vstrad7 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean the image File:Jiaxin Cheng and Julian Lloyd Webber.jpg in article Julian Lloyd Webber where you are starting an edit war. As I wrote at c:User talk:Michael Bednarek#Photo of Jiaxin Cheng and Julian Lloyd Webber, I recommend you read c:Commons:Deletion requests. You may also have noticed that your edit at that file's description has been reverted by User:LX with the edit summary, "There are proper ways to request deletion. Vandalising file descriptions isn't it. Also: see c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#"House rules". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Your edits on the Julian Lloyd Webber page concerning his marriages are inaccurate. Dates and names are spelt wrong which I have corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobH2O (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please a) add new contributions on talk pages to the bottom; b) sign them. See Help:Talk pages.

Your edit and the one by 69.202.142.13, presumably also you, were probably well-intentioned but poorly executed. They left the article's infobox broken. Your edit also removed a citation that supported biographical details. I partly reverted your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Continued editing of Julian Lloyd Webber's page

Surely it would be best not to 'presume' anything on Wikipedia?

Your information is inaccurate - why have you inserted a question mark after the date of julian lloyd Webber's marriage to Celia Ballantyne?

Why are your links to various references (ie lloyd webber's support of Leyton Orient) irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobH2O (talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please singsign your edits; you'll find guidance on the matter at Help:Talk pages.

It's not my information but from cited sources. If they contradict each other, that should be signified. I don't understand your last question. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC) (corrected at 12:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC))

I know this is a musical topic, but I think demanding that your correspondents actually sing is a bit much... Imaginatorium (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does this keyboard do what I type and not what I mean? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Die Wacht am Rhein

Your recent editing history at Die Wacht am Rhein shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
-User:Учхљёная^{(talk,relevant directory,edits)}. 04:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC).

Balderdash and piffle. You misread WP:BRD. The article was stable before you made bold changes on 2 July, introducing an empty column, unnecessary repeating the refrain, and using garish colours. I restored the previous layout, improving indentation and other matters in the process. The onus of arguing in favour of your layout was then on you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you welcome new editors?

If so, can you give the welcome template of your choice to this new editor [2] who corrected an egregious error on the Maria Callas article? Thanks. :) Softlavender (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that that editor's persistence resulted in an improvement, although I wouldn't label the previous wording as "an egregious error". As for welcome: I've never done it, and I wouldn't know where to start from the welcome templates. I'm not a fan of barnstars and service awards, and I think your message on the editor's talk page is much more appropriate than just plonking a {{Welcome}} there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Intentional disambiguation

Hi, can you explain why you continue to undo my edit on [List_of_Latin_phrases_(O) this page]? That link is a redirect and I edited it so it points to the real page (which is the disambiguation page). Thank you. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain why you are undoing my edit, which is simply a correction of a link? With MY edit the links points to the correct page. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary at List of Latin phrases (O): "per WP:INTDABLINK". Please read those instructions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't understand it. In all examples I read, the final destination the the link is a page called "XXX (disambiguation)". But actually the real disambiguation page is not called "XXX (disambiguation)" but simply "XXX". So you are defending a link that points to a redirect, only because it's called "(disambiguation)" and you think it's a better destination for a link, am I wrong? I'm not completely against your idea, but I don't fully agree. I'll ask someone else about his opinion, hoping that you will not complain. If two of you say the same thing, you're highly probably right. Just like when people ask two different doctors about an illness. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I'm not going to disturb someone else. I'll assume that you're probably right. Just, please, think again about this. Your reasoning would be right for sure if the disambiguation page was the one called "disambiguation". But, since the "so-called-disambiguation" page is only a redirect, and the disambiguation function is made by another page, the link should point to the page that is used as the real disambiguation page, even if its title has not the specification between parenthesis. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not my reasoning, it's a longstanding guideline (see above) and accepted practice. This is done to distinguish between unintended, accidental links to disambiguation pages (Love Conquers All) which are always wrong and need to be corrected, and links that are intentional (Love Conquers All (disambiguation)) for a good reason and can stay. All this is explained at WP:INTDABLINK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Now I understand! The explanation present in that link wasn't enough for me (for my fault for sure). Your explanation in this page is clear. Thank you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cat uncite

Umm - how is "date parameter, which is displayed in the banner, is important for judging when those categories can be removed" possibly relevant? The only criterion relevant for judging when to remove a banner or categories is whether the problem has been cleared. Frankly, if it's a BLP with uncited material, then it should just go - in fact, that's what I'm going to do.Le Deluge (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine and I have no problem with that. I'm just used to give other editors who might be more familiar with the issue a chance to provide sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the meaning ...

... of the word "furphy". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I only realised after posting that 'furphy' is an Australian colloquialism, meaning 'often/widely believed, but not true/not standing up to scrutiny'. I now see that there's an article, furphy, with an extensive etymology. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I learned that an article should be self-contained, without needing Google. Also, google doesn't have a link to the composer's works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverting

I appreciate that you reverted this change to the Werner Klemperer article, but when you do so, please don't combine your reverting with other changes to the article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Moves

Hi are you able to move pages to a mainspace? I am trying to update and link some strathmore pages and one of them is a Guitarist that’s in draft mode? I’m new to this and don’t know quite how to request the moves. For future reference ( I have quite a few edits for young classical artists to make) is this something I can request through talks? Thanks for your help!! Stringsgtar (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Stringsgtar, Michael Bednarek has limited internet access until 28 August, so your question will likely not get answered till then. If you want a quicker answer, try WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Opéra bouffon ‎ to Opera buffa

article now merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:308F:7CE6:EF9A:8A98 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

FLAC and download size

Dear Michael,

I noticed that you modified some of my changes which included embeds of FLAC files instead of lower-quality Ogg versions, citing download sizes. I would like to let you know that I am changing this back, since the embedded player will actually be downloading a lower-bitrate Ogg version of the linked FLAC file, while letting the user follow the link to the highest-quality file if they so choose. This is similar to automatic image thumbnailing. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I did not know about the player's behaviour. Thanks for letting me know. Further, many thanks for {{Synthlisten}}, although the underlying mw:Extension:Score, via {{Synthaudio}} (kudos!), is temperamental and has failed recently, and it's very slow. When you get a chance, could you have a look at my comments at Template talk:Synthlisten about harmonizing the template's behaviour with {{Listen}}. TIA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Grove

Regarding this edit. You may be interested to know that I've made a family of new templates for citing Grove that try to address issues like that as well as be more consistent, support the full CS1 set of functions and parameters etc. {{cite Grove}} is the equivalent to {{GroveOnline}}. There was very little interest on the original's talk page when I announced it, so it's had little real world testing. But it's got a test suite that suggests it's at least correct in the obvious cases. So some caution is merited, but I don't think there's any big problem with using it in mainspace. In any case, since you edited to fix one of the issues that prompted me to write the new modules, I figured you might be interested. Otherwise, my apologies for the disturbance. --Xover (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of {{cite Grove}}; I will try to remember using it when the need arises. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Your modification of my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbell made the site so much cleaner, and also gave me insight into how edits can be done well. Thank you for your good work!

(Sorry for polluting your page, but I don't see the "thank" line on my browser (Safari)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyKathinka (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Archive 14 of your User Talk page - Problem!

I tried to read the Archive 14 of your User Talk page but there is an intruding image that makes most of the lower part of the page unreadable. Hope this notification is helpful. By the way, thanks for your efforts in helping to clean up Laura Tingle. Cheers! 110.22.191.65 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the problem. I can only assume that Wikipedia's behaviour has changed since that was written. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Aida

Excuse me, but isn't that overcategorization? Regards, -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the note at Category:Operas, and WP:DUPCAT. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Deutschlandlied IPA

Why did you remove the IPA pronunciation of the anthem? Because it would be good for non-native German speakers to read the pronunciation. I should have to restore it right away. ApprenticeFan work 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The IPA section you introduced at Deutschlandlied has been contentious. If there is no free reliable published source for it, it's much better not to have it. This has been discussed on your talk page, on the article's talk page and it the edit summaries of its history. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Grand Guignol;

You removed A DEAD link.GOOD work.

Boy, you he a very busy life. 'The past is prologue…' 08:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOwenNYC (talk • contribs) 08:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions with ~~~~.

I assume you refer to your edit at Grand Guignol and my subsequent reversal, restoring a proper link to fr:rue Chaptal. You can read about the construction and usefulness of interlanguage links at Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links and Template:Interlanguage link. You can read about bad and good red links at WP:RED. WP:ALLCAPS will tell you about conventions regarding that styling. Your contribution above would benefit from some careful revision and editing; it might clarify what you're trying to say. As it is, the 2nd sentence is incomprehensible.

I don't understand how "what's past is prologue" relates to your edit or to your criticism of my edit? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

New Film page

Hi Michael,

Can you help in adding a new page for a film which will come soon to theater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanshriki (talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Sept. 30, 2018

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for fixing my comments.

I'm not familiar with the process.

I found, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", very interesting and wanted to contribute to this page.

Especially facinating, for me, I suppose, since I had my own trial in the Supreme Court this year and the process is amazing, (this Latin phrase applied to the other side).

Thank you, once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.227.20.10 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Good morning,

Regarding page below, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", I thought bringing into a Judicial Hearing for a new Supreme Court Justice this Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in everything", dating back to the seventeenth century, being spoken in modern 2018, would be a relevant addition to this page.

Further, this language being used by a U.S. Senator, who is from Connecticut, Senator Richard Blumenthal, who was false and lied, on numerous occasions about serving in Vietnam, is an example of where we have come over several hundred years.

Today, not only is the person being questioned being accused of, "if you lie once, you lie often", but, it is coming from a questioner, who lied once, possibly lying often".

This is deep and should be told.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus#Modern

On September 27, 2018, during the Supreme Court Nomination hearing of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal ironically asked Judge Kavanaugh if he knew what the words, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, means.

Senator Blumenthal was caught lying, on numerous occasions, about serving in Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.227.20.10 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2018‎ (UTC)

Please add new threads to the bottom of the page and sign with ~~~~; see WP:TALK and WP:SIGN.

The material you mention needs reliable published sources before it can be included in Wikipedia articles; see WP:RS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Added reliable published sources:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408857-rep-sen-blumenthal-lied-for-years-should-reconsider-questioning-kavanaughs?amp September 27, 2018 - 07:01 PM EDT By Megan Keller

www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-blumenthal-walk-out-20180928-story,amp.html?espv=1 By Neil Vigdor, Contact Reporter September 28, 2018 - 10:05 AM EDT

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/09/28/look-in-the-mirror-dick-blumenthal/amp/ By Rush Limbaugh - Sep 28,2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.227.20.10 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Das-lila-Lied.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Long short description

I appreciate the intention in your addition to the short description in The Dream of Gerontius. I've only recently been adding SDs and try to adhere to the guideline "A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary" (WP:SHORTDESC). The guideline doesn't fully explain the motivation for 40, but my guess is that some version of the mobile interface truncates the SD to that length. That said, I think the resulting "Choral work by Edward Elgar about the jo" includes the most salient facts about the work, so all's good. Do you have any personal guidelines for length? David Brooks (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I edited The Dream of Gerontius mainly to add links to some authors. I then noticed the short description, where the omission of the composer struck me as odd, so I added it. I didn't consider the length, but 40 characters seems reasonable. In this case, I would recommend to omit the "about …" part. I think every short description for a musical work should give the genre, the composer, and probably the year: e.g. for Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven): "1824 choral symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven", but I haven't spent much thought on a systematic approach for classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think your approach is right - the result for a general audience is better than mine, anyway. As to consistency: given that SD's are fairly new, that's another thing for every wikiproject to think about. Apparently the idea is have to have infoboxes generate the description (which will bring consistency), in this case with an edit to {{Infobox musical composition}}. But the problems with that are (a) some of the updated infoboxes I've seen are already generating buggy descriptions; it's fairly hard to get right (b) the longer that an infobox goes unupdated, the more inconsistent descriptions get dropped directly into the article :-( I'd hope the short description team is aware of the second issue, at least, but they seem to think that the specific description should take precedence over the infobox-generated one, which is not always the right choice imo. David Brooks (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@DavidBrooks: A local short description should and must always take precedence over an automatically generated one from an infobox or other template; for the simple reason that local consensus is a) better informed about any special issues applicable and b) local consensus overrides general guidelines (Manual of Style is overridden by local consensus, for example). (the reverse, of course, isn't true: local consensus does not affect other articles) However, for some things there may be wider community consensus to limit the scope for local consensus. Policy, for example, always overrides any differing local consensus; and most pages actually labelled "Guideline" (because the process for that involves establishing a wide consensus) have the net effect of limiting the scope of local consensus. Which long-winded expostulation is to say: there may eventually be a guideline that limits what local editors may put into the article-local short description, which will have the same effect even if the local template, as a technical matter, overrides the one from the infobox.

Anyways, I mainly wanted to chime in to say: don't worry overmuch about any specific character length. Michaels reasoning is the right track: figure out what are the absolutely vital datums to include, and then find the shortest possible formulation of them that is legible even if they're not good grammar or prose. Operas, symphonies, and TV episodes can probably mostly be automatically generated, and when not they can still be pretty short. But ancient manuscripts that have deep political, social, or historic significance and similar weird edge cases will probably need about a tweet's worth of text to make any sense. They will be the exceptions, but they will exist. (previous unsigned comment made by User:Xover; thanks for the guidance David Brooks (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC))

The Barber of Seville

Bonjour Michael Bednarek,

You can write "Pierre Caron", or, like we say in France, "Beaumarchais" or "Pierre de Beaumarchais", but never "Pierre Beaumarchais". I have tried to change the title of the article but I don't see how to do.

Si vous aimez Beaumarchais, vous apprécierez sûrement cette conférence donnée à Los Angeles par James Conlon : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYFixRjYkuw

Cordialement

Aorist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aorist (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Please add your contributions to a talk page at its bottom; see WP:BOTTOMPOST.) The Wikipedia article on M. Caron is named Pierre Beaumarchais and a category tree at Category:Pierre Beaumarchais is named accordingly. Before making changes in some articles, you should raise the matter at Talk:Pierre Beaumarchais. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Operas

Hello Michael, but this looks WP:OVERCAT to me... --- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 08:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) ALL operas have the category "operas", intentionally so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat:, for details see the note at Category:Operas and at WP:DUPCAT, which I alluded to in my edit summary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes Ok, I've read now. But, couldn't at this point be Operas a non-topical category (a hidden, flat list)? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 10:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Good point, although I don't know how WP:HIDDENCAT would apply here. You should raise it at WT:WikiProject Opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Les cent vierges

Thank you so much for spotting the intrusive grave accent. It raises a technical problem I don't know how to deal with, and if you have any suggestions I'd be v. glad to see them on the article talk page. (The misspelling also means amending about twenty other pages, but that's my problem.) Best wishes, Tim riley talk 09:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a brief thank you for pulling me out of two different holes of my own making on this article. Bless you! Tim riley talk 18:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Interactive map on Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan

Hi Michael, I've reverted this reversion of the interactive map. While I acknowledge that the Manhattan pushpin map does provide more detail at first glance, the interactive map can be zoomed-in and panned-around, which makes it more useful for the readers. That's why I added it to most NYC neighborhood articles. If you want to restore the pushpin map, that's fine - in fact, I've restored the Manhattan pushpin map. But please don't remove the interactive map as well, because it's also useful. Thank you, epicgenius (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

epicgenius: I have my doubts about that map's usefulness. As I found the article, it showed a map that covered an area about 20 miles in diameter, well into NJ and Long Island. Compared to the the pushpin map of Manhattan, I thought that was unhelpful. As for interactive features: the WikiMiniAtlas provided that already, and better, because it works in a window on the article page, instead of opening a new full screen on a scale where I have difficulty to make out Manhattan – it reaches from Harrisburg to Montauk. There may be a) a place for these kind of maps, and maybe b) their initial zoom can be adjusted, but a) IMO they're unsuited for a neighborhood of a few blocks, and b) the code for {{Maplink}} is impenetrable. Naturally, I won't revert, but I might add a pushpin map when an article needs some other edits, as you did with HK; thanks for that. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand your objection. As for the code being really complex: you can just look at {{Maplink/doc}} to change the parameters, such as the zoom level, as well as where the map is centered. For the zoom level objection, I'd say that an easy solution would be to change the zoom level so it would show only Manhattan when displayed in the infobox, and zooms out to the New York City area once it is opened in full screen. Would it be OK with a higher zoom level (like as shown on the right)? Also, if you want, I can easily add the borders of Hell's Kitchen using GeoJSON. epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That's much more functional. If it had looked like this, I would not have gone back to the pushpin map, although I still think that the behaviour of WikiMiniAtlas is prefrerable to maplink's opening of a new page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

confusion of month and year

In La clemenza di Tito, writing that "July 1791" was "the last year" is incorrect. This is why an edit is needed, for example saying "July of 1791" to separate the two notions (month and year). I'll add an edit back in as you are away for some time, but feel free to discuss when you are back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikem Paul (talk • contribs) 12:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Michael Bednarek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Lecocq operas

I'm much in your debt for opening, and doing the necessary on, the talk pages for my recent contributions. I feel a little guilty at the thought of making anyone read all the stuff I've been turning out, but I'm very grateful nonetheless. Best wishes, and thanks, Tim riley talk 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

De nada; it's always a pleasure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cheer up, not everyone is out to destroy Wikipedia!

Govvy (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Listing Marilyn Horne as Music Academy of the West Alumni

Thank you for pointing out that I added Marilyn Horne to Category:Music Academy of the West alumni without a source. I have since found the book I read it in, and added the source. If you don't mind, could you take a look at the page in question in google books?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=1-880909-71-5+%22music+academy+of+the+west%22+%2252%22

If the Marilyn Horne page has to be removed from that category again, please accept my apologies for creating unnecessary trouble! OrestesLebt (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks very much Richard D Siegel (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Impact

Impact

Thank you for your impact
consistently caring for precision and sourcing, with the tools of your exes and brain!

Thought of you, with the MiR pictured on the Main page ;) - singing WO was great, and more to come. Wishing you a musical season, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't archive too much

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silent_Night&curid=1246130&diff=875141981&oldid=875024194 The settings are to leave three threads. You archived too much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Look again at the edit history. I set up the autoarchiving to leave 3 threads, then the bot started its thing, but left 2 threads from 2004, which I then manually archived. If you disagree, you can restore whatever you feel is necessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Buon Natale

May you have a very Happy Christmas, Michael ...

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

Best wishes and many thanks for all your work at Project Opera, Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit on the Monthly

Michael your 'citation required' edit on the entry under Arts and Letters comes under the scope of something that is readily able to be confirmed by the facts. No citation is either required or possible other than by referring to the magazine itself. I refer you to the following guideline on the use of the citation needed tag: "If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you doubt that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself. In the process, you may end up confirming that the statement needs to be edited or deleted to better reflect the best knowledge about the topic. Gumsaint (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That section in the article on The Monthly contains two claims that need to be supported by citations: that Forster won a prize (a claim that is not supported in his own article because the link there is dead), and that the magazine ceased publishing letters from readers. If the latter is noteworthy, it should be sourcable; if it's not sourcable, it's probably not notable. I also added a tag to the next section, "The Nation Reviewed", because the claimed connection to Nation Review needs a source. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A Portuguesa

"that is not a reliable source for IPA"

That's true, and I would say the same for the overwhelming majority of anthem articles with (dubious) IPA transcriptions. Plus, many of these transcriptions are unsourced. Should they all be removed then? (Maybe a discussion is necessary as well?) 50.194.62.1 (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, unsourced IPA transcriptions ought to be removed. Citations are a core policy, so I don't see the need to discuss this, but feel free to raise it – just let me know where. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Rossini

Just a brief note to let you know that Smerus and I have been working on an overhaul of the Rossini article and are nearly ready to go ahead. As you are, as far as I can see, the only major contributor still active I thought I ought to let you know in advance. We propose to take the article to peer review once our changes are posted, where, needless to say, any thoughts will be most welcome. Meanwhile if we have omitted or changed anything you think we shouldn't, I hope you will shout out. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 21:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Tim: Thanks for the notice. I'm definitely not a major contributor to Gioachino Rossini – just a minor gnome. This comparison seems to indicate that it's a complete rewrite, to which I can't contribute much. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I see. Sorry to have got the wrong end of the stick. You'd still be most welcome at the peer review if the spirit moves you. (And thank you for today's batch of gnoming!) Tim riley talk 11:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Johann Pachelbel

Hello Michael
You added a citation request in the "Popularity of the Canon in D" section here a while ago; I've posted a comment on the talk page (here), if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Category reversions

Please read the articles you're dealing with before removing articles from categories because they're in both a parent and a child category. Most of the people you removed from the "non-fiction writers" category were non-fiction authors and people who wrote columns/other side gigs. Categorising someone who is primarily known as a bestselling non-fiction author (as you did with Peter FitzSimons) as solely a columnist because he also writes a newspaper column is just nonsense. If you want to completely diffuse the non-fiction writers category, then there needs to be a "non-fiction authors" subcategory or somesuch to house the many cases like this - otherwise you're just creating a category outcome that is inarguable nonsense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT/WP:DIFFUSE/WP:DUPCAT: Generally, I don't make Wikipedia guidelines, I just follow them. As long as Category:Australian non-fiction writers is not marked with {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}, I see no reason not to follow those guidelines. FitzSimons is categorised in Category:Australian biographers, Category:Australian columnists, Category:Australian sportswriters – all subcategories of Category:Australian non-fiction writers and thus subject to WP:SUBCAT etc, as are similar writers from other countries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT does not insist that you remove the parent in every context without thinking - it merely says that the situation should be addressed. FitzSimons is primarily known as a broad non-fiction author, not a biographer, not a columnist, and not a sportswriter, although he also does all of those things. The edit did not make any sense whatsoever if you actually considered the article subject, and it isn't my role to pre-emptively tag the entire Australian category tree to stop you from making stupid edits because you refuse to think before you edit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions as to how "the situation should be addressed" in the case of Peter FitzSimons? Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that it may not be a category that can be completely diffused, unless you're going to create a "non-fiction authors" subcategory to house all of these people as distinct from journalists, sportswriters, columnists and all the other things non-fiction authors sometimes do as side gigs. The "non-fiction writers" category is the only possible place to put them in the current tree without alterations and/or only categorising them by their side gigs, the latter approach of which doesn't make sense. Another option would be to make it entirely non-diffusing, which is practically unnecessary in the case of people who do fit entirely within subcategories but solves the problem in a black-and-white way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories need not be completely diffused; WP:DIFFUSE says "It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused—some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category". You could create a "general non-fiction authors" category ("Sometimes proper subcategorization requires the creation of new categories") but that seems to be a somewhat contrived solution to the problem, as well as introducing the problem of how you define "general non-fiction". Marking the specific sub-categories (biographers, journalists), as non-diffusing would also solve the problem, but I don't think that's appropriate - those categories are not necessarily "subsets which have some special characteristic of interest". Probably a better approach would be to create new specific sub-categories (Australian historical non-fiction authors, ...sports..., ...humour..., etc) and add the article to those categories. Some of these would be quite small, but reasonable as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Categorization § A need for guidance. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert on Waltzing Matilda

Hi Michael, you reverted my edit on Waltzing Matilda. I was trying to remove the 'first space broadcast of a song by astronauts' claim. I indicated 'see talk' in my edit summary and was wondering if you had a chance to look at my comments there? You cited 'authoritative source' when reverting, but the Australian Geographic was not even established at the time of the event and, for one, is clearly misstating the year of the broadcast (it was in 1981, not 1983). I believe I am citing a good contemporary source, the UPI article from 1981 (UPI archive link) that makes no mention of the broadcast being a first of any kind. Of course, UPI might have just missed the fact that it was a first, but is there any other source for the claim? The second source cited (Orroral) is just a recording and does not make the claim(?). (I think discussion should probably continue on the article's talk page.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glimz (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2019 (AEST) (UTC)

Please sign your messages using four tildes: ~~~~.

As you suggested, I've copied your message to the article's talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, did some more research on the space claim. Not sure if you're being notified, but I wrote here: Talk:Waltzing Matilda#More research on space broadcast claim: it's false -- Glimz (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Velocity (disambiguation)

I'm a little confused as to why you think Velocity (disambiguation) shouldn't have a redirect to dynamics which explains what velocity is in the context of MIDI.

The articles you linked to even mention disambiguation pages are there so "other uses of the term can be found." Anyone that's played around in a DAW or with a MIDI device/program will likely come across or hear the term velocity. It's a fairly popular term based on web results: "velocity midi" (~7mil), "keyboard expression velocity" (~2.7mil), "DAW velocity -midi" (>300k). The term has made its way into a bit of literature (~40k books containing "velocity midi"). The article on MIDI has a link to the term velocity that just directly links to dynamics.

The whole reason I added it was because I remembered velocity before I remembered dynamics. Wikipedia didn't deliver when I attempted to look up the former. Whatchildisthis (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Your entry at Velocity (disambiguation) was: "*Velocity (MIDI), the way MIDI handles musical dynamics such as forte, pianissimo, etc.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Music Technology|last=|first=|publisher=|year=2012|isbn=1107000807|location=|pages=65}}</ref>".

MOS:DAB, specifically MOS:DABENTRY, strictly requires exactly one clickable link, and that references should not be used. Further, Wikipedia:Disambiguation makes a distinction between disambiguation pages and broad-concept articles. Your entry would fit into such an article, but that's not what Velocity (disambiguation) is – it's a disambiguation page, not a memory aid. An entry for Velocity (MIDI) or MIDI velocity on the disambiguation page would be justified if such an article existed, or at least a section discussing the concept in the MIDI or Dynamics (music) article and a REDIRECT to that section. That approach would comply with all the rules, guidelines, customs, and improve Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Trout

For future reference, when someone like me does something this effing stupid, please WP:TROUT me. face palm. Sorry about that and thank you for catching the issue!! I've gone through and fixed it but really appreciate you tagging me in the edit summary where you fixed it. Thanks again! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)