User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 12

__INDEX__

Sontag
Hello Michael,

Why "material unsuited" ? David and Larry Sontag are twins. Between 1987 and 1998, they were professionals of catch wrestling (like Dave Power and Larry Power in "The Power Twins") then they perform in dozen films (Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve or Jack and Jill) with names David and Larry Sontag...

I am an old contributor on French Wikipedia (since 2006) but I don't speak English very well so I don't know rules on English Wikipedia.

GabrieL (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages should assist readers to find Wikipedia articles; see the first sentence at MOS:DAB and further links there. The material at Sontag provides no navigation, and is thus unsuitable until articles for David & Larry Sontag exist. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael: This is the kind of biting that drives so many well-intentioned editors away from Wikipedia.—Finell 08:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. So I have created articles. In French Wikipedia, the red links are welcome if articles can be created beacause admissible. Red links are even desired to encourage people to create the articles. GabrieL (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Gabriel, that is also true here in English Wikipedia. However, we use red links in articles (see the first paragraph in Red link), but not in disambiguation pages, which are intended to help readers choose among several existing Wikipedia articles. Thank you for contributing to English Wikipedia. I hope you will continue to contribute here.—Finell 08:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Temperment
Michael, I see that you devote a lot of time to Wikipedia and make many valuable contributions, especially in upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also tend to do a lot of copy editing and conforming articles to WP:MOS. However, you could do even more good for Wikipedia by continuing to do what you do with more tact toward other editors. I base this recommendation on reading the most recent archives of your Talk page. Standards are important, but encouraging broader public participation in creating and editing Wikipedia is even more important to the project in the long run (I'm not talking about deliberate vandals). Where possible, consider trying to salvage imperfect edits rather than reverting them—especially with well-intentioned, but inexperienced, Wikipedians. Also, consider using a more friendly, welcoming tone in your communications with other editors and even in your edit summaries, especially with less experienced editors. There will always be a corps of editors who like to copy edit and to conform articles to the MOS. However, recruiting and retaining new editors, and broadening the diversity of editors, are two of the most serious problems that confront the Wikipedia project.—Finell 09:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Götz-Zitat
Certainly, my addendum is unsourced, but how to "source" a vernacular you grew up in?

Is it unlikely? You must call me a liar to deny the certainty of the existence of this collocation. So likelihood is certainly not really an appropriate qualification. Since the de-rigeur quote is also from Götz, there is no chance to deny the factual "This is a Götz-quote, too." Furthermore I reported the quite reasonable background for this construction, so I really do not see a reason to revert this small addendum.

Whatever, I do know already about this Wikipedian spirit to talk about boldly editing and perform brutally reverting. I assure you, that I grew up in Austria, attended all schools and university there and still live there, so I know about the language as it is now spoken (and written), and therefore ask you politely to revert back your rush reversion. In any outcome I will not move one finger on this. Purgy (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia, unlike some others, is rather strict about the requirement for verifiability and reliable sources. at Götz von Berlichingen (Goethe) made several claims and provided not a single source, hence I called it "unsourced". Further, I called your assertions "unlikely" because I, too, am very familiar with the German language and its use, including the vast treasure of Goethe quotes, and I've never heard anyone who mentioned the Götz-Zitat referring to something else but the Swabian salute. "Wo viel Licht ist, ist starker Schatten" is indeed a well-known quote from Götz, too, but it's not, as you suggested, the Götz quote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Die englische Wikipedia, im Gegensatz zu einigen anderen, hat recht strikte Anforderungen bzgl. Belegpflicht und zuverlässigen Informationsquellen. Deine Bearbeitung stellte eine Reihe von Behauptungen auf, bot aber nicht eine Quelle an; deshalb nannte ich es „unbelegt“. Weiterhin nannte ich deine Erklärung „unwahrscheinlich“ weil auch ich mit der deutschen Sprache vetraut bin, einschließlich des riesigen Schatzes von Goethe-Zitaten, und noch nie gehört habe, dass mit dem „Götz-Zitat“ etwas anderes als der „Schwäbische Gruß“ gemeint war. „Wo viel Licht ist, ist starker Schatten“ ist wohl auch ein bekanntes Zitat aus dem „Götz“, aber es ist nicht, wie du ausführtest, „das Götz-Zitat“. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I never claimed my edit to be sourced, but rather asked how to source a vernacular.
 * Oh, I see, you are the arbiter of likelihood, and single instantiation has measure zero, and you do not hesitate to call me a liar.
 * I never claimed the light-quote to be the Götz quote, but definitely stated its foisted interpretation as a Götz quote to hide an offense. You certainly will feel the gist of it, if I -considering your work in Wikipedia- write to you the Götz quote, note, not the Swabian salute. ;]
 * I do not consider it necessary that you supply a german translation, neither as proof of your fluidity, nor to cope with my inabilities. I'd just would wish you to avoid that familiar second person, singular adressing of myself, which I want to reserve for its classically appropriate use.


 * Happy bureaucracy. Purgy (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Flags in 1952 in music
In MOS:FLAGS it says: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Flags served a purpose in that sortable table. With them, you can sort the premiere dates by country. This highlights which countries were the most active regarding relevant contemporary music premieres, as well as listing its cities by number of premieres. Now you can sort the locations by city but not by country, while with the flags you could sort them by both.

Can we have them back? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline you cite then goes on: "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags". The better approach, if sorting of "1952 in music – Premieres" by the location country is really considered to be useful, is to use the countries' names. The article also suffers from WP:OVERLINK: London, Paris, New York City? Really? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that words over flags guideline is for cases like this. When you pass your mouse on "West Germany" flashes, so the concept is delivered both verbally and visually. Why make it flash like that if you're not supposed to use it instead of writing "West Germany"?


 * It we take that guideline rigurously I think you could only paste flagicons if the point is to show how that flag looks. Why do the sports clubs squads (for example) use them then? I don't remember anyone questioning that. And in this sortable table using flags has more functional relevance than in football squad tables (basketball squads do have sortable tables). Using flags in this table also keeps the cities aligned, which makes the information easier to grasp visually.


 * I don't mind unlinking the cities. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:FLAG provides a valid reason for using flags: "where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams", which is clearly not the case in those "yyyy in music#Classical music" sections. As for the discovery of a flag's meaning by hovering the mouse: please consider that a significant proportion of Wikipedia readers access it from devices that don't have a mouse, like mobile phones and tablets. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that seems to be a different matter, we're talking about lists and tables (next sentence), and it just talks about being pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. If flagicons are accepted in football clubs squads, where the players don't represent their country, I think not accepting them here, where they are both informative, pertinent to the topic (distribution of contemporary music premieres throughout the world) and useful for sortable purposes, is a double standard.


 * I know nothing about tablets and the like, but at the very least you should be able to click the flagicon to enter that country's article. Actually, I wonder if they made turned them into links because of that. Anyway, everyone knows these flags. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet more about the Years in music tables
I used the small tags to keep the table from breaking. Or is it just my computer?

I think fitting the information to the table makes it easier to read and grasp. And I thought keeping the tables aligned had precedence over font size. But if most users prefer having everything in the same size rather than having it aligned I won't use this tag anymore, I don't really mind since you can shrink the font via CRTL + mouse (actually I think it's better with everything shrunk one font size). Pakhtakorienne Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comedians
Hi, Michael. Based on your post at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 22 in June 2014, you mention discussions at length about the "influences / influenced by" infobox fields. I was involved in one at some point, and if there are others, maybe you could point me to them.

There's an edit-war going on with anon IPs (possibly the same person) at Jon Stewart, so I note neutrally that you, as someone who has discussed this topic and is knowledgeable on it, might wish to weigh in Talk:Jon Stewart. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665130005 your edit] to 1952 in music 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- ! style="background-color: #FAA;" | List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page (Click show ⇨ ) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
 * of Baltimore|Baltimore Little Orchestra]] – Stewart
 * of Baltimore|Baltimore Little Orchestra]] – Stewart
 * of Baltimore|Baltimore Little Orchestra]] – Stewart

Barry Jones
Your added citations are welcome of course. The material had been displayed for years without appropriate citations. Gumsaint (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example ). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example ), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wood Nymph
Hey, thanks for you edits on the above page, which I originally created (it was, admittedly, the first I had ever done). Some of the changes were interesting to me, and since expanding the Sibelius tone poems is a goal of mine (for example, I have one in the oven on The Oceanides in my sandbox), I think it'd be good if I took a moment to understand these rules that were unknown to me. If you, as a pro, have time for a brief explanation, I'd really appreciate it, especially since many of the things I had done I had found as examples on other pages (such as the orchestration layout) and the fixed sizing for images. Also, I thought the flags were a nice touch on the discography, because it allowed sorting of the table by orchestra country of origin.

Anyway, thanks again. Anything that makes the Sibelius pages better is in my book a step in the right direction.

Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your contributions. As for my edit: I always try to explain my edits as good as I can in the limited space of an edit summary, and I added links to some relevant guidelines in this case. I recommend you click on them and read them. Let me know if you didn't see the edit summary.
 * In this case, there's a strong discouragement at MOS:FLAGS of the "nice touch" of flags if they don't signify a competition of nation states. Other matters of style like the case of section headings and the kind of dashes are covered at MOS:SECTIONS and MOS:DASH. The sizing of images is dealt with at MOS:IMAGES and WP:IMAGESIZE. Lastly, the use of  is explained at HELP:POEM. Other things, like the formatting of orchestration lists, are to a large degree up to personal preference; in this case, the format I found had 4 paragraphs and 17 lines which struck me a wasteful, so I reformatted it into 4 lines instead. HTH. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

 * "Deprecated persondata: As the template:Persondata doesn't do anything at all any more, edits which *only remove it* from articles can be seen as merely cosmetic and borderline disruptive."
 * Fair enough but most of the time I find myself fixing the articles in question, which I list as "tweaked and tagged" in the edit summaries. I have found outdated info, vandalism, OR, POV text, linkfarms, etc. There is too much work to do, actually, but I try my best. You can reply here. Yours, Quis separabit?  03:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If your edits in this matter that I noticed had contained "tweaks and tags" I wouldn't have to an existing comment on your talk page. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Frequently performed opera composers
Hi Michael, you did a great job on the Frequently performed opera composers list this morning! Do you have a trick for finding links that go to redirects and/or dab pages? or were you superhumanly patient and just tested all 400+ links? Best, Scarabocchio (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Two tools are essential for my editing work: 1) WP:Tools/Navigation popups which can be activated at Special:Preferences; 2) User:Anomie/linkclassifier as you can see at User:Michael Bednarek/common.js – this colours links according to their nature. For an overview of Wikipedia's functionality to customise an editor's environment, see WP:Common.js and common.css. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * VERY useful!! many thanks for that. Scarabocchio (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=670625198 your edit] to Martha Graham 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * | Harlequinade}

West Side Story
I thought it might make sense to add a reference to imdb to make that section seem less unverified. Now that I see the WP:EL/P#IMDb, why even have that part in at all?Wikidude10000 (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because 1) it's probably true; 2) the tag Citation needed encourages people to provide a reliable source – maybe it's mentioned in one of her biographies? Until then, I suggest you revert . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi
sorry about that it was something in my textbook I had read but I'll be more careful about sourcing also sorry for the late reply since I'm really busy with college Saturn star (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
I didn't realise I had unarchived that material - editing on an iPad and slipping a finger I suspect Thanks for the catch Snowded  TALK 15:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving articles by cut and paste
Hi Michael, sorry to create trouble by doing a cut-and-paste move on Mozart and Roman Catholicism. If I understand rightly, my only alternative in reverting an ill-judged article title change is to ask an admin to do it, and I hate to bother them. Opus33 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your reluctance, but an administrator's assistance is not always necessary. If the target of a move is a REDIRECT and has only 1 edit, anyone can performe the move – which was the case for . Never mind; a) that train has left; b) I occasionally see administrators merge edit histories, so it can be done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The bit about 1 edit is useful information; I'll try it next time this happens. Thanks for your help.  Opus33 (talk)

Fitzcarraldo Edit
Today I added a media reference to the film Fitzcarraldo and you deleted it. The explanation was that it was non-notable, and I disagree. This film has many media references and I added a legitimate one that wasn't mentioned. Would adding a citation make a difference? I am surprised that the solution was to delete the change outright, with no questions asked.

I apologize if this isn't the proper channel to address you on this issue. Thank you.

Dwilliamsiddall (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The mention of Fitzcarraldo on Andy Daly's Podcast Pilot Project on the limited-run Earwolf is not notable, or has anyone reliable and reputable noted it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Spinto
Do mezzo spinto exist or not? Malialola (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lohengrin II
Someone following the rules moved The Castle (novel), the established name, to The Castle (Kafka novel), see talk, - reminding me of Lohengrin. Sure, I would like Das Schloss even better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=675252511 your edit] to Samson 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * last=Leviton|authorlink=Richard Leviton|publisher=iUniverse|year=2014|isbn=9781491741290 (such as Heracles or Enkidu) enfolded into Jewish religious lore, or as an [[

Mittwoch Gallery
Hi Michael, Thanks for the suggestion to use the "packed" option for the gallery on Mittwoch aus Licht. I was not aware of this option before. I did try it, but the effect did not seem good to me. On my browser (Safari), it resulted in the same number of displayed lines, but maximized the width of each individual image by removing the "frames". The "unpacked" format looks tidier to me. I have very little experience with galleries. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the layout in the Mittwoch gallery (or indeed, in that article more generally)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I, too, wasn't sure about "packed", so I wasn't bold and only mentioned it for your consideration. I like the presentation of the images, but the centred captions turned me off. The tag  is explained a bit at Help:Gallery tag, and there's the template Gallery. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the pointers are much appreciated. I am puzzled by your reference to centred captions. Perhaps this is being generated by your browser. On my screen (using Safari 5.1.10, running under Mac OS-X 10.6), I see flush-left captions rather than centred ones.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that you mean the captions are centred in "packed" mode. This is also the case for "nolines" mode and I agree the captions do not look good in either of those layouts. This is not only because of the centering, but also because each caption appears at the same distance below its respective image, and in those two modes the images are aligned at their top margins, so that they descend according to the size and shape of the image. The overall effect is therefore very ragged.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BWV
Please read the discussion on BWV 35, where people felt the need to explain what BWV is, but a link from the bolded redirect BWV xyz looks ugly (also the MOS says something about no link from the bold article title which might imply the redirects as well). I would not need the footnote, but it was requested in BWV 22 during the FAC process. I think the little thing in the text is harmless, and like it better than the bolded link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that bolded links are necessarily ugly, especially not if they link directly to the underlying term, not to a REDIRECT, if the link is not part of the actual headword/phrase but to a technical term like "Op.", "Hob.", "K.", "WoO", and such. In these cases, the guideline MOS:LINK should not apply; that's why I changed Man singet mit Freuden vom Sieg in den Hütten der Gerechten, BWV 149. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You may remember that we had the links all the time, somrtimes BWV, sometimes Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, until a user made the point that they are not compliant with MOS, and we changed to no link, argument: the link is in the infobox. Now the demand came up again to explain. BWV xyz is a redirect - other title - for a work, and the MOS could be interpreted that a link from both is unwanted. It's not clear, I must say. - Do we need to discuss Classical? - Repeating: I think the footnote is more unobtrusive than a fat link, and I expect most readers of articles on Bach's works to know already what BWV means. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Opernwelt logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Opernwelt logo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nessun Dorma -- Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
Michael, I've undone your tagging. The info is at the [site referenced] on the Track Listing tab. Cheers, undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk) 00:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=693319184 your edit] to Elisabeth Schwarzkopf 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * amp;pg=PA442|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-533765-5|pages=442–}}

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=694547335 your edit] to Kurt Weill 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * for Jacques Deval's play, fr.

Olivera Miljaković's family name spelling
Olivera Miljaković (cyrillic: Оливера Миљаковић) is Serbian opera singer, soprano, Wiener Staatsoper Kammersängerin, and teacher. Please give a look at: https://zinkamilanov.wordpress.com/zirijury/kms-olivera-miljakovic/ http://volksgruppen.orf.at/diversitaet/hfh/stories/2670541/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmin_Ba%C5%A1i%C4%87 http://www.muzicka-omladina.org/?attachment_id=145&lang=lat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxCp0Z3Z_tE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNtxLEgIIEs and so on. My name is Inoslav Bešker, PhD. It seems that I am qualified in spelling of Serbian names (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoslav_Be%C5%A1ker). --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Another evidence: http://www.discogs.com/artist/1891014-Olivera-Miljakovic --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

And now there is an article on Kms Miljaković: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivera_Miljakovi%C4%87 --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume your comments refer to at María José Montiel. The English-language [//www.google.com/search?q= search results] from reputable & notable sources (IMDb, Bayreuth, Vienna State Opera, Seattle Opera. Deutsche Grammophon, …) for her name all used "Miljakovic", that's why I wrote "no evidence Olivera Miljakovic needs a ć." None of the sources you provide are of the standing required to establish that spelling in English; in fact, 3 of them use both. I really don't care which spelling is used, but it should satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, specifically WP:UE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I should prefer your answer om my talk page, but never mind. I realize that you decide which evidence is valid, which not. So I'll try to get o copy of a passport or identity card of Ms. Miljaković. --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer to respond here, where you raised the matter (see Editnotice at the top of this page when you edit it).
 * The English-language sources I quoted for the spelling of Miljakovic satisfy Wikipedia guidelines; yours don't, and some use both variants. Her passport or similar papers are irrelevant in this context; what counts is how reliable English-language sources spell her name. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven undone
Fuer diese aktion gibt es keine vernuenftige rechtfertigung. Ich habe den artikel erst fuenf minuten vorher kreiert. Um sicher zu gehen, dass er kein Orphan ist, habe ich den link gesetzt. Ich halte eine uebersichtliche See also section fuer brauchbar.Wikirictor (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (I, and any possible talk page watchers, would appreciate if you conduct a dicussion on the English Wikipedia in English.)
 * I assume you refer to at Ludwig van Beethoven. I removed the entry you added in the "See also" section for Ludwig van Beethoven (1712–1773), an article you created today – and thank you for that – and for which I created just now the interwiki link at Wikidata. As I wrote in my edit summary, I removed that entry from the "See also" section because the article on Beethoven already had a link to his grandfather (1st sentence in the 1st paragraph of "Biography") and MOS:SEEALSO recommends against such links. Adding or removing that entry has no bearing on Special:WhatLinksHere/Ludwig van Beethoven (1712–1773). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

List of autobahns in Germany
Hi Michael! Could you please help me understand your reversion of my addition of List of autobahns in Germany to the See also section of the Autobahn article? In your edit summary, you wrote "List of autobahns in Germany is not yet an article", but the bluelink shows it is an article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have written that List of autobahns in Germany is not a useful article and as such is unhelpful to be mentioned in the article Autobahn. The list-article a) is not a list; has no sources; c) is confusingly written. I also mentioned in my summary the corresponding article de:Liste der Bundesautobahnen in Deutschland on the German Wikipedia as a hint what a useful article might look like. Most of the corresponding articles in other languages provide similar detail. Once the English list provides similar detail, it should of course be used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Felice Anno Nuovo


Happy New Year, Michael!

May 2016 be filled with happiness and beautiful music.

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Bach
May our mouth be full of laughter. Thank youfor cleaningup after mewhen I was too tired to remove a copied item. Next year, I would like to expand Christmas Oratorio. We had the pleasure of singing today the great opening movements of parts I, V, III and VI, two chorales and the finale! What do you think would be better: one large article or six, one for each part? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion that the Smith (surname) should be alphabetical
Hello,

You made a suggestion that the Smith (surname) should be alphabetical. It was a good suggestion and so I did. I noticed the list was very long and broke off the real & fictional people into a list article. I explained my reasons at: Talk:White (surname) and got a speedy delete. 

I hope you enjoy your time overseas. Me, I am about to give up on Wikipedia. You follow guidelines and someone else comes along and bullies their version. Enough complaining. Thanks for listening. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I made that suggestion in at White (surname) (not at Smith (surname)). What you did was far more complicated, creating a new list at List of real and fictional people with the surname White which made the subject unnecessarily difficult to navigate. I still believe that all such lists should be strictly alphabetical, because dividing them into classes/categories makes it difficult for those searching for a specific entry and for those wanting to add a new entry. It will also reduce the likelihood of having duplicate entries in the list. I expect that reorganising such a list in alphabetical order with this reasoning explained in the edit summary or on the talk page will not be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Silent Night Reversion
I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia and my German isn't so great yet, either, but I wondered why my changes of "helige" to "Heilige" in the info box and "heilige" to "Heilige" in the first paragraph were reverted.

I thought in a title it should be capitalized, but even if not the first is clearly a misspelling, isn't it?

Would you mind explaining?

Thank you. The Zahir NT 2 (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Adjectives are (almost) never capitalised in German; in German, like in many languages other than English, titles have no special spelling rules. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace
Thank you for your constant support, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! (For music, click on "bell") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

About | this revert
Michael,

I'm a singer, keyboard player, choir accompainist and choir singer. I assure you, female tenors are real, rare albiet, but real. Therefore, contralto is not the lowest female range, tenor is. I will admitt, in Opera there is no such thing as a female tenor. So I won't change the text in the opera section, however, the sections that don't reference opera, would you agree that contralto is not the lowest female range, tenor is (even though it's rare). For example, bass isn't the lowest male rale, basso profundo actually is, but like lady tenors, it too is rare. You follow ? Kosh Vorlon  16:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * introduced the word "second" [lowest] twice to describe contralto. As I wrote in my edit summary, "introducing 'second' needs an explanation" – what's the lowest? You probably contend that would be female tenor (but you didn't mention that), but Wikipedia has nor article on that subject and the article Tenor doesn't mention it. So, a lot of groundwork needs to be done first to establish that "female tenor" is indeed a verifiable and notable voice type. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you, however, I believe this falls under Common Knowledge, at least for those of us that have sung in choruses/choirs of any type. It's kind of like IAR, it's not exactly within the spectrum of the rules, however it improves the article by correcting an error that contralto is the lowest female voice, do you follow ?  Kosh Vorlon   13:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we agree that composers had men in mind when they composed tenor lines? Yes, I know that women can sing tenor, actually a woman is the best tenor in some of my groups (the same woman), but I don't think this encyclopedic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! I have no problem with the line of thinking that the composers had men in mind for tenor parts. However, not encyclopedic?  I disagree, and I admit this toes the line on "truth", but in my mind, an encyclopedia ought to be as accurate as possible and as women tenors exist (and yes they're rare), as this is true, it should be included.  Kosh Vorlon   17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How? We can say somehow that occasionally lay choirs have not enough tenors in proportion to sopranos and altos, but that doesn't make tenor a female voice part, imho. - Another option might be to drop the whole gender business, with some men singing soprano. Just define range, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think the subject is encyclopedic, you should write an article about it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Zweig
Hi Michael. Thanks for these Zweig additions. Where did you get them? I didn't know that that detail of the locations was known. (Note - this is genuine curiosity and interest in the topic, NOT a challenge!!) Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The best source for that episode is probably George Prochnik: The Impossible Exile: Stefan Zweig at the End of the World, which I don't have. But Prochnik gave a talk at the NYPL in May 2014 where he mentions Ossining; see here. Prochnik even published a picture of 7 Ramapo Road, Ossining, and there are pictures with Zweig in front of the house: here and here. There are some snippets visible for Stefan and Lotte Zweig's South American Letters (Bloomsbury, 2010), where the stay at Yale is mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle, Twinkle
Thanks for removing the audio files that I added to Ah vous dirai-je, Maman. I meant to add them to Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman". The files are both live piano performances (not MIDI), and I think they're both adequate for the article that I meant to add them to. There's only so much you can do with Twinkle, Twinkle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree as far as File:Variation I (ah! vous dirai-je maman).ogg is concerned – it's well below acceptable standards and ought to be removed. Further, you changed the template for File:K265 (Ah vous dirai-je, Maman).mid from to  which doesn't deal properly with MIDI files;  should be restored. Lastly, I think placing soundfiles into their own section, "Media", doesn't improve the appearance of any article; they should be incorporated into the article, just like images normally are. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps would also be appropriate.  If you'd like to discuss further, maybe the article talk page would be best.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
From the first exchange with a user other than my mentor to cleaning up the Christmas cantatas, thank you for consistent harmonious support, using your fine tools: eyes and brain! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hilary Hahn
Just FYI, I removed the cn tag when followed two references regarding the strings she uses, which seemed adequate documentation. I have no problem to cn on the earlier part of the paragraph, where you replaced it.Brazzit (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Feb 16: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim Feb 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Mitchell - Christmas Cantata
Could you kindly explain why you have now twice removed the Mitchell Cantata from the Christmas Cantata page? It is a widely performed work, and the composer is a prominent Anglican musical director. Please be so kind as to leave it.
 * Explained on your talk, and please sign your posts. In short: it needs an independent source, not the composer's own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

WNYC finance
Please see the WNYC talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.115.14 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WNYC Formulairis990 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Blessings and Gratitude from a nube
Thank you, Michael for taking time out from your travels to clean up the mess I made of Nina Arianda's page. That was my first Wikipedia edit and I tried so hard to get it right! Sincerely, Michael O'Reilly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C301:8B37:D9F8:CE02:F14B:2463 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WNYC finance
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WNYC#Most_Recent_Reported_Staff_Salaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.115.14 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Userspace draft article on Kay Brown (Artist)
At first I wasn't sure why you had changed the formatting for the categories in the draft article, but then I read the WP:Nousercat link you mentioned and understand now. Thanks for catching that. I usually start drafting articles in my sandbox, and this is the first time I'm starting an article in user space & didn't know what the process was. I plan to finish the article in another couple of weeks at the most. Thank you for your help in pointing me to the relevant help pages. Uncommon fritillary (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Film article format
Hi, You have undone a couple of my modifications to Der Musterknabe which I find hard to understand.

1) What is your reason to have the title in Italics ? More than 99% of all articles on films do not use it. 2) Why do you want the year in the IMDb entry ? I could understand this, if there is more than one film with the same title. But again the vast majority of entries has no year.

As this is a minor film I do not mind what it looks one way or the other, just would like to know your reasons. Inwind (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I Italic title because all Wikipedia articles about films show the title in italics; if they don't, it's an oversight and should be corrected – see MOS:FILM. Which films did you find that don't? 2) The year in the IMDb title is indeed not needed, but as I added the title explicitly to the template, instead of relying on the page title which might change, I added the year as well; it's not wrong, and the template provides for it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

FCOL
That was a new one on me. Learn something every day. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Way to support uncited sources!
I guess it's folks like you who keep the concept of wikiality alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainsane (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=711144824 your edit] to Patti LaBelle 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * | origin             = Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , U.S.

Thank You.
Michael Bednarek, Thank you for the correction to Ulrike (name). Unfortunately, I used a template for another (male Lithuanian name) given name page and had forgotten to correct all of the information. ExRat (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug Hughes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway Theatre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Soprano voice type's History section & Female Opera singers' leading roles
Michael Bednarek, I was just saying how most of the leading roles in operas usually go to Sopranos. Women of lower voice types (Contraltos & Mezzos) do have leading roles in operas such as Carmen, Rosina from the Barber of Seville, Angelina (Cinderella) from La Cenerentrola, & Hansel from Hansel & Gretel, just to name a few. However, Contraltos & Mezzos hey usually play secondary roles (such as maids, mothers, witches, etc.) while the Soprano plays the main character. - (GoldenGuy23) (Talk) 01:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't fragment or duplicate the discussion which takes properly place at Talk:Soprano. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning
Please take note of my warning at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Countertenor
Hi Michael, in your latest edit at the article Countertenor you effaced several roles originally written for countertenor, and I'm wondering why. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to my removal of the role of Jacey Squires in The Music Man because that article doesn't support him being a countertenor, I removed some roles in works without Wikipedia articles, and some minor roles (e.g. "gang member #2") from works that have articles. I don't think the section "Roles" should list every countertenor role that exists, only notable ones. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert wnyc to remove the nypr reference and all those wikilinks
Your reversion also restored a factual error which references a dead-link as supporting evidence. Why did you that?Formulairis990 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hint: It helps if you include a link to the relevant page. I assume you refer to at WNYC.
 * First, this discussion should be at Talk:WNYC. Second, read my edit summary; it explains almost every part of my edit. In the main, I removed your reintroduction of material in the lead section not directly to WNYC, but to New York Public Radio. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're edit summary doesn't explain why you replaced factually sourced info with false information sourcing a dead link.
 * In addition the edit you reverted to was the first edit of an anonymous account that has no activity beyond the day of the edit.
 * You also oddly removed links from the infobox, and you cite WP:REPEATLINK
 * Yet that page specifically states at the start that You CAN REPEAT links in infoboxes, as many articles do
 * I copied this to the wnyc talk page. As you wish we can continue there.

Formulairis990 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

German "von"; undone of „von und zu or von der or von dem or zur“
Dear Mr Bednarek

Seems that you have all internet connection, time and inclination to attend Wikipidia if you can undo 19 minutes after my contribution to the WiKiPEDiA page about the German “von”.

Can you give me an explanation why you have undone „von und zu or von der or von dem or zur“? I think that it is correct but as well I like to learn more from you in case if I am wrong.

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:89:2E6F:3501:B9EE:984A:DCD0:5640 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hint: It helps if you include a link to the relevant page. I assume you refer to at Von. It would also help if you created a named account so that I didn't need to assume that 2003:89:2E6F:3501:C599:E11A:1FA7:803E = 2003:89:2E6F:3501:B9EE:984A:DCD0:5640. As I wrote in my edit summary, I reverted because you introduced 4 terms with identical wiki links which already existed earlier in the article, hence WP:REPEATLINK.
 * I assure you that my RL activities reduce my Wikipedia edits considerably. The time gap between your edit and mine was governed by chance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Bednarek
 * Thank you for your answer!
 * I am not so used in terms of WiKiPEDiA so I’m sorry for not attached the link in question.


 * About a personalised account, I prefer in general not to leave too much traces while computing. After all the affairs during the past 2 to 3 years I changed my way of thinking regarding this matter. I hope for your understanding.


 * About WP:REPEATLINK, understand, I got the point now. So you have not undone it because there was a mistake in „von und zu or von der or von dem or zur“ but because the link repetition (by the way, I forgot to include the prepositions "vom", "zum", and "vom und zum" in my contribution…).


 * Indeed the link was a repetition.
 * But all of the prepositions what I mentioned and what were used till 1919 also as nobiliary particles are different. So my idea was that somebody who is not a German mother-tongue speaker can get the (same) link from the different prepositions what the readers might not know.


 * As well if there is a “von” with the link and some lines later again just a “von” without any additional word then it is a pure repetition what should be avoided.


 * About “…falling into this category did include von, zu, or both.”
 * I mentioned “von und zu” because the most readers won’t know that “… or both” means that there must be an “und” between “von” and "zu".


 * In terms of the repetition I refer to “… Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader …” of WP:REPEATLINK. As well it is a discretionary decision if it is a list and if it is of significantly aid or not to attach the same link to the different prepositions.


 * After your answer I attach now again all of the missing prepositions without being linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobiliary_particle even if I think that a reader of non-German mother tongue should see the link from the different prepositions to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:89:2E6F:3501:CDB1:8B45:BD82:A592 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Von"
I know all that, everyone does. But Herbert Karajan was his REAL name, since titles of nobility are illegal in Austria after World War I (remember Webern, Zemlinsky, Weingartner..). His trick was to sell the 'von' as an "artist's name". AlterBerg (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Phabricator about Popups
You are invited to join the discussion at T137613 regarding whether to create a Phabricator project for the Popups gadget. (I noticed you've previously commented on Mediawiki talk:Gadget-popups.js, and thought you might be interested.) Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 21:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=729166836 your edit] to Maria Callas may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s and 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Tarte Tropézienne
Hello there. Please comment at Talk:Tarte Tropézienne. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"Waltzing Matilda"
I have added content to the article to explain why the song received a Platinum Award from APRA. This is supported by two refs: one a contemporary ref from May 1988 and the other from APRA's own website.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Sacrifice (opera)
I understand your revert of my edit on The Sacrifice (opera) quoting WP:NAMB. What I don't understand is why you would not want to help a reader who has gone astray by giving them a helping hand, for instance by using a hatnote to help them on their way without having to start their search again. WP:NAMB contains advice, not law. And why did you put "unsourced quotes" at the end of your edit summary Jodosma (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that any reader landing on The Sacrifice (opera) got there inadvertently and would then benefit from a hatnote to Sacrifice (disambiguation). If you feel strongly about it, put it back, but be prepared that others might remove it again. I note that the article never had a hatnote since its inception in September 2007.
 * The remark in my edit summary, "-unsourced quotes", referred to my removal of a lengthy section consisting of 5 quotes which had been marked as requiring proper sources since November 2012. Just giving the name of the publication is insufficient; see WP:QUOTE. Publication dates are required at least, possibly author; further, all the quoted papers are likely to have online versions of these reviews, so their URLs should be provided as well. But even if they get sourced, they should not all be re-added in their previous length; see WP:QUOTEFARM ff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016 thank you
Thank you for adding the image to the Requiem, in 2010! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Winton and WP:INTDAB
Yes, I read it, and I think it should be ignored in this case because that section's function is not truly disambiguation, but merely to make clear that there are several places in the United Kingdom called Winton. I likely wouldn't bother with that link if there were an article about Winton, Hampshire, as that would be more to the point. Come to think of it, though, what I've done now is an even better idea. Go and look. Kelisi (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Faust
Can you explain your decision to remove The Monk, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Belladonna of Sadness and The Day of the Beast, which all involve deals with the devil from Template:Faust.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The template is named "Faust", and what's listed in the template should have a strong connection – beyond a deal with the Devil – with that legend, which deals with a drive for knowledge and worldly pleasures in exchange for Faust's soul, his damnation. I fail to see that in the works I removed from that template. None of them mention Faust; The Monk and Belladonna of Sadness don't have this template. In O Brother, Where Art Thou?, the deal is for guitar-playing skills; it's not clear from the synopsis at The Day of the Beast what the nature of the pact is, if there is one. I suspect there are more articles among the c. 160 items in that template whose connection with Faust are dubious. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Michael Bednarek's comment on the talk page: "this template is too big to be of any navigational use". The template is in need of a very major cutback, and should only list items which are provable/citable direct adaptations of either the Faust legend or Goethe's Faust. All subsidiary, tangential or tertiary, and pop-culture referents should be removed. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a cleanup and trim. I did include almost all subjects involving a deal with the Devil. Have at it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Kathryn Erbe
As someone who is from a family who skips generations for what would otherwise be family names, I'm not going to assume and neither should we. Dismas |(talk) 16:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Heinz Schubert
Hello, I tried a second time and I think it is better now. All begginning is difficult. (German proverb) Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest
Hello Michael Bednarek. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)