Jump to content

User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Ode to Joy

Hi, I added below section on Ode to Joy article.

Ode to Joy was used at many sporting events


I think that UEFA music category was supported by article.

Is there any problems on my contribution?

I think that you are good at music.

I hope that you improve my contibution on Ode to Joy.

Thanks.

Footwiks (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This would better be raised at Talk:Ode to Joy to give other interested editors a chance to weigh in.
The text you inserted claims that Ode to Joy melody was used at many sporting events, followed by one bullet point linking to a disambiguation page and a video on YouTube. a) That's not "many". b) That YouTube video is a promotional video of unknown origin and has nothing to do with UEFA European Qualifiers – it's for the 2018 FIFA World Cup and that article only mentions "Live It Up" as its official song – no mention of "Ode to Joy". So, at best we have a YouTube video, which is not a reliable source, that uses the Ode, but has no relation to UEFA European Qualifiers. Further, there's no mention of the Ode at UEFA Europa League Anthem. Conclusion: We don't have a) any source confirming it as "Official Anthem"; b) any source that supports this usage as notable. I removed your edits because these requirements were not met. I suggest you self-revert your edits. The procedure to follow in these cases is WP:BRD; you were not supposed to re-add your material until after the "discussion" bit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

1) Really, Ode to Joy is used at the many sporting events. But I don't remember them all. So I just edited one example. But There are many examples: Nagano 1998 Opening Ceremony Beethoven Ode to Joy

2) That's not promotional video. That video had relation with UEFA. You can check out the UEFA PRESENTS on European Qualifiers Intro - Video.
Live It Up is the official song of 2018 FIFA World Cup(From June~To July). We are discussing about song at 2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying.

3) There are some more videos UEFA - European Qualifiers Intro/Song extended, European Qualifiers - Official Theme Song
Ode to Joy is used certainly at the UEFA European Championship qualifying and 2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying.

4): Conclusion: Ode to Joy is used certainly as anthem at the UEFA Official Intro Video of UEFA European Championship qualifying and 2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying. But I think that this not important topic. More discussion is waste of time. Anyway thanks for your opinion.Footwiks (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think we can agree that Michael is "good at music", and it is nice of you to say so. He is also absolutely right when he says This would better be raised at Talk:Ode to Joy to give other interested editors a chance to weigh in. If it is, then I shall. For now, in passing, I just wanted to add that the only reference currently given for that usage ascribes it to Mozart, which gives me a bit of a Bad Feeling about its credibility. I am shutting up for now but will look to see if we can discuss this at the Talk page. With best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ European Qualifiers Intro Video

Removal of 2019 Protests at Guggenheim Museum

I noted that you removed the entry in the history section of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum article that documented the recent protest and its background, namely the link of the museum to the Mortimer Sackler family and their connection to the opioid epidemic. You say it is "not of encyclopedic importance". Can you please explain what brings you to that conclusion? Ekem (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum where a discussion about other material has recently come to that conclusion; see also the article's history. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mozart Piano Sonata #12

"What does Francis Schonken's - whatever - mean?" can't be answered until the end of his block, and he is blocked for an improper merge, so perhaps no need to wait. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert on AMP

Hi Michael,
You again reverted my addition of the "Association for Molecular Pathology" on the AMP disambiguation page with the comment "nothing to disambiguate". Maybe I am not getting something right here. But when I was looking for information about this association on Wikipedia, I ended up at this disambiguation page with no information about the association. I do think that there is something to disambiguate, whether or not an article already exists. And I would personally prefer if a disambiguation page would at least give me information about another potential meaning of an abbreviation - even if it does not have a full-fledged article. But maybe the Wikipedia rules state somewhere that there is nothing to disambiguate if Wikipedia does not (yet) contain a full article. Please let me know if that's the case. Thanks.
Cheers,
Andreas
--Keilandreas (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! The purpose of disambiguation pages is described at MOS:DAB: Disambiguation pages ... are non-article pages designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term. Material that should not be included in disambiguation pages is governed by WP:DABNOT. MOS:DABRED explicitly disallows entries that don't have any blue links. Only if an article for the association exists, and I think it should, can it be included on that disambiguation page. Gruß, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, even though WP:DABNOT does not prohibit including an unlinked article, I can see how a strict interpretation of MOS:DAB and MOS:DABRED can lead to the conclusion of not having AMP in this list at all (neither as red link nor unlinked). However, I still think that including the Association for Molecular Pathology in this disambiguation page would help readers to find the right article (or conclude that there is none and or that one should be created) rather than inadvertently clicking on Americans for Medical Progress (which seems to be another association in a somewhat related area). In this sense, listing other meanings (even if there is no article yet) would actually help with disambiguation. My personal experience while looking for more information on the Association for Molecular Pathology was that after ending up at the disambiguation page, I was still unclear as to whether or not Wikipedia has any info on this association. What is your suggestion to improve this experience? Should I create an article stub and then add a blue link? I did not want to go that far since I barely have any info on this association and could probably just create an article stub. However, I do think that the association merits an article. Thanks for your guidance, Michael. Keilandreas (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I can only suggest again that you create an article. More fundamental points about the content of disambiguation pages need to be raised at the relevant talk pages, including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Alrighty, I just created a draft for the article. Now, I am wondering whether I should add the blue link to the draft to the disambiguation page, which is what Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Add_to_a_disambiguation_page seems to suggest. I could also add links to the draft article in other Wikipedia articles that are already referring to the Association, i.e. to Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.. -- Keilandreas (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much about drafts, but from observation I'm sure that links from article space to drafts are not allowed; see MOS:LINKSTYLE where it says: "Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles". I suggest to develop your draft a little further, e.g. adding independent sources, and then moving it to article space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I am hoping that other Wikipedians will also discover the draft and help adding more information. Again, thanks for your help. Cheers, Andreas --Keilandreas (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
discovered by below ;) - Andreas, I looked, and what prevents it from being moved to article space is that so far the only "reference" is what they say themselves, - that should go to External links, as official website. References should be independent, but can't be difficult to find if they were in that law case. I formatted a bit, please do these things next time (avoid white space, reference with name can be called by name, reference after punctuation). Consider to delete empty infobox parameters. I'll watch and comment more on the draft talk of needed. Nice to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If Toscanini conducts Mozart's Requiem, Rossini's Stabat Mater and Bruckner's Te Deum

If you do not believe me, you can look at yourself, look at scontent.ffco1-1.fna.fbcdn.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.77.123.87 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Gallup (company) edits

Michael Bednarek: Thanks for your help with Donald O. Clifton earlier this month. Can you review a request to update the introduction at Gallup (company) if you have time? GallupMS (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never edited the article Gallup (company) before, and looking at its talk page, I notice several past requests. Those were discussed there and, on a quick reading, mostly implemented. There seem to be a number of editors interested in that article, and I suspect your latest proposal will be discussed there soon. At this time, I don't want to take on any more articles, but if feel free to contact me again if no further discussion on that talk page develops. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replying! I will try to develop the conversation at Talk:Gallup (company) some more. GallupMS (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Close harmony edit

The problem with my edit seems to have occurred because I did it in the Wikipedia app. I actually just wanted to edit the article text grammar, not the notation symbols above. — TrottieTrue (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

La noche de los mayas

Looking at your actions on talk, I see that I seem to have got the capitalization wrong in La Noche de los Mayas (suite). Sorry about that, anyhow Jerome has fixed it.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Re: [1] I took it off because, I believe it was inserted with the intention of pushing the reference in question. I became aware of it through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Potential_COI_editing_by_several_(related)_IPs Graywalls (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Adam Hills

Hey, thanks for forcing me to source the info about Hills's ancestry; it turns out he had both Maltese and AUSTRIAN, not German, ancestry, something I wouldn't have received clarity about, without having been forced to find one so I could edit his article, then add the categories back in. BTW, if one source alone isn't adequate (and I don't know how to add a second one without making it look super awkward), here's one to the official SBS (Australian TV channel) website, though the video no longer exists on the site: https://www.sbs.com.au/programs/video/22619204001/Who-Do-You-Think-You-Are-S5-Ep4-Adam-Hills . 12.247.3.50 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Who the hack is Hawkins?

Who the hack is Hawkins? Roooooon (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume you refer to me reverting your edit at Baroque pop. You inserted some assertion into a sentence that was sourced to a book by Stan Hawkins. My edit summary questioned whether that source supported your text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn‘t my source. But Baroque pop is generally associated with flower power, psychedelia and the 1960‘s. Roooooon (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Named references

I routinely name all references I create, so that they can easily be re-used. I see that you have removed names from several refs in Veronica Dunne (soprano). Why? Is there any guideline or policy to support your un-naming? Thanks. PamD 06:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that named references indicate that a reference is indeed used more than once. If it's not, I routinely remove the names to indicate that they're not. Is there a guideline or policy that recommends naming all references? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
In the section to which you link, see "You may optionally provide reference names even when the reference name is not required. This makes later re-use of the sourced reference easier. If an editor opts to add such names, please don't remove them. And the Visual Editor of course adds a ghastly numeric "name" like ":1" to each reference automatically. PamD 06:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Colin Aguiar

I too am here to complain, but not about the same thing as Pam is. Here is the thing: You removed Category:Scorewriters and explained it as "inappropriate". The article's lead states: known for writing music to such films as Rosie Takes the Train... Writing music is characterized as a scorewriter. Music in films is called score, fyi.--Biografer (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Colin Aguiar writes, i.a., film scores. The category Scorewriters is for Scorewriters, which is obvious when one looks at the articles listed in that category. The appropriate category for Aguiar is Category:Canadian film score composers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

From demagogues to dictators

Michael Bednarek, it took 2½ years, but I finally got around to adding a section to Demagogue on how demagogues convert their democracies to dictatorships and restored the part of the lead that mentions this—as you argued for way back in November 2016. Please have a look and correct, improve, and/or criticize! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Klebe

Happy vacation! - Just found a pic of Klebe when he was young, p. 17. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed

I suggest to use a "citation needed" tag, rather than erasing content when it lacks a citation. Avecus (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Birthday for Kerry Armstrong - Her birthday is actually the 12th of September 1958

Hi There,

I understand you are changing Kerry's birthdate back to the 3rd of January - this birthdate is actually incorrect and on behalf of Kerry as her talent agency, Marquee Management, we amending this to her actual birthdate, which is the 12th of September 1958.

Happy to discuss this further if need be.

Thank you Michael

Kindest

Emily www.marqueemgt.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqueeassistant (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Marqueeassistant: The only available sources for Kerry Armstrong's birthday give 3 January. I have no reason to doubt your assertion, but Wikipedia relies on reliable published sources. If you can provide those, the article can be corrected accordingly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Michael Bednarek: Unfortunately the only public site I could find have have her correct DOB are below. Could you please let me know if these suffice?
Please let me know if you need anything further, or if there is another credible way of correcting the article.
Kindest
Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqueeassistant (talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution might be to simply omit the day and month entirely per WP:BLPPRIVACY? --Xover (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Marqueeassistant: I'm afraid none of those are reliable, reputable sources. Her extensive CV at Marquee Management doesn't mention her DoB, so I agree with User:Xover that the most prudent thing is to omit it from her article, which I have done now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Michael Bednarek: Hi Michael and User:Xover Please try to download her CV again from the Marquee page - I have now added her DOB into her CV. Please let me know if this is suitable or if there are problems.

Kindest Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqueeassistant (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- Softlavender (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Colorized Photo of S. Rachmaninoff Unsuitable

Hello Michael Bednarek,

Why is it that the colorized photo of S. Rachmaninoff was taken down from the page? I cited the original photograph source (senar.ru/photos). I personally own the colorized version. Please explain what else I need to make it suitable.

Thanks, MHN8 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)MHN8

This ought to be discussed at Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff. In the meantime, I recommend reading MOS:LEADIMAGE. I suggest that your image doesn't conform with several principles there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Citation Needed!

Blimey! I mean, gosh, yes, quite, to say the very least. I am somewhat in the business and would be going pretty much insane with ... well, a variety of things ... if there were a reliable source for this. I feel I should call a couple of people and see if they know whether it's been found fallen down the back of the radiator or used to line a drawer, as you do ... cheers DBaK (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for adding the removal of categories. Sorry for forgetting. Also, if you can, please let me know if you think this article is complete/relevant enough for an actual article. Thank you. --KoRoBeNiKi Medical Coder, chess specialist, retired SSBWiki rollback, hi? 03:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to User:KoRoBeNiKi/sandbox about Gabriel Kreuther and his restaurant. I'm afraid this subject is outside my normal range of interests, but it certainly seems notable, and the draft seems reasonably sourced. Good luck, Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That is correct. Sorry for not specifying. I think I'll add it and see where it goes. There is less notable restaurants listed with 1 Michelin star. --KoRoBeNiKi Medical Coder, chess specialist, retired SSBWiki rollback, hi? 20:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Groundhog Day

Have you seen the film "Groundhog Day"? There is a section where Bill Murray's character spends considerable time to learn the variation you seem to detest. I'm from PA, so maybe I can appreciate some Pennsylvania humor mixed with some great classical music? I'm wondering why you can't. I'll admit, my first edit was a bit shabby, but you could've improved upon it rather than vandalize. How say ye? - 100.14.80.135 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume you refer to your edits at Sergei Rachmaninoff#Use of Rachmaninoff's music in films where you added Groundhog Day. As I wrote in my edit summary: "this section needs sources, not more uncited material." As it is, the whole section ought to be removed as unsourced trivia. BTW, that film is mentioned in Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, where it is of more relevance, although it still needs to be supported by a source (I can't find any mention of this in the film's article.) Please familiarize yourself with WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, and related policies and guidelines. I'll let your characterization of my edits as "vandalism" go to the keeper, but you might benefit from reading WP:AGF. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The Rhapsody article is a more appropriate place (if one is chained to having only one mention of it), however, seeing mention of that Variation where it was, I remembered the Groundhog Day film and added it there, too. (and you didn't remove the other mention of the Variation) I didn't think of checking the Rhapsody article first, and being as the director of Bill Murray's greatest film is also deceased, it seemed a fitting tribute to Sergei as well. (it wasn't intended primarily to attract the axe) The point of "good faith" : Jesus (Christ) said only God is good, not accepting such description even to Himself. There is visible plain view at wiki of belief in lies, even though some may have efforted to edit in 'good faith'. Sourcing previous errors only propagates more error. When it comes to sourcing at wiki, wiki (that is, all wikipedians) needs to be mindful of the Source. At point blank, all imagery is deemed illegal by the law, but through the patronage of saints and graces given, acting is allowed for a variety of reasons and ends. It becomes like fine wine, you can hear its taste described, but it is another thing to enjoy it as it really is. So I don't hold it against anyone for not including the part in Groundhog Day of the Rachmaninoff Variation in the plot synopsis. - 100.14.80.135 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your reversions on Asset allocations

I noticed that you reverted my edit again, which is fine. I'm not here to contest that. However, I would like to bring two issues to your attention. First, if you're going to revert someone else's edit (e.g., [2]), then just revert the edit. It's best NOT to make additional edits when performing a reversion, as it often leads to confusion, which is clearly the case here. Clearly, I misunderstood why you had cited MOS:STRAIGHT in your edit summary, a mistype of WP:STRAIGHT in your second second summary, when reverting my edit. Those additional edits can be done separately. Second, if you're going to cite rules or a policy page, it behooves on you to be familiar with the details of those pages. For example, Template:Main/doc is not a policy page but a document subpage. That aside, the second sentence on that page clearly states, "This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized." That was clearly what I did and it is common practice to do so in Wikipedia (e.g., Australia#Language, Car#Safety). Moreover, according to WP:REVERT, "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." Reverting something simply because you don't like it is usually not a good enough reason (see WP:IDL). I suggest you reread these policy pages more carefully before citing them in your summaries. danielkueh (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

New external reference

Unfortunately your undo seems to be strange. I'm not related with the book I added in the bibliography. It's not a spam. Why it should be? I simply found that the article could be improved by adding a recent book on musical notation topic. Looks like this book have been written by one of the most famous researcher in music notation. Why do not add it in the external references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudiaSpitz (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(Please add your contributions on talk pages to the bottom, and sign them with four tildes; see Help:Talk pages.)
Your choice of a section heading here is odd. There is no such thing on Wikipedia as an external reference. There are external links to websites if they provide valuable further information, and there are references that verify statements made in an article.
I assume you refer to List of musical symbols where you now added for the 4th time a citation, 3 of those times to a different section. I don't doubt that it:Paolo Tortiglione wrote a very scholarly book, but I equally doubt very much that any sections in the Wikipedia article on musical symbol needs citations from his work, Semiography and Semiology of Contemporary Music. For a start, those sections where you added this citation seemed rather random to me, and they didn't have a {{citation needed}} tag, so any added citations seemed unnecessary, especially without a quote from the book that would explain its contextual relevance. As it is, your edit history seems exclusively focussed on Tortiglione's works, which, as has been mentioned to you on your talk page, raises suspicion of non-neutral editing. I suggest you either revert yourself at List of musical symbols, or you demonstrate that the phrase "a quarter note is a quarter of the length of a whole note" a) needs a citation; b) the cited work really has something to say on that subject. If you want to create a section "Further reading" in that article and add Tortiglione's book there, you're welcome, although it would be most helpful if a note explaining the book's relevance to the rather pedestrian subject of musical symbols were included. Frankly, I doubt that a book with "semiography" and "semiology" in its title will be of help to many readers of that article; see points 6–8 at WP:NOTJARGON.
PS: I just noticed that another editor has reverted your edit now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I took your suggestion

[3] ---> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedontakal Vrop (2nd nomination) Amisom (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocking Changes to Terrible Bertolt Brecht Article

I understand why you would think Wikipedia is an unreliable source, but why exactly are we removing everything that tells us why Bertolt Brecht was notable from the article lead to focus on trivia that has nothing to do with his notability? He's not known as someone who might me a Communist or might not be. He's known as the theatre practicioner who pioneered the theory of Verfremdungseffekt, or the forth wall in Deadpool terms (he literally was the first to use the term the forth wall in that context). Why you are intent on removing that from his header information should be baffling to any rational person. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns at Talk:Bertolt Brecht. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Piano ballad a genre?

A user has edited piano ballad to say it is a genre here after finding an obscure source that says it is after a user raised a concern that it was even a genre at an album article's talk page (Talk:Norman Fucking Rockwell). Seems like the kind of contentious change that should require consensus to alter, but I'm not getting into with this user beyond commenting at the aforementioned talk page to say I disagree. Ss112 20:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, and neither do Music genre, which doesn't mention it, or Ballad, which is vague. OTOH, Category:Ballads is categorised in the Category:Music genres tree. Ballad (music) redirects to Sentimental ballad, which is unclear whether that's a genre or not. I agree that the provided source is quite obscure, and a more reputable source would be welcome, but without further research I don't feel strong or secure enough to revert the edit at Piano ballad. I notice that Jerome Kohl did not revert in his subsequent edit, either. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I was aware of this question when I made that edit, and decided to leave it as it is for the time being. First of all, I remember when there was a sudden burst of activity on the "Music genre" article four or five years ago, and it quickly became apparent that there was no clear agreement on just what a music genre actually is. As with so many other things on Wikipedia, it all comes down to finding a reliable source, and while I agree that the source currently cited does not look very solid, I think perhaps it will serve as a place-holder while we look for something better. One further complication is that, while the article is principally about a 19th-century keyboard genre, it has also acquired a section on current usage in the field of popular music, where "ballad" has a distinctly different sense. Indeed, the concept of "genre", too, seems to be quite different in the realms of popular and "classical" music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Evidently I was wrong. That section on popular-music ballads was removed a long time ago. In any case, I did find a better source identifying "ballade" as a genre, with specific reference to Chopin as the creator of that genre.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on Piano ballade; it's clearer now. However, that's no help to the people at Talk:Norman Fucking Rockwell#Genre which brought the OP here – not that I care about that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That is exactly what I meant about the term "genre" being used in quite a different sense in popular-music (and jazz) contexts than in "classical" ones. A case could be made for a distinction between the terms "ballade" (as a nineteenth-century musical genre) and "ballad" (as a popular-music ..., er, thing-a-ma-jig).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Michael Bednarek/Archive 15,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

In your recent edit to Benjamin Britten, you repeated the same wikilinks several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Duplicate and repeat links and avoid overlinking. Thank you. DrKay (talk)

I'm aware of WP:REPEATLINK, especially its first paragraph, which I studiously followed in both my edits, as is my habit. Feel free to point out exactly which instances raised your concern. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
11 repeated links to the Times[4]. 6 repeated links to Tempo[5]. I was unaware of the change to the guideline earlier this year[6]. DrKay (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Barenboim

Your edit of Daniel Barenboim produces following error: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= Grimes2 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I missed it. It's now fixed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Carlyle Hotel

Thanks for fixing the "Rise to Prominence" section. It was a rumored, uncited, mess. At first I saw "change reverted", I was like "really?". But I saw that you took the time to actually rewrite in properly. It deserved a better edit. I had just watched the documentary, which I'm assuming is why all that was added in the first place, without sources, maybe. Nice to see someone do it right, thanks again. Mkeithddc (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |}

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Michael Bednarek/Archive 15,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere is the law illegal

Wikipedia is no exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.239.138 (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Jamie

You asked why I removed Jaimie Alexander from the article for Jamie. It's because her name isn't Jamie. That's the same reason that article also omits Jaimie Cloud, Jaimie Dawson, Jaimie Leonarder, Jaimie Branch, Jaimie D'Cruz, Jaimie Thibeault, Jaimie Lynn Hilfiger, Jaimie Leonard, Jaimie McEvoy, Jaimie Natsuki, Jaimie Thomas, Jaimie Warren, Jaimie Mantzel, and Jaimie McPheeters. But those other people can all be found, along with Jaimie Alexander, on the separate article for Jaimie, which is linked in the related names section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:E40B:7500:9872:A882:3544:962B (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I've now corrected it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Article Rescue Barnstar
With thanks for your kindness, and for teaching me about ellipses!Niggle1892 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


Problem "contributors"

Michael, Can we block Niche-gamer from posting on the Weill talk page? Or maybe delete the thread and hope he'll go away? Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away; he seems that type: who wants attention. I fell into his trap when he undid my undo of his removal of a reference and told him to ask on the talk page instead of edit warring. The problem is, those diatribes are just attacks on another website; polemics and soapboxing are out-of-place on WP, and I hate to leave them on the Weill talk page.
Chuck (Chuckstreet (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC))

It's IMO an entirely proper discussion at Talk:Kurt Weill#Steynonline.com. There is no reason or possibility to block the editor or make the discussion disappear. A well-reasoned debate will carry the day. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Thank you for your advice, Michael. In the non-e-world I only hang on to documents if I absolutely have to, and I sometimes forget that in cyberspace, archives aren't the burden that files of old letters would be in my tiny bungalow!Niggle1892 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Josef Josephi

Thanks for cleaning up the article. My questions are:

  1. Why remove the name of the photographer?
  2. If someone (not me) would want to create an article here on the English Wikipedia corresponding to the German de:Metropol-Theater (Berlin-Mitte), what would the name of the article be? I doubt that the name would be identical to the name of the German article; and the red link should link to the potential name of the article in English. Thanks in advance, -- -- -- 09:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
1. See MOS:CREDITS. 2. I don't know, but if the article is not called that, I'm sure a REDIRECT would be created. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, the link might be complete wrong in Josephi's article; it's more likely the Metropol Theater, today the Komische Oper. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Michael Bednarek/Archive 15,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A quick word of thanks

I just wanted to drop you a line to say that I take your point about my copyright parentheses, which are now, I think, all deleted. I didn't want you to waste your weekend hunting down any more of them. Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Accidental reversions

I apologize for accidentally reverting your reversion of my edit. The mobile device rollback confirmation button wasn’t functioning properly, I’ve set it back to your version. Sorry about that. Redactyll Social pub of talking 06:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Choral symphony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh MacDonald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Walter Heilig (Q79075236)

Hi, Michael Bednarek noticing your revert, there is the commons:Category:Walter Heilig already. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Christmas


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

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



Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

December thanks

missing Brian ...

Michael, once a year not just a thank-you click, but saying a big thank you for the constant meticulous improvements you perform silently around articles I watch. May 2020 be full of light and vision for you and your observant eyes! We sang about radiance and light in a live broadcast of a service on the Second Day of Christmas, - not Bach because it was popular hr4, not cultural hr2, - enjoy anyway if you care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

De Sabata

Please do not undo the contribute about the relationship between De Sabata and Valentina Cortese. Read the article of the Corriere della Sera [1] If you do it you could be charged of vandalism regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Cortese: i foulard, l'amore e la mia bimba mai nata". Corriere della sera (in Italian). 2 April 2012. Retrieved 16 October 2014.
I wouldn't have reverted your edits if you had provided that source with your original edits. Even so, that source doesn't mention a "relationship" between Victor de Sabata and Valentina Cortese, so I'm still skeptical. I also note that you reverted a large number of my other improvements to the Cortese article, which I hesitate to call vandalism on your part but very careless. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sun & Sea

re: [7], the answer is Lapelytė. For more, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_5#Category:Operas_by_Rugilė_Barzdžiukaitė. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Long autumn night. poem

Hi, Happy New Year. You deleted a number of categories for this posting. However please do not delete the "symphonies by Gustave Mahler" category. The poem is the original upon which the second movement choral text is based. It is also discussed in the artical about the symphony itself.

There is a direct connection of interest to both aficionados of the symphony itself and to the composer's state of mind in his last years. The categoriation also helps broaden the English wiki beyond those interested in Chinese poetry. You may wish also consider adding this to a category relating to Mahler bio at your discretion.

My other previously added musical categories we're overly enthusiastic ,. QSandai (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A connection between the poem and Mahler's symphony is not disputed. That doesn't make the poem a symphony. Please remove that category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

MOZART

I added the article Mozart's compositional method - it was not mentioned before. --Yoavd (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was. In your edit, that link was present just under the section heading "Works, musical style, and innovations", so there was no need to add it to the "See also" section too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
OKץ sorry for my mistake. --Yoavd (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

My edits on Arnold Schoenberg

Sorry about those edits, I should have checked more thouroughly before changing with WPCleaner. Thanks for noticing and reverting my errors. I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused you. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 00:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles with Latin-language external links requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne (Lyrics table)

Appreciate your intentions here - never liked those bright colours myself - but I'm afraid you left the table a right dog's dinner - (especially the IPA column!). I very nearly just reverted your work on the table (for the sake of the poor reader - at least to give him something legible!) with a rundown of everywhere on your new table where the bloody thing no longer worked, and a request for you to fix it. Instead I have gone through it all myself (most of the time using "suck and see" (i.e. trial and error) as I'm no great expert at wikicode. I HOPE that I have got it how you wanted - but I being an ordinary and very fallible old gentleman it is quite possibly wrong still in some way.

One teeny little request while you're at it - I rather liked the stanza numbering - if you could restore those little Roman numerals on the stanzas (without producing another mess) then... - on the other hand if you cut them deliberately and are glad they're gone, then so be it.

Normally I'd put this on the talk page for the article - but I think this is one case that goes better here. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please look closely: I didn't change anything in the way the IPA transcription appeared (apart from removing the centering) – although I have doubts about its usefulness. About stanza numbering: I think most people can count to 5, and using a dedicated line just for the number seemed a waste of space, but I'm happy to add them again later today at the beginning of the first line of each verse. e.g. "1. Should auld …". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Bringing up the old version still shows a whole stack of characters than have nothing to do with IPA!! So just as well I spent all that time fixing it after all. Like those slurs that illustrate our point about some words having two notes! Also tend to agree with you about those stanza numbers - the point in earlier versions was that the columns didn't line up very well, so that marking each stanza of each version made comparisons a little clear. No point now, so let's leave them out altogether. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Re IPA: When User:Canadian Communist (now blocked) modified the IPA transcription on 3 January 2019, they followed the advice at {{IPA}} which suggests to use square brackets [...] for phonetic transcriptions (and forward slashes /.../ for phonemic ones). This is also explained at Help:IPA#Brackets. I think that sort of thing may confuse most readers, but so will the finer points of IPA transcription, like syntactic gemination in Italian ([ˈkome‿vˈva] for Come va? – really?), but I digress. I suspect the vertical bars/pipe characters were Canadian Communist's idea of transcribing commas and full stops – never seen that before. Anyway, the presentation of the lyrics is now very close to what is was before 3 January 2019, so there's progress. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah - a couple of other errors in the IPA that I think I've got right now - my "dog's dinner" referred to the mess - which wasn't actually due to anything you did! In fact the errors had been sitting there all that time and I only just noticed the problem after you cleaned up the formatting. So I suppose I'd better apologise! Still, as you remark, if we end up with an improved table that's all that matters! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tobias Hoheisel page in English

Hi Michael Bednarek Please do not revert the changes in the new page in English about Tobias Hoheisel. It is not poorly written and includes information from the German version. It is a shame to deprive English language readers of the updates. Thank you and kind regards. --SwithunWells (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The previous version of Tobias Hoheisel's page had five citations which covered all the salient facts there. Your edit replaced the whole article and provided not a single citation. It also add wrong links (Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District is a disambiguation page), unnecessary red links (red link Gran Teatro de Liceu ought to be Gran Teatre del Liceu), malformed interlanguage links (de:Martin Rupprecht ought to be Martin Rupprecht [de]). Your version left the subject's name unbolded and showed signs of a careless copy/paste where the brackets of a citation from the previous versions were left in the text. Title of operas were left without italics, an external links appeared at the bottom of the text which was already present in "External links", and a lonely word "Notes" appeared, with no note. That's why I reverted with the edit summary "wholesale replacement of a reasonably well sourced article with ill-formatted, poorly written and entirely unsourced text is no improvement." and will do so again. If you want to update the article, stick to what's there and improve it using editing principles of the English Wikipedia. If in doubt, present your ideas on the article's talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) – SwithunWells, sorry to butt in, but another reason to use the Talk page as Michael Bednarek has suggested above would be if you have a conflict of interest regarding the article you want to edit. I've put a note on User talk:SwithunWells which might help you with this – it has lots of definitions, suggestions and all the rest. I know that this can seem counterintuitive and annoying to a new or infrequent editor, but over the years I have come to realize that managing such a conflict wisely can only enhance the encyclopaedia. I hope this helps. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

YouTube clips

How does a YouTube clip not establish notability? Every YouTube clip I added was legitimate. Not everything on YouTube is fake. Wikipedia needs to change their algorithm. The Lord of Falafel (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume you refer to your edits at O Tannenbaum. A YouTube clip establishes that a version of that song exists. It does not establish whether that version had any significance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I also refer to my edits on the pages stairway to heaven, cinnamon roll and Edna Hicks. I added reliable YouTube videos and they said they weren't valid. They were and I need them to accept them. I don't want to get in trouble, so could you back me up? Wikipedia should start citing YouTube videos. A lot of videos on there are legit. The Lord of Falafel (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please read again what I wrote; it's about significance, relevance. — I prefer to stick to my areas of interest, and those articles aren't. If others have told you that simply plonking a YouTube clip into an article is insufficient, you might want to consider that advice. Maybe reading WP:Verifiability and related policies will help. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Va pensiero - English translation of the chorus

Please read my update here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Va,_pensiero If you agree with me, I will amend the text. Many thanks for your attention HumbleEB (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Responded there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Category question

Hello, Michael! Thank you for cleaning up the new article Eurydice (Aucoin). I have one question: when you created the category Category:2020 operas, you made it a subcategory of Category:2010s operas as well as Category:2020s operas. Was that a mistake? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. Yes, that was my mistake – not enough care when cutting/pasting. It's fixed now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

and today, thank you. Good music planned this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Michael Bednarek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Swinstead Abbey

Hello. I redirected Swinstead Abbey to Swineshead Abbey, and I'm here to explain the reason. Swinstead Abbey is a common misspelling of Swineshead Abbey in the 16th century, and I explained that in the article of Swineshead Abbey with a reference. --saebou (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @さえぼー: To avoid confusion it would be useful to mention the Swinstead Abbey spelling and its source in the lead of the Swineshead Abbey article, and perhaps also to give the fictional/misspelled abbey a mention in the Swinstead article. PamD 09:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
saebou: Those explanations weren't there before, which prompted me to be suspicious about that redirect. Still, the categories that were at Swinstead Abbey should be restored to that redirect. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nikolay Madoyan

Hi, Michael, why you have deleted my contribution to "Nikolay Madoyan" article. I am working on the page, and I was going to do further changes in the article. Plz explain me the reason. Ղուկասյան Մարո (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote, for the 3rd time, in my edit summary at Nikolay Madoyan: "rv cut/paste from https://nikolay-madoyan.com/biography/" – "rv" means "revert" and "cut/paste" refers to large-scale copying text from that web page, which is not permissible. Further to your recent edits, please not that YouTube clips are not suitable sources; they may indicate that a performance happened, but they will never support claims of record-setting and similar assertions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I'll do all necessary changes, but the biography of someone is the fact, which can't be changed. I'll do some changes, but what if YouTube clip is the only source? Ղուկասյան Մարո (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Hi, Michael, I have done some changes in biography, please if it's not difficult for you, look is it ok or other changes are needed to be done. Thanks in advance. Ղուկասյան Մարո (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article has to tell a person's biography without verbatim quoting from the subject's website, or any other source. It needs to be told by paraphrasing and encyclopedic summarizing. A YouTube clip of a performance does not support the related claim of "first time in history" and such. These claims must be supported by citations from independent sources, like reviews. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much, I'll take into consideration. Ղուկասյան Մարո (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Zweig's sibling

Hello Michael. I am not around Wikipedia much at present, and trying to stay away a while, but I saw your edit to Zweig here, removing that surprising list of siblings, and wanted to thank you for it. Looking at the edit and at the user's history on Wikipedia (= none) I didn't see too much scope for giving them the benefit of any doubt and, as you pointed out, it was in any case unreferenced. Just for the sake of caution I have checked all the standard works on Zweig to which I have access and they all maintain that there was the one and just the one brother. In addition – although it is a blatant piece of OR and absolutely not citeable ever – for my own additional peace of mind I spoke this afternoon to a family member who knew Zweig and who confirmed that it's nonsense and there was only Alfred. Thank you for your vigilance. With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

re: Category:Polish-language novels emptied

I'll look into this, but in the future I suggest also crossposting such issues to WT:POLAND. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think most novels should be in both categories. Through those are somewhat redundant for Poland. But they make sense for countries with multiple languages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit @ Adagio in G minor

I forgot to add a reference, but here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7043012/soundtrack

I think it's famous enough of a movie... Pauchjo (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

IMDb is notoriously unreliable for anything else but the existence of a film. An independent reliable source is needed to establish not only that the Adagio was used there, but that its use was significant; otherwise it's miscellaneous non-significant WP:TRIVIA. I notice that the Adagio is not mentioned in Wikipedia's article on the film, Velvet Buzzsaw. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

serse

Serse is certainly not one of his best operas From Winton Dean: the libretto is one of the worst according to Burney. Audiences were disappointed or puzzled. It was staged more often than any other Handel opera, except Giulio Cesare. Stroke was not the problem anymore; it did not bother him as Händel finished Faramondo on 24 December 1737, which is not mentioned and Serse on 14 February 1738. The melody from the largo he borrowed from Giovanni Bononcini. Could you rewrite the sentence again and I will add references. Taksen (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed the section George Frideric Handel § Opera at Covent Garden (1734–41) of unnecessary marginalia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Peter and the Wolf

Hello Michael Bednarek, in the article Peter and the Wolf you added a "citation needed" earlier today for the movie from 1981 with Ray Bolger as the narrator. At the moment there is probably no website (at least I don't find one) which could be used to verify everything I put in the wikipedia article yesterday. All the information in one place can be seen in the credits of the movie which I own. That movie can be bought on amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Wolf-Ray-Bolger/dp/B002IU1UQ8). Also a poor youtube version exists (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIlI-05iG-c). Would you accept that as a source? I personally don't like using youtube for citations in wikipedia because it happens too often that the file is removed there after a while. Best wishes --Stillbusy (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs published sources. The first choice in this case would be a review by a reputable source; whether that is available online doesn't matter, it just needs to be published. Liner notes from home releases are also acceptable – see {{Cite AV media}}. Lastly, an entry at IMDb would at least confirm the existence, although a film's details are often unreliable there. A YouTube clip is indeed not a very good source. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Brianboulton articles

Hello, Michael. I keep our much missed colleague's FAs on my watch list and I see you making changes to the citation styles here and there. All absolutely fine, I'm sure, and thank you for maintaining the old boy's articles. He and I sniped happily at each other's citation styles and there was a certain arm-wrestling when it came to our collaborations (how I pine for one more!) I never really understood BB's algebraic citation style, but if there is anything I ought to be doing, please let me know. Meanwhile, my sincere thanks. – Tim riley talk 18:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I assume you are referring to my recent edits at The Bartered Bride and L'Orfeo. I think I understand Brian's original citation style, and I've been careful not to change it. I just replaced <ref>Author, p. nnn</ref> with {{sfn|Author|year|p=nnn}}. This will change almost nothing in appearance, except adding the year to the citation. This is in line with citation practices of any standard, and was sometimes necessary in these articles to distinguish works by the same author from different years. The advantage of that method is to provide a clickable link in the list of citations to the respective entry in the list of sources, which is often quite long. Without them, a reader has to scan the list of sources to find the full citation. This method also discovers incomplete short citations (no entry in the list of sources), and works in that list that are not used for citations and so should be in "Further reading". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Romy Schneider

Hi

All actors have links to birth and death place and their occupation. Why you reversed it?Shkuru Afshar (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the links you added are not in line with WP:OVERLINK, particularly linking the capital of a country and the country itself. It's no justification if those links are used elsewhere; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Commons category/doc

I'll not rerevert, but this is not the solution to such a dispute. What should happen is that the additions to the template which cause these redlinks should be reverted, not that the documentation should contain unsupported, detrimental infomation. Fram (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

True, but the code of {{Commons category}} issues these messages, and editors see them regularly. Removing their target section, "Resolving discrepancies", from Template:Commons category/doc will confuse them. The place to address the underlying issue surely is Template talk:Commons category. IMO the whole operation is just kowtowing to Wikidata's methods and unnecessary. Reverting is beyond mere mortals. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I have addressed it there as well, but no one should be directed to that very dubious section. Perhaps I should simply rewrite it, but I'll wait a bit longer to see the reactions (if any) to my post at the talk page. Fram (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Stop icon Please do not remove the {{copyvio/core}} template from articles, as you did with Michael_Maaser. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:Michael Maaser/Temp. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators and/or removers of the copyright notice templates will be blocked from editing. The diff needs to be hidden by sysop, copyvio was placed for a different diff this morning. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

a) I didn't remove {{copyvio/core}}, but {{db-copyvio}}; a1) the text of that template allows for its removal; b) WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS; c) a list of publications is not subject to copyright. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you

June
Vespro della Beata Vergine

Happy dance for the vespers, with thanks for you staying factual ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Unravelling Ravel

I moved Ravel's category because there are no other 'Compositions by X' in the 20th-century category. You're equally correct, however in putting it back! Perhaps we should add more composers or create 'Compositions by 20th-century classical composers' as a parent category. Thanks for all your amazing work on classical music. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct in pointing out that Category:Compositions by Maurice Ravel is an oddball in Category:20th-century classical music. Either other similar categories, like Category:Compositions by Sergei Prokofiev get categorised similarly, or Ravel gets removed (I prefer the former). However, categorising "Compositions by Maurice Ravel" as Category:20th-century classical composers, as you did, seems not in line with that category's current purpose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

? Hugh Byrne

I made an addition including an historian based in Wexford. Why was it removed. Cursai (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote at Talk:Hugh Byrne: Because there is no article about that person; disambiguation pages are not lists of persons with that name but serve to direct readers to the specific article for a person with a name for which there are several articles – see Help:Disambiguation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Antje Weithaas

On 18 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antje Weithaas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Antje Weithaas played Max Bruch's Violin Concerto, a reviewer from The Guardian wrote that she reminded her, "with quiet and compelling eloquence, why it's a masterpiece"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antje Weithaas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Antje Weithaas), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR

Please read WP:CITEVAR. Do not "change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the article Peggy Guggenheim Collection. That article never had an established citation style. It started with poorly formatted full inline citations, which were then converted to short citations. Later, more short and full inline citations were added. I didn't change any of them in my recent edit. I simply enabled clickable links connecting short citations in the "Notes" section to their full entry in "References". This an improvement because it helps the reader to quickly navigate from one to the other. As the article stands now, each of the entries in "References" provides an anchor for {{sfn}} templates, but they are not used. There was a lengthy RfC on this matter in 2016, which was inconclusive overall, but did not prohibit the kind of coding changes I made that don't change the appearance of citations; see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 48#Clarification. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The Makropulos Affair (Janacek)

If this note reaches you in time, check this out. A 2010 live film of it is streaming for free, starring Karita Matilla, for the next 10 hours, at https://sfopera.com/opera-is-on/streaming/#streaming. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Lismore,_New_South_Wales#Notable_people

Not putting a reference to an AOM recipient does deserve a request for proof. The proof that Linsay Aked has received an AOM is now there. In NSW, proof of birth and place of birth is only available 100 years after the person is born. So, how is the link 'failed verification'? The link works well for me.Leveni 04:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Being born in Lismore, or having a strong connection, is the primary criterium that's needs a source in that list. The provided source fails in that regard for Lindsay Aked, so does the link in that source. It doesn't take much digging to find sources that he went to school there. Why don't you? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are 2 links: [8] at Lismore age 3 and [9] Ballina. High School was in Ballina and parents worked in Ballina also, according to Trove (NSW digital newspapers). But can't prove either way. I'll let you make the choice if you wish to do so. Only other reference is 2011_Australia_Day_Honours#General_Division_4 but makes no mention of place of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveni (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Maria Friesenhausen

You are right to demand a source for her death, and I told the IP who added it the same. However, there may never come one. Should she get 120 that way? - I really don't know. I have been in the sad position to have known a person died before the media did, and it's hard to wait. - My first edit day: you were the second person to help me here, many thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with a situation like that. There's Category:Possibly living people, but it's not clear to me when that should be used. Maybe the people at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard know more, but I'm going to remove unsourced deaths from my watchlist for a very long time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I have done the same, it's just Bauchgefühl telling that in this case, the IP may be right. - Would we ever get to know if Yvonne Ciannella died, the woman who showed me what coloratura soprano means? Friesenhausen was "my" first soprano in the Matthäuspassion (listening to a dress rehearsal open for school kids). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Bednarek/Archive_15&oldid=998960404"