User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

A suggestion

Hi there. I was going through Article Feedback lately, and noticed you've been doing some work in the area. Just so you know, if you want a wider range of options in responding to feedback, you might want to request the Reviewer and/or Rollbacker permission, as they're both bundled with certain feedback-related rights, namely hiding submissions and requesting oversight. With 23,000 edits and Autopatrolled, I don't see how you'd have any trouble getting the right, and it's always nice to have another editor willing to help cut down the absurdly high number of bad feedback submissions. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your sentiments, but I try to stay out of administrative matters on Wikipedia as much as possible. In this specific case, I'm not even sure that Article Feedback is a good idea; I think article talk pages provide a more effective place for questions and answers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re L'incoronazione di Poppea

Apologies for not discussing my revisions of the article on "L'incoronazione di Poppea" first (I am new to Wikipedia editing), but please don't undo all my changes. I'm a Monteverdi specialist and up-to-date with the latest research in the field, which the article wasn't. Therefore, I have corrected facts concerning the dating of the opera (no one believes anymore that it was premiered in 1642), allegations that nothing is known of the original cast and reception, listings of the literary sources of the libretto, reconstruction of the doubling plan, as well as a number of smaller errors. While I see your point about not discussing the deletion of a whole section, the article on an individual opera does not seem the right place to write of Monteverdi's full oeuvre, which seems irrelevant in the context (there's still the article on Monteverdi proper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockholm Opera (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hej, I'm not overly interested in L'incoronazione di Poppea or Monteverdi and I won't revert any further. Because so much work has gone into the article's peer review and then to promote it to featured status, it is customary to discuss major changes to such articles on their discussion page. However, it seems that not many editors are still watching this article, so maybe a word about your intentions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera might be appropriate. And getting a user name instead of editing anonymously is a good start – tak. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks - and sorry for my clumsiness: I only now realized that there is sich a thing as a discussion page... However, I will post a notice on both pages. Best, Stockholm Opera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockholm Opera (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Markus Marquardt

Thanks. I looked but couldn't find the copyvio, and thought I'd just welcome him with good faith and give others a day to see if they would sort out the edit. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to remind Artassistant about conflict of interest and copyright violations? The user has form (see: 10 December, "URV" is abbr. for "Urheberrechtsverletzung" = copyright violation). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Opera ≠ Opera

Hello Michael Bednarek,

• ...I guess you've done about 1,000 edits where you attempted to replace "Opera" with "WikiProject Opera" (where the correct terms would have been "{{Opera}}" and "{{WikiProject Opera}}"; I wonder if you could check whether there were any other erroneous string replacements?

I could try to check for other erroneous string replacements, but, in case I do so incompetently, I imagine it's probably better for them to present themselves as time goes by. Fortunately, I doubt there'll be (m)any, as your guess is somewhat on the large side. I also imagine {{Opera}} has otherwise been used in ways that avoid ambiguity, else I suppose its rationale would be flawed. In the meantime, my apologies for attempting to usurp something. Is that really what I was doing? CsDix (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was what you were doing. You were trying to usurp a long-standing redirect with thousands of linked pages to use for a flawed title of a navbox. You also went into other users' talk page archives and changed all the links there, making nonsense out of the conversations, e.g. here. You should not be editing other people's talk page comments and you should not be making these kinds of changes to widely used project banners without discussing this first with the relevant projects. This kind of editing is very disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(watching) shouldn't this be on the project talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird edits

Michael, what on earth do you think is going on here? There was a similar thing here earlier ... I am a bit baffled. Some of the edits look like they may be meant to be serious but I can't take any of it seriously when so many are nonsense. Is this a "known problem" of some sort? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird indeed. Like these 2, there were previously some other editors of similar ilk whose IP address pointed to an Indonesian service provider. I think reverting all their edits on the precautionary principle is fully warranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Gosh, yes, I had a look further back in the history. Fully warranted, indeed. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox book

Hi, I hadn't realised that it was you at the time, but thanks for updating the {{Infobox book}} doc pages last month when the template was updated (to have optional preceded/followed by quotation marks); you actually described a much neater solution than the one I'd coded (using either "preceded_by" or "preceded_by_quotation_marks", rather than having the latter as a switch) so I've made a mockup in the template sandbox that uses this system. Not realising it was you, I'd assumed it was Mr. Stradivarius who had made the change, and when I asked him if he'd mind updating it again he pointed out you had updated the doc, and suggested reaching a consensus first, so I've described the proposed update on the template talk page, and hope you'll add your thoughts there. All the best, --xensyria^T 04:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded at Template talk:Infobox book. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --xensyria^T 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hanns Eisler's "grave of honor"

Thanks for your efforts and attention to the Eisler article. I hope that the wikilink to Ehrengrab clarifies your questioning, raised on January 7, of the term "grave of honor". Cheers, L.Willms (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by slashing commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Ewa Podleś, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.170.53 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

For responses, see User talk:68.149.170.53: Revision history, User talk:129.128.206.251: Revision history, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mary Jane Phillips-Matz

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Mary Jane Phillips-Matz. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. She just died. That means you must treat a biography like a BLP and you need two references to show notability. Don't remove the tag until you correct the problem. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Don't template the regulars.
2. The subject is notable as shown by the obituary in the NYT and the founder status of the American Institute for Verdi Studies. Her notability is further shown by her "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Her works are cited in music reference works like The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music and The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera and in many Wikipedia articles. More sources to confirm her notability are only 1 Google search away; you may want to consult WP:BEFORE (and, incidentally, Help:Using talk pages).
3. I suggest you revert your most recent edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto from me. Slapping a notability tag on an article within 3 minutes of its creation, with no explanation whatsoever on the talk page as to your reasons and no effort whatsoever to see if the tag is justified before adding it in the first place, is exactly the opposite of what is expected from experienced Wikipedians. I have removed the tag. Gtwfan52, I see that you are member of WikiProject Editor Retention. If you are serious about that, I strongly suggest you change your counter-productive approach to new page curation and the way you interact with experienced and highly productive editors. Incidentally, where did you get the idea that someone who has recently died is the same as a BLP and that a BLP requires 2 references in the article to establish notability. The requirement is that multiple sources with significant coverage be available, and they are in abundance in this case. Voceditenore (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Michael, me again. I'd like to nominate this article for a DYK. Is that OK with you? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course that's OK. No need to ask me – your contributions to the article outweigh mine by far. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! The reason I asked was because someone once nominated one of my articles for a DKY without asking or even telling me about it, and when the nominator didn't respond to the reviewer's questions, the reviewer starting bugging me. But don't worry, I'll keep a watchful eye on the nomination for any queries/questions. I've listed you as creator and me as nominator. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for correcting my erroneous edit on The German autobahns article
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 20:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Peter Schickele

My bad; you were right. I obviously conflated Peter Schickele and P. D. Q. Bach and got in into my head they were the same article. TJRC (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lo and behold...

What should I find yesterday but this little beauty (written by the subject herself). I've done my best to copyedit it and provide some proper references, but frankly I don't think she passes either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. I've noted these concerns at Talk:Clare Ann Matz. I'm inclined to wait a bit and see if any other coverage of her can be found and added (I've searched pretty exhaustively, and what's now in the article, is basically all there is out there). But if there's no improvement I'll probably take it to AfD. It was already taken to AfD once (Articles for deletion/Clare Ann Matz), and was passed on quite spurious arguments by people who obviously hadn't read or understood any of the references. What do you think? Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As always, I'm impressed by your skills to find stuff. Regarding AfD: I've never supported an AfD, I'm not going to start now. If I'm not enthusiastic about keeping an article, I remain silent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just wondering if a second AfD was worth the bother. I'll let it sit for a while, if nothing else, it's an interesting artefact. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

VBA as a simili-Object-oriented language

Could you please clarify the relationship between VBA and object-orientation? You seem to know more. Please answer on Talk:Visual Basic for Applications#Please add --Jules.LT (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

eyes and brain
Thank you for your keeping watch on "my" articles - List of Bach cantatas, Christmas cantata ... - with your wonderful tools, eyes and brain. I was reminded yesterday of the very first discussion I had on Wikipedia, you asking: is Graham Waterhouse a classical German cellist? - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the ninth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize. It still applies, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

and again: I admire your phrasing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

About the vocal range of Ewa Podles

If you don't know the vocal range of Ewa Podles you can try to learn it from wikipedia, but not slash all of that information just because youself don't know it. Are you the god? Are you everything? You are nothing! You are just like a stupid ostrich. Whenever something new is coming, you choose to do nothing but just put your head into the sand and then believe that there is nothing happened. You are really the most arrogant, paranoid and stupid person that I have every met.

By the way, I will never give up to fight against your evil forces until the day of my death. Let's wait and see！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NimbusContralto (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The article on Ewa Podleś claims her vocal range spans "more than three octaves" and cites an article in The New York Times as a reference. That article actually calls her range "a firm three-and-a-half-octave range from rich chest tones well below the staff to ringing high C's". Another reference cited in the articles, by Mike Silverman, calls her range "more than two octaves, reaching up near high C" after mentioning her "prolonged F below middle C". Those two references support weakly the claim of "more than three octaves" although the only referenced range is a more-than-two octaves range from F₃ to C₆.

You keep inserting a range of E₂ to E♭₆, a four-octave range which is unsupported by the sources provided and not even claimed by the preceding text. I removed that range as an obvious error.

If you want that range to remain in the article, you need to find a reputable source which confirms it, then change the text accordingly. Even then, other editors might point to contradictory sources regarding her range (Midgette & Silverman). Until then, the four-octave range claim ought to be removed as it is contradicted by the immediately preceding text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Jane Phillips-Matz

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Parma

Greetings M.B.:

I think you're taking a rather extreme view of Parma's situation. If you look at recent years, there may only have been three or four productions during the main season. But during the Verdi Festival each October, there have generally been at least two Verdi operas performed (or two plus a concert), three in better economic times. It's still a viable company, so I think they need to be re-instated. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought all criteria mentioned in the lead of List of opera companies had to be met for inclusion; those that didn't would be listed in the other lists mentioned there, in this case List of opera companies in Europe where the Teatro Regio (Parma) is indeed listed and has been since that article's inception. If you want to reinstate the recent addition of the Teatro Regio (Parma) to the List of opera companies, I will not revert. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Depending upon how we regard a season - is it Sept/October to May/June or is a calendar year, although we know that most Italian houses use a calendar year - 2011 Season had a total of seven performances; the 2012 Season had only two operas before the Festival, then two plus a Verdi concert, so didn't quite hit the mark; and now the 2013 Season shows three so far, and we'll hope that the Verdi Festival will add another three. Given Italy's fiscal crisis (or continuing crises...), we'll have to cross our fingers that Verdi's Bicentential Year produces a decent programme in Parma..... But, overall, it's a house which has a worthy reputation and one which I feel needs to be included in the list, even if they don't quite meet the minimum criteria these days. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WP Composers in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Composers for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My main interests on Wikipedia are related to classical music, but I'm not a member of the WikiProject Composers. I occasionally comment on that project's talk page and I edit articles which fall under its purview, but I won't be participating in the interview. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

reference deleted

Go ahead and delete the entry. I was completely in the wrong and I make a public apology to you right here and now. It has occured to me that I had no business presenting myself on your page for whatever reason. It would suit me if you deleted all references to this matter including this one. I'm sorry to have involved this man's name in such an exchange. Thanks for all your attention, especially about the typo. Jerome Sindaco 14:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The page Byrd (surname) is a set index article and falls under the purview of the WikiProject Disambiguation which follows the editing guideline at WP:DAB and the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. The rules for set index articles follow the rules for stand-alone lists at WP:STANDALONE. I suggest you familiarise yourself with those documents.

The combined effect of those rules is that each entry on the page Byrd (surname) should be linked to one Wikipedia article, preferrably about the person. The entry you provided for "Paul F. Byrd" (which contains several formatting problems and one spelling mistake) is not linked to any Wikipedia article. The correct course of action is to write the article first. Until then, I suggest you revert your latest edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Special characters on DEFAULTSORT

Hi. I removed the special characters in the DEFAULTSORT of Who the *$&% Is Jackson Pollock? per WP:SORTKEY. Please in the future if you revert any edit of Yobot please give me a note. Sometimes Yobot and I do mistakes but sometimes maybe there is a guideline behind I try to implement with success or with no success. In any case I really love fixing my mistakes and becoming better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your 1st edit, which I reverted, did not remove a special character, "&" in this case, but replaced it with "and"; that seemed not right and that's why I reverted it. Your second edit, which I did not revert, then removed the entire string "#$&%" (which you call "special characters") from the sortkey. As that doesn't make any difference in the collation of this title in any of its categories, I don't care about removing these characters, but I can't see how WP:SORTKEY supports that action. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Opera templates

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Opera_template_usage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Opera

I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Titles in references

Please do not change the titles of works cited in references, as you did in this edit. I've restored the correct title. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The part of the title "1897-47" is not correct, it's erroneous, misleading and malformed. Wikipedia style guides apply even to quoted material, thus I used the n-dash instead of the original minus. The specification of the range is erroneous and confusing; it clearly refers to to the years 1897 until 1947. The reader is not well served by repeating the web site's sloppy description; that's why I changed it to "1897–1947". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think the title is "erroneous, misleading and malformed" (and I'm not disputing that it could be clearer), then you may take that up with the editor of the site concerned. In the meantime, it remains the title that they use, and is correctly cited. The MoS does not say to change such titles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

RLY? Citing MoS? I was guided by the "fundamental principle" of common sense and the policy of “Ignore all rules” when I decided to to avoid confounding readers by sacrificing the integrity of Wikipedia and all it stands for. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you

get my email? Let me know on my talk page. Or by email. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Karneval in the Rheinland

Michael, thanks for your reference to Elferrat at Talk:Cologne#Carnival. The whole concept of the so-called "fifth season" is mind-bogglingly confusing to anyone not familiar with any traditions other than a pre-Lenten carnival or "Mardi Gras". At this point I don't even remember where or how I first stumbled across the question - actually looking back now it originated with an entirely different question about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln - but you may be interested in looking at two related conversations, first at

• User talk:Gerda Arendt#Something fishy and then per her suggestion at
• User talk:Symposiarch#Carnival in Germany, Switzerland and Austria.

If you might have any interest in or knowledge of this general topic, some clarification is sorely needed, at several different articles. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have emphatically no interest in what I consider to be one of the less edifying aspects of German customs; my knowledge about it, like User:Symposiarch's, but to a much lesser degree, is based on the absorption of local traditions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Scherler

Dear Mr Bednarek, I revised the birthdate of Ms Barbara Scherler, my aunt, from 10 January 1938 to 20 January 1933. The Scherler family and friends celebrated her 80th birthday on January the 20th this year in Berlin. Kind regards, N. Scherler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inter Netzer (talk • contribs) 11:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The source in the article Barbara Scherler says otherwise. Please provide a citable reliable source to support your assertion; until then, the sourced version has to remain. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, your source seems to be wrong. I am one of Barbara Scherler's nephews. My father is the two years younger brother of Barbara, Peter-Christoph. As I wrote you, we celebrated Barbara Scherler's 80th birthday on Januar the 20th in 2013. It was a sunday and a lot of family members, friends and former colleagues were there. So, I guess, apart from the two brothers of Barbara Scherler, I am one of the most reliable sources you can get. Kind regards, N. Scherler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inter Netzer (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(watching) Wikipedia is willing to be "verifiable" rather than true, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe your assertions, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Verifiability trumps the truth. You may want to consult these pages: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research (and there expecially Primary, secondary and tertiary sources), Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Please provide a citable reliable source to support your assertion. Maybe you can persuade the people at http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Scherler-Barbara.htm to change their page. And please, following the instructions below this edit window and at WP:SIGHOW, sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Metastasio

Thank you for helping to clean up {{Metastasio}}. You are a veteran editor and should know that you are suppose to add the template to the articles when you add articles to a template. Please don't make me have to run around behind you in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As a veteran editor, I would attempt to familiarise myself with the subject matter should I venture into an area outside my core interests; that would avoid making other editors run around behind me and fix my mistakes.
I don't think there is a general compulsion to place every navigation box on every page it mentions; in fact, several of the templates you created recently are in my opinion unsuitable for some of the pages they mention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Angela Gheorghiu

I'm glad you removed record labels. My initial tactic was to have them in there so it wouldn't be reverted to the its dreadful predecessor merely to contain that field. But I agree, it's trivial and, as per usual in these cases, a misleading oversimplification. Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Madame or Mademoiselle?

Hi, Michael. In the article about La mort d'Abel you have undone my latest edit restoring the word 'Mlle' instead of 'Madame'. In fact, note number 9 states that the premiere cast is reported "according to the original libretto" and the original libretto writes 'Madame' (or, to be more precise, 'M^me' and 'M^mes') and not Mademoiselle or Mlle. That's why I had edited "Madame" in the premiere cast, but I have not modified "Mlle" in the 1823 cast, as this is the very term (Mlle Thomassin) employed by the source mentioned in footnote number 10 (Pitou).--Jeanambr (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, "assuming that the original 'Mlle' was correct, it's incorrect to replace it with 'Madame'". Well, I didn't consult the original libretto this time, so I didn't notice that the replaced "Mlles" were actually mistaken. I'm going to restore the ladies' appellation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cheers. --Jeanambr (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 11 (Mozart):

Hallo, Michael. I noticed that you removed this, which I inserted recently into the article for Mozart's Sonata no. 11 in A major, K. 331:

This sonata is unique amongst Mozart's piano sonatas in that it alone lacks any movement that, overall, is in sonata form. However, it does not lack sonata form entirely, because if you look at the Menuetto movement, and consider the "Menuetto" and "Trio" sections separately, each of them is in a miniature sonata form within itself.

Do you have a problem with this? Can I alter it to make it more acceptable? Seems to me unquestionably true - I don't see how any part of it can be quibbled with - and it seems an interesting and valuable fact about this sonata.

In what way don't you find it clear? I tried very hard to write it clearly. M.J.E. (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In my edit at Piano Sonata No. 11 (Mozart), I removed the sentence about a relation between the 3rd and 1st movements following your suggestion on the article's talk page. I removed your passage about the sonata's lack of sonata form because it was confusing ("lacks any movement that, overall, is in sonata form. However, it does not lack sonata form entirely"), unencyclopedic ("if you look at the Menuetto movement") and unsourced, and thus original research. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Signatures.
Message added 10:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Technical 13 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of literary works by César Cui

Hi Michael - I'm not sure what's appropriate here- I split off the list into a separate article because it was unbalancing the main article - I would have thought that the composer project is relevant, opera possibly because it lists Cui's writings on e.g. Wagner....but they could both go without me losing too much sleep. Lithuania is of course preposterous, but some Litvak nationalist would probably go apeshit if it was taken out.........--Smerus (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Jane Austen makeover

I am going to make work specific templates. The huge template has a lot of content that is related, but it is formatted differently than a lot of other great writers. When I am done the bottom of this page will look something like Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde, H. G. Wells and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Creating works specific templates allows for some tangential content that is relevant to the work but not the general audience for the author. I am notifying you because you are one of a handful of editors with more than 5 edits to the template. Ping me if this is a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Colin Davis died, not Andrew Davis

I think you were getting confused here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh bugger; blush & double blush. This is very embarassing. And it remained for more than a week. Thanks for noticing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lieutenant Kijé

Hello Michael
I've just raised a question on the Kijé music page; I noticed you'd posted on the novella talkpage, and are involved with music articles generally, so I wondered if you might have the answer. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Vienna Philharmonic

I understand your opposition to the move request, but having a separate discussion will not help things. Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves makes it clear that "discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at current1", which in this case means the Berlin talkpage. I have removed the second move request and I recommend that you add your comments to the Berlin talkpage, otherwise your opinion might be overlooked. I would add your comments from Vienna to Berlin but I believe it is better for the user to do this themselves. Thanks. Green Giant (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Martha Gellhorn 1978 about Stalin

Dear Michael, the lemma about Martha Gellhorn tells us that Gellhorn never criticized Stalin's communism. That is not true. 'Travels with myself and another' (1978) contains a rather sour but interesting chapter about her 1972 travelling to Moscow; there she visited "Mrs. M." - and all details in that text makes us believe that that person has been Osip Mandelstam's widow Nadjezjda Mandelstam. In that text Gellhorn is very, very critical about Stalin and his period. Because I have only the Dutch translation of the book I cannot give citations in English. (The chapter in Dutch: 'Een blik op Moedertje Rusland' = A view on Mom Russia). My suggestion: maybe an expert wiki-man in your country could control and correct the lemma. - Excuse my poor English! Greetings from Cuijk (Holland), 195.241.219.56 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That whole section in the article about Martha Gellhorn was unsourced, so I removed it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I regret! Her political views were more important information than her like or dislike sexual behaviour. Better would be searching for good documentation and sources! I'm disappointed! 195.241.219.56 (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that her political and religious views are important, but they must be particularly well sourced, that's why that section had to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Konrad Dryden

Hi,

was genau fehlt noch, damit genügend Citations for Verification in dem Artikel Konrad Dryden vorhanden sind?

Danke, Airbourne92 (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have any, really. Where to start? His family connections? Are they even relevant? "Sparked an innate love for the lyric theatre"? European resident? Tuition with Schmitt-Walters, King, Metternich, Bechi? His essays, lectures, interviews? The last paragraph makes some extraordinary claims without any verification. Lastly, too often the article's prose gets sidetracked into matters unrelated to Dryden's biography or his work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Archiving Wagner talk

In retrospect it is a pity you made the last archiving, as anyone who bothers to look next week at the talk page will get a very pecuilar idea of the nature of Wagner discussion on Wikipedia.... :-} --Smerus (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Peculiar, nice word, thanks, Smerus. - Actually I came here to thank you, Michael, for commenting the content, instead of fears, implications, assumptions ;) - As it will probably get lost over there: yes, I know that the works of the Ring cycle are mentioned together (so I did), but find it interesting how far apart in time they were created, will collapse that section. - I suggest I improve the infobox on the talk and put the one that is there in my sandbox for history, what do you think? - Why did we get another heated exchange NOT about content? - The balance between infobox and navbox is worth looking at, details could go to the bottom. - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Smerus: if you're unhappy with the single-minded state of Talk:Richard Wagner, it only takes 2 reverts to undo my archiving of threads where the most recent contribution was almost 4 months old (and incidentally yours). You feel haunted? Don't flatter yourself. Gerda wrote why she came to this page; you should not assume otherwise.

Gerda (& Smerus): I was flabbergasted about the reaction to Gerda's proposal of an infobox for R. Wagner on that article's talk page. I disagree with that idea, but surely, that's what talk pages are for – although I'm not going to write anything further there. Pace everyone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Flabbergasted? After the Bach infobox fight? It's one thing to make a proposal that may/may not be accepted, another thing to simply call out the troops. I've been more active on WP recently, but what's the point if we'e not contributing to articles? --Kleinzach 15:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

1) I didn't see any troops, only a vague proposal, starting with "I don't suggest to place an infobox in this article". 2) I don't agree with some of her ideas, but Gerda is an exceptional contributor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(blushing, again) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"I didn't see any troops" isn't exactly what Nelson said, but it's awfully close. Gerda is indeed exceptional, but then not only as a contributor. Kleinzach 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tessitura may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Die Gedanken sind frei may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Oedipus

I don't know why I should have to even tell you this, but if you remove links from a template, remove the templates from those pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Then don't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Re this edit, per WP:NPA, "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." There is nothing appropriate about replacing removed derogatory comments. Thanks, and I request that you revert your revert. Apteva (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any derogatory (or even uncivil) content in the comment you removed and which I restored for purely formal reasons, namely WP:TALKNO where it says: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors". I have no interest in the dispute itself. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob Halford

Dear Michael,

I would have apprichiated if you would have asked me first about adding a reliable source to my recent addition on colaborations of Mr. Halford instead of deleting the edit. The source is here (in German): http://www.metal-hammer.de/video-audio/premieren/article414104/seht-das-lyricvideo-zu-five-finger-death-punch-featuring-rob-halford.html and if you search second hand sources like blabbermouth etc. you'll find the info as well (both the month of release and Halford's involvement in the album's song).

I'd like to ask you to take back your edit.

Thanx and Metal On. --Infanteriesoldat (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit had several flaws: 1) the album title was spelled in all-caps and enclosed with quotation marks; 2) the album is to be released in the future, which means, following WP:CRYSTAL, it shouldn't be mentioned at all on Wikipedia; 3) Halford's contribution is to one song, so mentioning the album before it comes out seems unwarranted – the interested reader can easily click on the 5FDP link and find out more. I suggest to wait with any further details until the album gets released. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)