User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MJ Moonwalk

Hi,

in [1] you removed the link to a youtube video [2] showing MJ on the show "Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever". You removed it due to "-duplicate YouTube link" as I could read in the commit log. I think there is no other link to this show on the page or am I wrong? I think this link is very important as it is the show where MJ revealed the move to the world. Not only does this very video show this important moment but also provides a lot of information. I like you re - add it under "External links", if you don't mind. Dan 84.58.153.120 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The duplicate YouTube video I removed was this one by David Bowie. I added the essential "Moonwalk" part of the clip you mention to the article as a file hosted on Commons. I'm not sure whether the copyright status of the complete performance of "Billy Jean" at YouTube allows linking to it from Wikipedia, especially in an article which is not primarily about that song. Furthermore, there still is an external link in the article to a YouTube clip of Jackson doing the Moonwalk at the 1995 MTV Awards. So, in my opinion, there are sufficient links to the visuals of a "Moonwalk" in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry, I didn't notice that you added the essential part of the Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever clip. Did you extract and converted that part? Great work! What about swapping places with the image of the street dancer, effectively moving the clip to the first paragraph of the article? Daniel 84.58.151.36 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can answer the question myself, now: I just saw that the clip you added to the article was already there on Commons and has also been added to the main article about MJ. Dan. 84.58.160.38 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oakhill College

I reverted your edit at Oakhill College.

1. None of the sources (two of which duplicate each other and one is a dead link) mention the college. More importantly, they don't mention E.'s name, and so your edit is definitely improper.
2. Your blanking of vast parts of the article seems highly pointy.

I strongly recommend you refrain from attempting to introduce this material again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the rules and guidlines for posting in wikipedia, I have reverted your last change, with the exception of Stefan Estrich. I am currently in the process of aquiring college year books to provide more proof of the attendance of both Stefan Estrich, and Sef Gonzales. I am also seeking information on Lachlan Ritter, a former student who took a firearm to the school. The winner of Big Brother Australia 2001 was also a former student, and will be added when reputeable references emerge. Interviews on youtube are also citeable references. When they are all aquired and appropriate references collected, they will be reposted as noteable alumni. I was hoping to progressively add citations as I collected them, but since you are so strict on the rules (not a bad quality, it helps preserve wikipedia's credibility), I have decided to re-introduce the information when all references are colelcted. Threatening me not to post legitimate information is immature, please refrain.

Of all the alumni, only one has a reference, and most of the information in the article requires citation. I have also had the benifit of meeting Grant Brits, and I am aware that he went to the school. However, without correct referencing, I believe it is improper and bias to leave him and other un-verified claims up, whilst removing others. Please read Verifiability, in order to clarify the way an article should be edited. Also, if you are in anyway affiliated with the school please read Conflict of interest. Uncited references have been removed, if you would like them to remain, please pay particular attention to the "burden of proof" sub-section. I am not here trying to make point, as you suggested, though I am interested in posting an accurate, unbias, history of schools in the Hills District. This would include a full account of all noteable alumni, not just acheivements that promote a business.

If you do find any noteable references in your research, please let me know. I would also like to mention the school graveyard, and its previous agriculture plot, as well as the death of one of the brothers during a fall in the chapel building. I believe they are of interest in the history of this particular school, but are uncommon to find as documented evidence.

I have behaved civilly as have you, so please read the rules so this doesn't turn into an Edit war. Remember, no one has Ownership of articles! I hope that this clarifies any questions you may have. Noreference (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Please post you comments at the bottom of the page to maintain chronological flow. I prefer to keep the discussion unfragmented, so I copied my earlier message from your talk page to this thread.)

The posting of the name of a 16-year-old crime suspect seems to violate several Wikipedia and other rules; the sources you provided do not mention his name or his college. I did not threaten you with anything, but recommended you refrain.

Your wholesale removal of uncontroversial material still seems pointy to me; verifiability issues only arise when information is "challenged or likely to be challenged". I can't see how all of the material which you removed again (some of which was indeed referenced) could possibly be challenged (House colours?). On the other hand, the Wikipedia policy on verifiability also states: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." — which the sources you provided completely failed. Also: many of the alumni you removed have that fact stated on their own Wikipedia articles.

I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. (BTW, the links you provided in your message regarding "verifiability" and "conflict of interest" are not germane to this discussion, and I do not understand why you red-linked "Edit war" and "Ownership of articles".) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why those are red-linked either, I'm assuming I made a typo. As for referencing in their own wiki articles their attendance to Oakhill College, they are unverified references, and wiki cannot be used for self-verification. Admitedly, the sources I provided are not unambiguous, which is why I have agreed with you in the removal. Stefan Estrich is being tried as an adult for the murders, and as a result his name and personal details are not protected by Australian Juvenille Law. Hopefully, with suitable resources, the article can be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreference (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you think that the trivial matters you removed from the article need references. In fact, some material which you removed did have references, which makes your crusade for verification appear rather selective. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed only unreferenced material. As for the removal of trivial matters, you removed the names two alumni famous for crimes, yet the unverified claims of olympic athletes is considered trivial? The article on a whole was full of unverified information. Trivial or otherwise, it is unverified and unreferenced and is has been removed. Noreference (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You did remove referenced material; see here and here.

Whether you dispute that verifiability issues only arise when information is "challenged or likely to be challenged" is immaterial — it's Wikipedia policy. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure why you continue to say the information is unchallenged and uncontroversial. It is unverified material that makes unverified claims. I at least challenge it. You seem to think that you can remove former alumni at your discretion, yet all other unreferenced material is valid and 'unchallenged'? (does my attempt to clean up an erroneous article not apply?). I have taken note to your links, and apologise for removing referenced material. Mistakes happen. Also your last sentence makes little sense, I think you were trying to say that issues on verifiability only arise if the the information is likely to be challenged by another? If so, consider all the unreferenced martial controversial and challenged. Noreference (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Acres100

Once an editor has vandalised after a final warning, it is probably best to report them to administrator intervention against vandalism, rather than giving them more warnings. Additional warnings just remove the teeth from the threat of a block, and mean they can continue to vandalise for longer. J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for the moral support on the whole GA thing. All the best, M. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...and from me too. I appreciate that a lot. Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Josef Tal

Thanks for your corrections and improvements. Etan Tal (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Carmel Kaine

No problems with lifting the prod, it was just that I cam across the article which had beeen tagged for some time. Do you want to do the same of her husband John Willison (musician), which is in a similar dire state? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really; Carmel Kaine is (in my opinion) already quite a borderline case, made harder by her main period of work happening way before the Internet, thus making it difficult to find documentation for her work and positions. For some reason, she seems to have managed to avoid coverage in the printed literature as well, although her recording work seems well above average to me. I find it difficult to conclude the same about her husband. I would be willing to support keeping the article if its main contributor, Joshuawillison (talk · contribs) would show some good will and add some sources, but that seems unlikely. I'm very much a non-deletionist, but I don't think there's anything I can do to save this article.

PS: Thanks for your notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Anthony Watts

Per a request as part of the RfC you recently !voted in we have changed the style of !voting. Please review that updates and make any changes to your !vote, as appropriate/desired. Thanks for your participation. --GoRight (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute at Mimi Macpherson

Thank you for raising the matter of our content dispute regarding the article on Mimi Macpherson at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It will be interesting to see what the Wikipedia editorial community thinks of your continued persistence to include references to the sex tape. Dvj2009 (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: now archived at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive66#Content dispute at Mimi Macpherson Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note 2: Listed (20 July 2009) and de-listed (19 August 2009) at RFC whithout eliciting further comments. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of symphonies in F major

Re the minor formatting you did with a recent edit, it seems to have caused some things, like the first of the two Abel symphonies previously listed, to simply disappear. I'm presently too ignorant to fix that, I think... Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I've got it... sorry about that. Schissel | Sound the Note! 10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about my sloppy edit and glad that you worked out how to fix it. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Loanword

I’ve replied to your point here but I’m conscious we are having this discussion on someone elses lawn, so I’ve continued here.
I wonder, are we talking at cross purposes? Please understand I am not trying to change anything, at this point; I’m wanting to understand it; or, perhaps , explain my position. And I’m wanting to be clear if you are in some way offended by all this.

I am unclear if Loanword is the same as Lehnwort; also, what is the difference between Lehnwort and Fremdwort? And how do they relate to Anglizismus?
Anglicism seems to have a suggestion of inferiority; that using the English word cheapens the language. The situation seems to be reversed in English; the use of a non-english word seems pretentious. as an (almost) random example , at this article uses the expression “Krupp was ordered to design a Bettungsschiessgerüst (firing platform)...", then uses the German expression thereafter. Well, why? "Firing platform" is perfectly straightforward English; using Bettungsschiessgerüst adds nothing and introduces the same confusion that exist in English between “shit” and “shot”.
This is the sort of thing I am objecting to (which I know is really not your concern, but I felt the need to explain). Moonraker12 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained my position at Talk:Gesamtkunstwerk#Loanword? and the Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin seems to agree with me.

The article Loanword should help with some of your questions. According to the German Wikipedia, the German term Fremdwort describes a subset of Lehnwort, mainly based on its higher degree of foreignness; see de:Lehnwort#Lehnwort und Fremdwort. I don't think how discussing the term Anglicism is helpful in this context; there is no such thing in the English laguage. I don't know why the people writing about German cannons/guns use the term Bettungsschiessgerüst; I assume for the same reason that dozens of other disciplines use foreign terms: they are part of their specific jargon. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unguentarium

I didn't understand your rationale for not having an image at the top of Unguentarium. It's conventional to do so, and the new position seemed graphically awkward. In articles where the only available images don't illustrate the major subject, I'll put images where they're relevant. For example, in a bio, if the only available photo is not of the person, but illustrates some limited aspect of her life, I would put the image not at the top, but in the relevant section. Also, if it's forbidden to specify image sizes, I should review the rules, and sometimes have trouble locating such things. Could you point me to the right link? I may have old-fashioned notions of graphic balance from the print era. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My rationale started with the placement of the Table of Contents ({{TOC right}}), which is discouraged for normal articles; the only relevant text I can find now (it's just after midnight here) is Help:Section#Floating the TOC and some instructions there and a bit of a discussion at Template talk:TOC right. Following the use of a regular ToC, I saw an opportunity to use the white space to the right of the ToC with the main image — still very much at the top, but not taking up screen real estate. The previous (and current) position of the ToC seems to go against the above quoted guideline — it's too low.

As to prescribing image sizes: again, the only text I can find now is MOS:IMAGES where it is discouraged. I have the feeling that there is some stronger wording somewhere else. I agree that graphic balance is an important consideration. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid my tour of duty in print journalism has produced a hard-to-control revulsion at what we called "trapped white space," which is almost always produced by the automatically generated TOC when there's an image at the top. (I'm still unclear about why you didn't want the dominant image at the top to illustrate the article.) I do agree that ease of navigation is the goal, and in short top-illustrated articles it makes no sense to move the TOC right, where it may fall below most of the subheads. My feeling is that in long articles, a right TOC frees me from my no-doubt irrational revulsion for the aforementioned TWS, but still allows the reader to see the first subhead or two, as well as the TOC itself for navigational purposes. (I myself dislike long lead sections where you can't see the TOC on your first screen.) In short articles for which no images are available, a right TOC at least seems to me to offer the reader better navigation: you can see both the TOC and much of the article at first glance. I will no doubt continue to rebel until I'm slapped very hard. I do keep an eye on the articles I've created, so that if there's a auto-formatting change that jumbles my layouts (I can also imagine this happening with specified px), I can fix it. Thanks for taking time to respond. Obediently yours, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My main aim when I edited the article Unguentarium was to include a wikilink to the related article Lacrymatory, an article which I think is familiar to you (and possibly worth merging; see Talk:Lacrymatory). In the process, I attended routine chores like disambiguating terms and more pedestrian formatting infelicities; see edit summary of my edit. I'm sorry for disturbing your obviously carefully designed layout. Thanks for your understanding. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ferdinand Raimund image

I'm not clear why you think the fact that the image on Ferdinand Raimund is from Commons negates my concerns over its palpably bogus copyright claim. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that the copyright status of that image at Commons is explained with Commons:Template:PD-AustrianGov. I assume that the people there know what they are doing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Category talk pages

I thought "What would be the harm?" and did it. I was given a 'warning' or 'advisory' that few users watch category talk pages. I put the page on my watchlist. Perhaps I'm an exception that proves the rule. James470 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you remind me about the context of your remark? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It was in response to one of your questions in the talk page for WP:CM. Maybe it was least pressing concerns from among the ones you raised. James470 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Endash

I agree that, in article text, endashes should be used for sports results. However, since the news source being referenced uses a hyphen in the article title, I don't see any reason not to copy that. – PeeJay 15:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Eisenstein

What is wrong with Eisenstein (Die Fledermaus) voice? I know that this role played also Thomas Allen, who is baritone or bas-baritone and also Falke told, that Eisenstein was not tenor. (You have very Polish surname... Sorry for my English but if you speak in Polish, I think it should be better, when you'll write to me (if you want to write) in my language (I'm preintermediate in English)). Best regards. CudPotwórca (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The role of Eisenstein in Die Fledermaus is written for a tenor and it was sung originally by a tenor (Jani Szika); most performances use a tenor. Replacing the voice type in the article with baritone, as you did, is not correct. That the role is sometimes sung by a (high) baritone should be mentioned under "Performance history", which I have done now.

I speak English and German, but not Polish, despite my surname. My father was born in Stettin, and he didn't speak Polish either. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Siegfried Palm

I miss an English page on Siegfried Palm greatly. So I wrote sometime ago. Your response:

You just click on the red link, read the material above the edit box, and start the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I preferred to create a page - based mainly on the German one - on my user subpage User:Gerda Arendt/Siegfried Palm. As you speak English and German you may be the right one to look at it, please. So far I left terms like "Bundesverdienstkreuz" untranslated. Should I include that he also was actor in a movie, playing the role of an inspiring music teacher (so actually himself!) in Doctor Faustus after Thomas Mann?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes; see User:Gerda Arendt/Siegfried Palm and User talk:Gerda Arendt/Siegfried Palm. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Siegfried Palm (I told Sparafucil.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please look once more - I was asked to insert citations, inserted general ones, may look for more specific ones if required. Just found Pantheon, may be good for more ... (but I need a brake, and my French is very limited)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are sufficient references in the article in my humble opinion; not everything needs to be referenced, only contentious or questionable material.

I would not have recommended nominating the article at Did-You-Know; most regular editors of classical music articles are quite disenchanted with the bureaucratic treatment of articles when they get nominated there, or worse, for "Good Article" or "Featured Article" status. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are so right, thank you for your humble opinion that I share, of course ... I was certainly spoiled by easy-going Graham Waterhouse. That one is on in Deutsch now, in case of interest. No DYK or however that may be called there, smile.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

... greeted by a nice Portal:Klassische Musik (in German)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Siegfried Palm DYK 15 September, 1:42 p.m. London - he deserves it, smile. (And look at pages linking again, thanks for your hint!)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

List of noise musicians

Hello Michael

Thank you for the good work you did on the list of noise musicians that I have been trying to maintain. The only exception I would take is in the elimination of Jean Tinguely

See Tinguely recordings here: http://continuo.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/jean-tinguely-bascule-vii/

Would you mind putting him back in?

Best Regards

Valueyou (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oakhill College

Perhaps fixing the syntax errors would be more prudent than reintroducing unreferenced material. Also, If you had noticed, other people had pointed out the article was unreferenced. I'll be undoing your edit, though I'm not sure how to fix the syntax error. Be constructive and either tell me how or fix it yourself. ;—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreference (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion on the appropriateness of your removal of text from the article Oakhill College at the WikiProject Schools. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed that when we first started going through this, at the top of the page people had previously noted that the article was largely uncited, and to remove the material should no citations come forth. It would appear then, that you are bringing in a fourth opinion. You'll need to look through the page history a bit to see. I removed it when I originally removed the contentious material (since it would've been no longer needed). With your continual reintroduction of 'fluff' it would seem to defeat the purpose of having done anything at all. We went through this before, why is it that you must persist with this material? With the exception of one alumni, I have not found a reference to their attendance at this school. There are a multitude of ridiculous typos and information in the article. Since I don't want to fill your talk page with crap, I shall just copy this one "The under 14 age group excelled this year with A's–D grades winning the premiership." The entire sports paragraph is unverified and as for 'this year' when? Only one line in the government funding is credible. Where did the figures come from? The Co-Curriculum, what exactly is 'hooked'?

Since it slights you so to remove all the unreferenced material. I propose that an amicable solution is the removal of all the alumini (except the one with a reference).One of them was born, and lives in the UK. I think it unlikely he went to a Sydney School. The removal of Sport, Most of Government funding, and Facilities. You're right no one cares about whether the school houses are correct or not. But the information I have mentioned is not constructive to the article, since it is simply not verified fact.

Would it make you feel better if I removed all the frivolous material one line at a time instead of one hit? Surely you can see I'm not removing things because coma's are in the wrong place.

I would also like to apologise for forgetting to sign my post previously. You're obviously a more experienced editor, and I would much prefer to work with your help than hindrance. For instance tell me how to do those little "Citation needed" things.

Noreference (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article is deficient, the first step is in my opinion to improve it; this applies to missing sources, grammar, spelling, style. The second step would be to mark deficient sections with the appropriate tags (or templates). Removing text should —in my opinion— only be done for libellous, mischievious, patently false or bogus information. My reversals of your edits were prompted by the prominent red error line at the bottom of the article, which removed all existing references and categories – a rather catastrophic state for an article, and what I perceived to be a wholesale slash-and-burn approach, without evaluating the merit of the totality of the text which you removed.

I have no problem with the removal of weasel words and peacock phrases; the section "Sport", as written, certainly qualifies, as does much of the "Government funding" section. On the other hand, the third paragraph of the section "History" seems plausible to me, although it is unsourced. Likewise, the sections "Facilities", "Co-curriculum" and "Pastoral care" seem plausible, although the list of plays in "Co-curriculum" could do with citations.

As to alumni: while unsourced, several of those entries mention Oakhill College on their own page (Beau Brady, Tim Rogers, Andrew Ogilvy, Grant Brits), and I would assume these are correct. If you reasonably suspect bogus entries, remove them.

The syntax error occurred because your addition for Brian Castro lacked the closing </ref> tag; it would also be helpful if you could work that fact into Castro's article (and maybe expand his biographical details generally). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that fixing missing information is more prudent than removal, but I'm glad to see that we finally see eye-to-eye that a large amount of the article is frivolous. Written by bored students, would be a likely explanation. I'm willing to accept that I handled this situation poorly, and apologies for coming across as anything less than trying to be constructive. I do suspect some of the alumni are dubious, and the majority should be removed. Many of them aren't notable people at all! Now between the two of us, we can remove what shouldn't be there, hopefully avoiding syntax errors! Noreference (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Siegfried Palm

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siegfried Palm, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Status of a Youtube Video

How can I know for sure that a Youtube video doesn't violate copyright? (concerning this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph-Nicolas-Pancrace_Royer)

Thank you77.232.1.171 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I gather that everything is under copyright unless it has been released under GDFL or similar, or the copyright has expired. I'm sorry, but I'm not the right person to ask. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maestro

The international music term is from Italian, not generally from the Romance languages.

The article is about musical terminology derived from Italian word maestro.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So other language's meaning is unnecessary. Che829 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1. My edit summary stated that the text did not make any claims regarding the word's etymology.
2. Unnecessary doesn't mean it has to be omitted; the aim of an encyclopedia is to broaden the readers' knowledge.
3. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" refers to articles, (or headwords), not to text within an article.
4. I changed ostad to ustad because the former doesn't appear in Hindustani classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is not just about teacher or master but musical terminology related to Western classical music and opera. Therefore the article's text should concern etymologically related word that about musical teminology. The aim of Wikipedia is not to broaden the readers' multi-lingual knowledge. That is Wiktionary. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maestro) Persian term is ostad, as in Ostad Mohammad Baharloo, Ostad Elahi. Che829 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We obviously have different views on what constitutes helpful information. I find it difficult to grasp that removing information, even if marginal, will help the reader.

The target of the REDIRECT ostad is the article Hindustani classical music in which that term unsurprisingly does not appear. It might be more helpful to state that ostad (without linking) is the Iranian term, ustad and pandit are the equivalent Indian terms, and pangrawit is the Javanese term. On the other hand, these terms should not be mentioned at all in this article, following your earlier argument that Wikipedia articles are not a dictionary.

Sidenote: The article Ostad Mohammad Baharloo does not explain the usage of ostad either, and is clearly not complying with "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)" and should be moved to Mohammad Baharloo. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

'maestro' is also an Interlingua word meaning 'master' or 'teacher' maestro n master (1. lord, owner, etc.; 2. person possessing approved skill or mastery); attrib. master (= main) TEACHER (gentile.) inseniante; (in school) maestro; (grammar school) professor. But this information is not appropriate for Wikipedia article, because it's not related to origin of the musical terminology 'maestro'. And there is already a Wiktionary link maestro in "See also" section thus other language's meaning is superfluous. Lastly, Wiktionary link ostad will be helpful instead of ostad. Che829 (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow — now that is an impressive find (wikt:استاد for ostad). It should be incorporated into the article Maestro forthwith. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound media in Bach article

Hello Michael Bednarek, I've just seen you have reverted the inclusion of sound media samples in the article. I understand that, being in a block, it did interfere with the article layout. However, I invite you to reconsider some kind of media inclusion ( it can be in smaller one sample blocks): notice that this is an article about a musical genius, which gave space to every picture of Bach and family. Although a lot of people know exactly how Bach sounds, its music is the issue here, and it would also be kind for the not so much "connoisseurs" - or not so interested in digging it -to be able to hear it there. (the same occurred in Mozart article, and I look forward to some answers/opinions). Please tell me what do you think. Thank you--Uxbona (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles about the major composers are already rather long. Several editors from the projects Composers and Classical music have removed sound files from articles in the past. Adding sound files to composers' biographies is not well regarded when there are articles on the works themselves; adding them as "galleries" is particularly frowned upon. Such galleries are already and much more comprehensively available at Commons, e.g. Commons:Johann Sebastian Bach and Commons:Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. Sound files may be useful when the biography discusses a particular milestone work, but such changes should first be proposed on the article's talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Although not agreeing on the "precedent reversions" reason, I understand your point and would not insist on it now. Thank you for such a clear answer.--Uxbona (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gennaro Papi

I'll have to check the source when I get home, but I have a feeling that's how he was listed in Ewen's book, which at the time was my only source. Never mind - the move can be fixed. If I can't do it manually I'll request it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it back to the original. Given the sources you cite, I think that if Ewen does list it as "Genarro", it's probably an error. (Though worth keeping as a redirect, regardless.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Melos Ensemble

I support your suggestion to move Melos Ensemble of London to Melos Ensemble. Should I do it? Grammy Hall of Fame question is still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I only had doubts, but not much to support them. If you think it's the better name, move it.

Grammy Hall of Fame: I took Melos Ensemble of London off my watchlist, so I didn't see your question. I have now answered there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I moved the article, used Hall of Fame info, and added Cecil Aronowitz --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Emil and the Detectives

(copied from User_talk:Bearcat to keep discussion unfragmented)
I'm baffled by your removal of the Category:Children's novels from the article Emil and the Detectives; n.b. you left the Category:Children's novel stubs. Is it that the categories "Children's novels" and "Children's novel stubs" shouldn't be in the same article, or do you think Emil and the Detectives is not a children's novel? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Novels by Erich Kästner has Category:Children's novels on it already, so the novels don't need to be in both categories at the same time. Stub categories are completely independent of that consideration, because they're meant for maintenance purposes. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a technically sound explanation. However, categorising all of Erich Kästner's novels as "Children's novels" is incorrect – that's why I didn't even investigate that point before asking you; prime example is de:Fabian (Roman). Admittedly, all current articles on the English Wikipedia for Kästner's novels are children's novels, but only because the list of articles is incomplete. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then presumably somebody who knows a lot more about him than I do should fix that :-) Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment left on User talk:121.209.160.121

Hi - looks like you need to review the policies you cited. They refer to contributors who have added to Wikipedia, I was referring to people who might at some point in the future remove material from an article. There's a big difference. To apply those policies, you need to identify the editors or contributions to which I referred - which is obviously impossible, since they don't yet exist ( and may never do so).

I find that this is a common error - people happily cite Wikipedia policies by name without actually reading or understanding them or how and when they apply - but the less it happens, the better it is for all. Regards

--121.209.160.121 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote at Talk:Virginia Trioli:

"… to her many supporters sitting on Wikipedia at Australian taxpayer's expense, don't remove this section or I will just add it again."

This statement makes several assumptions, which are uncivil and not in keeping with Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your wikilawyering distinction between attacking past editors or warning new contribtors is not supported by your original statement, which clearly attacks editors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My statement may make several assumptions, or it may make none at all - just saying so doesn't let me or anyone else figure out what on earth those assumptions may be (if indeed it makes any at all). I think you're not seeing the wood for the trees on this one. The policies are all fine and good - and I think they work well when they apply; they just don't apply to what I wrote. I think you would be better off stepping back from the policies and see the bigger picture. On the other hand, if you would like to keep citing the policies, I don't mind and have absolutely no right to tell you shouldn't. It is just not going to have the slightest influence on how I see things. --121.209.160.121 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Faust (opera) Article

Hi. I was wondering where you got the text for your lengthy addition to Line 70 of the Faust (opera) article (made on 5 Apr 09)? The reason I ask is that I recently heard much of the same information on a radio program, which made me look it up the article on Wikipedia. Even some of the phrases used were suspiciously similar to the article. Did the radio program get the information from your edit or did you both get it from the same place?

Also, please note that your edit summary was rather inadequate when I was trying to identify the editor. (Spelling of "Siébel" & Méphistophélès; -duplicate blanks; unlinked "Faivre" & "Duclos" (DAB).) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajlee (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading the diff. I didn't make the addition you indicate; I removed some superfluous blank lines which caused the mechanism which displays differences to get out of sync. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Opera lists

Just a note to say I've done a bit more work, see here. Perhaps you might have a moment to have a look? I probably won't add many more pages in the future. Best. --Kleinzach 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Latin outtro

Apologies for my deletion of your edit on Template:Latin outtro, it was a mistake. GintyFrench^(talk!) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

La Bohème

Hello Michael, thanks a lot for fixing the ISBN. To your question: most of the great opera-houses offer opera-productions for children, which i found a very important and useful step in cultural education; but it is very hard to find good literature versions to awake and to deepen interest for opera. This one i found recently offers a very creative first step for "beginners" towards opera without distorting the plot and because of the illustrations it can also be a pleasant and quick way to recall the story for "experts". Hope i understood your question correctly and hope also to have answered it reasonably.--Dafx (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I'm somewhat offended at having a template put on my talk page rather than being given a typed-up question asking about happened on the Kathleen Battle article. For the record, I know exactly how to use the preview button and use it all the time, but when editing the "1990s" section on her article, I missed two too-far spaced references twice even when looking at the preview, and thus, had to re-edit the section to fix them. Acalamari 16:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to offend. Before placing that note, I checked your contributions, and their pattern suggested to me you might benefit from some advice on the Preview button. It now seems that you may not be aware of the "edit this page" button when you intend to edit more than one section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Jooss

I happened to see your 2007 question when I tried to challenge the name "Folkwang Hochschule im Ruhrgebiet". Did you see that an impossible sentence got even worse? Lachen oder weinen ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the Verschlimmbesserung at Kurt Jooss (not on my watchlist); I left my response there. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

M’apparì and Mostly Martha

Your revert here was meant well, but is the culmination of a story which I have experienced too often here, with the effect that I'm less and less motivated to spend my time editing Wikipedia articles. I'm writing this to you because you seem to care about classical music, and maybe you'll see what I mean when you look at the history:

• 2006: Article "Mostly Martha" created, dedicated to the version by The Crew-Cuts [3]
• Since then, the article has been somewhat extended by various editors.
• November 29, 2009: Article renamed and edited by SebastianHelm to give more weight to the original aria, "M’apparì".[4]
• November 29, 2009: Sebastian creates/adjusts infrastructure for the article by creating appropriate redirects and links in other articles.
• November 30, 2009: Description of 1955 pop version deleted as "trivia"[5] and immediately thereafter entire article changed to redirect by same editor with the rationale that there wasn't much left in the article.[6]
• November 30, 2009: Xqbot "fixes" double redirect [7] Such changes of the infrastructure, the support network of an article, makes it less likely that a helpful editor finds what used to be the article about the aria way, and even if he or she does so, it makes it likely that redirects are misdirected. I have complained about this programmatische Verschlimmbesserung at Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#Many double redirects are good before, but to no avail.
• December 1, 2009: Michael Bednarek "rv wikilink to a REDIRECT to the opera."[8]

I find it ironic and frustrating that an article that has been around for three years without any problems suddenly gets deleted, and all traces of it removed, just after someone tries to make it clearer that it is actually not just a pop song, but a famous aria. — Sebastian 06:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this by accident. (I didn't realize I still had Michael on my watchlist.) Since I was involved, perhaps I can comment? This is a case of a number of normal editing decisions taking place one after another in which different editors were involved. Can we cut to the chase here and ask what Sebastian would like to happen? I see Mostly Martha (song) now points to Martha (opera) which is clearly wrong. Maybe Mostly Martha (song) should become an article again focussed on the Crew-Cut song? --Kleinzach 08:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My revert at Friedrich von Flotow was unremarkable and uncontroversial: it removed a wikilink for the aria which is a REDIRECT to the opera which was mentioned and linked in the same sentence, following the principles at WP:OVERLINK. I don't know anything about a group called The Crew-Cuts nor about a song "Mostly Martha". I agree with Kleinzach that the REDIRECT from that song should point the group, in which case the wikilink in the group's article should be removed, because it would be circular. An even better approach would be to turn the current REDIRECT into an article about the song, if possible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your revert by itself was unremarkable and uncontroversial; I didn't mean to single you out, but I was just frustrated with the whole story. To some extent, I also reacted to your edit summary, which makes it sound as if I had made such a stupid edit as inserting a link to the redirect. Anyway, I'm glad that we're now focused on the aria, so I hope you agree with my renaming of this section to "M’apparì and Mostly Martha".

Kleinzach asks what I would like to happen. I see Mostly Martha (song) as just another version of the same aria. Such versions can easily be included in the article about the aria, just as we did for Alabama Song, E lucevan le stelle, Il dolce suono, and many others. I therefore would like for us to revert everything to the status before Kleinzach's edits, and then add to the article what's missing. — Sebastian 07:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors have discouraged individual articles about arias, preferring to integrate the information into the articles treating the opera has a whole — backed up, when necessary, with redirects from names of arias. (This doesn't apply of course to the Alabama Song, as this is often performed in a different context from its original work.) If you want to start articles on individual arias you should take it up with the Opera Project and discuss it there. IMO the title "M’apparì and Mostly Martha" would be unencyclopedic because an article should cover one subject, not two or more of them. --Kleinzach 07:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re "M’apparì and Mostly Martha": You're misunderstanding me: I only referred to the title of this talk page section.

You are right, WT:OPERA would be a good place to discuss this. I didn't know that WP:OPERA decided to discourage arias; that would explain why I saw so few in category:arias. It still feels disproportionate to me that we should have an articles on a single recording of an aria, just because it happened to be a pop version, but none about the aria itself. But if the people there don't find it worthwhile, then I wouldn't want to spend my time on it either. So, I won't object if Mostly Martha (song) were reverted to the state before my edits, and the redirects adjusted appropriately. — Sebastian 08:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the text here?: If so I can do this. --Kleinzach 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup! — Sebastian 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

 Done --Kleinzach 01:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Section links

In connection with Kammermusik (Hindemith) and List of compositions by Paul Hindemith, I've been trying to use section links (per List of opera genres) on the former, but it seems they don't work on bullets. Is it feasible, or should i give up on specific links? Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that section links, as you introduced them, would work. Two caveats: Section links for some browsers are case sensitive; a browser might not necessarily position the article exactly on the desired work because they are fairly close together. Also, sometimes and for no discernible reason, they don't work at all – clicking again on the link directing to the section usually then works. Give me some time to revert Kammermusik (Hindemith) to your previous version and add the needed specific targets to List of compositions by Paul Hindemith – the current links there are insufficient (did you add them as 189.46.133.119, a Brazilian IP address?) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I must have done it in preview. --Kleinzach 06:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Kammermusik (Hindemith) and applied the specific targets to List of compositions by Paul Hindemith and it works for me, i.e. I click on Kammermusik No. 2 in List of compositions by Paul Hindemith and the browser takes me to that work's entry in Kammermusik (Hindemith). Note: higher numbered works may not be positioned exactly, depending on the browser's window height – there is simply not enough material to scroll. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Kleinzach 06:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Engelbert Humperdinck

You edited something I wrote to read:

In 1923 the Covent Garden (London) chose it for their first complete radio opera broadcast. Eight years later it was the first opera transmitted live from the New York Metropolitan Opera.

IMHO, there are several unobjectionable ways to refer to the Met (or as they seem to be trying to brand it these days "The MET"), but "New York Metropolitan Opera" isn't one of them, because it reads as if that 4-word phase is the name of the company, following the model of New York Public Library or New York Botanical Garden. Better journalists seem to use New York's Metropolitan Opera when they feel a need to specify location. Both The Metropolitan Opera in New York and Metropolitan Opera of New York can work. I used Metropolitan Opera (New York) simply to echo Covent Garden (London) in the previous sentence, in the hope of easing comprehension.

In any case, shouldn't we drop "the" before Covent Garden?

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit read: "[…] from the Metropolitan Opera (new York)" which obviously needed correction. I didn't pay attention to the previous sentence in order to use a similar style. I agree that the use of the article "the" there is wrong; I suspect it came about when "Covent Garden" was clarified to "Royal Opera House" in a piped link ([[Royal Opera House|Covent Garden]]). In fact, I think the plain, unpiped term "Royal Opera House" should be used. So, the two sentences might read: "In 1923 the Royal Opera House (London) chose it for their first complete radio opera broadcast. Eight years later it was the first opera transmitted live from the Metropolitan Opera (New York)." Do you agree? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Beers

Language question also: turning to him (as the last missing founding member of the Melos Ensemble I know of - so far) I am surprised to find double bass but Category:Double-bassists, not knowing what I should think of it, hyphen or not, or sometimes yes, sometimes no? No hyphen in the terminology. The categories look confusing as well ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just as baffled about the spelling as you are, but I wouldn't worry about it. It's much simpler just to continue with current usage: a person who plays the double bass is a double-bassist.

The categorisation scheme looks overly complicated; there's Category:Double-bassists, Category:Classical double-bassists (but no Category:Music Hall double-bassists, although Category:Music hall performers does exist), Category:British classical double-bassists (1 entry), but, unsurprisingly, no Category:Scottish classical double-bassists – take you pick. I would suggest Category:British classical double-bassists and Category:Music hall performers or just simply Category:Double-bassists. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed research! But it's not as easy. Please look at the box on double bass, last line: List of double bassists (!) and see where that takes you, right: category:Double-bassists. - That's the category I prefer - not ready to deal with British/English/Scottish, smile. We talked about English/German cellist Graham Waterhouse, who btw will premiere a piano trio in Munich on Sunday. Thanks for your assistence at de:Folkwang Hochschule! Did you notice that the unbelievable Kurt Jooss sentence is gone? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions - feel invited to preview the bio (recordings just collected). 1. Founder member - founding member: is there a slight difference? 2. How could I ref to the pdf Amadeus Quartet rather than the google transcript? (Never did that so far.) p. 6 of the pdf is p. 7 of the document.? 3. I didn't know what MBE is, not so familiar with the British Empire. How to render it for other ignorants? 4. I feel that on Melos Ensemble the links to the instruments could be dropped, at least for the musicians portrayed individually.? Btw my brother, a professional double bass player, appreciated the instrument article I showed to him yesterday! --Gerda Arendt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One more, forgive me: Beers played Grancino instruments. But which Grancino? As of today we have de:Grancino + discussion, for the moment unübersichtlich. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1. – "founding member" sounds better to me. 2. – the URL for the original PDF document is www.theclassicalshop.net/pdf/LM%207401.pdf — however, to my surprise, that site is blacklisted by Wikipedia since April 2009. I think referring to page 7 of the Google link, (which probably should be http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DpUfBAthl64J:www.theclassicalshop.net/pdf/LM%25207401.pdf to present an English language interface) should be fine. 3. – Your wikilinking of MBE should suffice. On GracianoGrancino: sorry, that's way out of my field. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for good advice, bass player promoted to user page now. I asked the wrong question about Grancino, in a way I think it doesn't matter too much which Grancino - like Amati, Guarneri. (btw Siegfried Palm played one, too, Gianbattista not Giovanni, so claims de-WP without a source, just because it stood there for so long ...) But a page about the Grancino family might help the confused spectator. Who's field would that be? (not mine, smile.) I found an interesting link to Melos - Graz - 1982 - it looks to me like a live concert, that would be the latest of the Melos I know - so far! Always good for surprises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any page in the article space for Adrian Beers, and you removed it from your Sandbox. About Grancino (blush): even the Italian Wikipedia doesn't know about him or his family, so I suspect it would be quite a job to sort them out. Until then, Giovanni Grancino is all we've got. Maybe the sources mentioned in that article would reveal more. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: User:Gerda_Arendt/Adrian_Beers - not quite ready. One (unused) source mentioned "priceless Grancino" - no Wiki-word of course, smile. Thanks for turning to Italian even. I will pass that hint to our German "perfectionist" who wrote the de mentioned above and re-installed Gianbattista. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Books

Michael, I don't know if you are interested in the new 'books', but we are having some technical discussions that will have some bearing on tables, navigation boxes etc. and I thought I should let you know, the main postings are at Wikipedia-Books, see here. Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Book-class ff and I did try the "Create a book" feature when I first noticed it several months ago. It didn't do anything for me and I lost interest. In my opinion, creating a book from HTML material is a process which requires skills which go beyond the book creator. However, I will continue to follow the discussion to look out for implications regarding wide tables and such. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The results are better than I expected, see for example Wikipedia:Books/Richard Wagner. I'm interested to see how they respond to suggestions. I wondering how this will impact on the Version 1.00 Project (which seems to be inactive right now). If that collapses many things on WP will change — conceivably for the better. --Kleinzach 12:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MZ-Screen.GIF

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MZ-Screen.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Eerily reminiscent...

...of the chap at rec.music.opera. [9]. Sigh! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)