User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 7

__INDEX__

Adelaide queries
Hello Michael, and thank you for watching over "Adelaide" and making all those useful edits.

1) Could you check my translation of the title page? I took "eine" to be an indefinite article but conceivably it means "one".  Also I translated "clavier" as "keyboard" rather than "piano", given that at the time publishers were marketing keyboard works as also playable on the harpsichord.

2) What is your general opinion about attributions in captions of portraits? My impression is that printed encyclopedias and books do tend to provide them (artist/medium/current location), a sort of parallel to the practice of providing a citation for a verbal quotation.

Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ad 1) I also read "eine" as indefinite article. Your remark about the use of "Clavier" by publishers at the time is very perceptive and I concur with the translation to "keyboard" – for which the Germans, for once, don't have word.
 * ad 2) I see an attribution as helpful if the painter is notable; this doesn't seem to be the case for Carl Traugott Riedel. The really interested reader can click on the picture and find out more. If you think differntly, feel free to re-add his name. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Michael. Opus33 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cristoforo Ivanovich
Please be aware of Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Still, it was useful to create the article on Cristoforo Ivanovich, poorly executed as it was. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The user is banned, so they don't get the privilege to create articles. If my suspicion is confirmed, and you want to keep the article, you basically have to 'own' it, otherwise it'll be summarily deleted. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand Wikipedia, there is now owning an article. The article should be judged on its merits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that, I mean you have to take responsibility for this content and say it's exactly something you would have written regardless of the banned user. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edith Peinemann
Could you wikify Edith Peinemann? She deserves it, and I have no time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I linked her twice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alter Eco
I don't think the image adds anything to the article. The article is a stub of low quality, with no reliable sources. Adding an image of the founder does nothing but take up space in an article where we're talking about the company and not the owner. I will again remove it but hope that you will respond here or on the talk page. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded at Talk:Alter Eco. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of valid entry
Hello Michael. Just curious why you keep removing my entry? Thank you.

PNO - http://cameralmusic.pl/artykul/opowiesci-hoffmanna-jacques-offenbach-teatr-wielki-opera-narodowa-275.html ENO - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/music/classical/article3317366.ece BLO - http://blo.org/les-contes-dhoffmann/ FGO - http://tickets.fgo.org/tickets/EventDetails.aspx?id=751 (Please note that FGO uses BLO's photos to promote the Futral production) Dalimicah (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * After two previous unsourced edits, this is now the first to provide a reference, although one which doesn't work for me – the link to the Times article seems to require a subscription. I suggest to replace it with an unhindered link, like this one from The Guardian, or the one from the BLO.
 * The list of singers who have performed all four soprano roles in The Tales of Hoffmann has to be limited to singers. As far as I can make out, Georgia Jarman is mentioned exactly three times in all of Wikipedia; it would be much easier to have Jarman in that list if Wikipedia had an article about her. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

re: General Adoph SrauSS
Instead of reverting my edits please edit article title to conform to standard English: English alphabet does not have eszett which looks like a capital "B" to English users who cannot read German.

Also, the article on Gen. Strauss is the only one about about eight on Germans of that name which uses eszett in the title.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is titled Adolf Strauß, not with "ph" but with "f" and not with "ss" but with "ß". The article's prose has to follow the spelling of the headword. There are no sources in the article to suggest any other spelling. I'm going to restore the correct spelling. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN: there is no such letter as eszett in English. Standard transliteration is "ss", except in a few special cases such as tourist guide book place names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consult WP:DIACRITICS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Eszett II and your warning
Are you a native English speaker?

If so then you knmow as well as I do that the ligature eszett is NOT part of the English alphabet and as for the use of the "ss" transliteration I cite my own copies of 1966 and 1932 Encyclopedia Btittanica and I am confident the expired copyright EB version (1909?) available online will provide another cite.

Do you who Karl F Gauss is? Do you think his name should be spelled with the eszett? How about Rudolph Hess and Englebert Dolfuss?

And i think I informed you before there are Wiki articles on about 8 other Germans named Strauss which do not employ eszett. Therefore consistency favors changing the spelling of Gen. Adolf Strauss, doesn't it?

Now, I am going to revert yopur edit again, and I agin request that you change the article title instead of bullying me with threats and false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of articles on the English Wikipedia with diacritics in their title. Carl Friedrich Gauss and many others use the transliterated form because 1) there is ambiguity even in German usage; 2) English-language sources mainly use it; 3) it has been decided that way on the article's tak page. The same applies to Rudolf Hess (with an "f", not "ph"), and Engelbert Dollfuss (with "el", not "le"). There are no sources in the article on Adolf Strauß nor any discussions on its talk page to use the transliterated form. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Strauß/Strauss
You seem to be engaged in a slow edit war on this page. I suggest you stop, and join the discussion that has been started here. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

La Petite Bande
I removed "those tags" once already, don't want to do it again, talked to the tagger (who has a history with the nl article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases (full)
It seems we've wound up with a cite error at this article following your template adjustment here. I could probably punch out a fix to clear the red-text, but figured I should give you first shot as you appear rather familiar with this article group. Thanks. :) -- WikHead (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mozart's nationality
Hello. I understand the point of accuracy and carefulness in articles, but I have to be frank.

It's obvious from your attitude, actions, and history that you have a vested interest in NOT having Mozart's nationality (in any sense) on this article. I know this has been discussed but never settled...because whether you personally don't like it, or think it's "anachronistic", it doesn't matter. His nationality should be mentioned. And he was of German stock, that's just a racial and historical fact. To leave that so out of this article is silly.
 * You can keep your assesment of my motives to yourself; they do not advance your argument. FYI, I am a native German.

Also, you were wrong about that ref I put. I restored it. You said it was not reliable (a circular argument simply because you said so), and you were WRONG about "Chopin". You didn't read it carefully...it said clearly he was a POLE. So that was not there for that. It seems you used that as a front excuse to not have Mozart's "German" there.
 * I removed the reference because a book titled Great German Composers (1891) which includes Chopin must per commons sense be regarded as unreliable.

The reason I did not put him as "Austrian" is the points I listed, which you totally ignored, but accused me instead of "yelling", which I did not do, but the caps were meant for emphasis, not "yelling".
 * Mozart is more widely described as Austrian than as German. In Internet parlance, using all caps is called "shouting".

Again, Mozart called himself German. Do we ignore that?
 * Yes, we do, because what he meant is not what's meant today by assigning a nationality.

Again, "Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" at the time. Do we ignore that fact?
 * And what argument does this support? To call him Salzburgian?

Again, Mozart was obviously of German blood. That should be ignored and not even mentioned briefly in the article?
 * "German blood"? What's that?

Again, "Salzburg" was considered part of Germany at the TIME of Mozart's birth and death. That's to be discounted?
 * Large parts of Europe were part of the Holy Roman Empire, if that's what you are referring to; not all its residents can possibly be called German.

Yes, it's been discussed in the past, but I notice that not even a compromise was done yet on this matter.
 * Why should there be a compromise? It's a non-issue.

Try to focus more on the sum and substance and specifics of my case, in this matter. Not an occasional blunt remark, that you could easily just take with a grain of salt. Thanks.
 * Ditto.

My point is that Salzburg was NOT part of Austria at the time, but part of the overall "Germany" situation. Why is that (fact) so omitted and left out of this article? And also the fact that Mozart called himself German, and had German "blood"? His nationality is not really even mentioned at all in the article. That leaves an article like this very incomplete. Don't you agree? Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A "Germany situation"? There couldn't be a more vague term for what you're trying to argue. If Mozart's article is incomplete, it is in areas of his musical work and influence. For categorization purposes, he's categorized as German and as Austrian composer.

I responded similarly at. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

re warning on Bismarck article
First of all, Bednarek, take another look at the Adolf Strauss article and you will see my edits and edit suggestions were adopted, so THEY WERE NOT VANDALISM.

Second, my Bismarck edits were of the same spirit, namely editing to make information most accessible to ENGLISH speakers.

There is a real problem at Wiki with Germanophones forcing German words and usage down out throats, with too many English-speaking editors, such as you, stupiudly nodding your heads in agrteement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have no idea why you post this on my talk page; which Bismarck article are you concerned about?
 * Second, your inconsistent edits at Adolf Strauss were not adopted; the article was renamed/moved and then a consistent spelling was used.
 * Third, ranting about a Germanophone conspiracy on Wikipedia doesn't get you anywhere; try to discuss your proposals on articles' talk pages.
 * Lastly, calling other editors "stupid" doesn't advance your arguments. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

RM for "Musical scale"
Michael, you expressed an interest in the title of Musical scale. After you did that, I initiated a formal RM action to change the title to Scale (music). Your comments would be welcome there, of course.

N oetica Tea? 23:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Early in the discussion, I expressed my agreement with some other editors that the current name is fine, but in the end I don't care whether the article gets moved or not. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Bartolomeo Merelli
Thanks for fixing various things in the above article - references aren't my strong suit, but I really should have checked Rosselli (who deserves an article) and I suppose I should have done the fiddly things in the (small) table as well. I got to Merelli from Gianni di Parigi, which I saw last year at Wexford, and I'm going to expand the synopsis (and add some more to Merelli - apparently his son was the product of a liaison with Strepponi). While I was at it I noticed that Gaetano Donizetti has a list of operas but there's no List of operas by Gaetano Donizetti. I realise that Kleinzach has taken his bat home, but was wondering whether the two of you deliberately decided not to do a Donizetti list (if so, why?) or just never got round to it. As I mentioned on Talk:Gaetano Donizetti, the list in the article seems to me to unbalance it, and I'm probably going to put it on my to do list, using your and K's methodology (and consulting you for technical stuff when necessary, if you're around). Any thoughts? --GuillaumeTell 16:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Donizettis's operas

 * You are quite right about the Donizetti article and that the list of operas makes it quite unbalanced. In our cooperation in creating many of the lists of operas by composer, Kleinzach was the driving force; I only provided some technical editing tools for table manipulation and creation of sort terms. I can imagine that K. shied away from tackling Donizetti's works because of their large number. As you know, these tables are a bit more detailed than a simple list, although that list seems quite detailed in this case. Do you think it helped if I started a table based on the information currently in the list, and add genre, no. of acts, librettists later? If so, should I leave empty columns for those or wait until that information is collated? (and I'm not volunteering, but inserting columns is not difficult for me.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be delighted if you could start the table (I presume in your user space, but in mine if you prefer), and please do include the empty columns. I can then insert stuff (from Grove Opera) when I can, though I'll be away (at the opera, where else?) most of the time from Wednesday 4th July to Wednesday 11th.  No great hurry, of course. Best. --GuillaumeTell 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Robert.Allen has offered to help. He also suggests that the table could be started in article space, though with the empty columns (genre, subdivisions, libretto, notes, maybe more?) it would look a little odd initially. However, the current list would disappear and a link to the new one would be inserted.  What do you think? --GuillaumeTell 10:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to start the table, but it may not be until tomorrow. Looking at Category:Lists of operas by composer, I suggest the name should be List of operas by Donizetti. Ok? The table in Donizetti's article can then be replaced with a link whenever the table is in sufficient shape. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started off-line; it'll be up tomorrow. There's a good table at Gaetano Donizetti. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It went quicker than I thought. The table is a straight-forward translation of the list. Regarding wiki links: there two schools of thoughts: don't repeat links, or, in sortable tables, do repeat links; I followed the latter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific - thanks very much! The title of the list is fine.  I've removed the list from the Donizetti article and put in the wikilink to the table.  I sorted the new list by title, and a few things need fixing if possible:

--GuillaumeTell 18:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Betly [rev] comes before Betly, o La ...
 * both Lucrezia Borgia and Pia de' Tolomeo sort [rev 2] before [rev]
 * Maria Stuarda 1835 comes before Maria Stuarda [rev] (Buondelmonte) 1834
 * Also, User:AlanPalgut has replaced your triple "&nbsp"s with |||||| - is this significant in any way?
 * I've started to fill in the blanks (from Grove Opera) and have already discovered that we do need a Notes column on the right - some other lists have them and I presume that you can fairly easily add one.
 * Revised works now sort properly when sorted by title. I've added an empty column "Notes"; there's not much horizontal space for it, but it will expand when it receives text – at the expense of other columns. I've noticed AlanPalgut's unhelpful edits; using the code  is very useful if editors want to fill in data; the markup   is there to provide more logical line breaks. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Prozess
'Der' of couse, thanks for pointing this out.--Smerus (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Il borgomastro di Saardam
Hi Michael, Thanks for pointing out that much of this article was a copyvio. It's been almost a year since you mentioned it in your edit summary. I imagine not many people have even really looked at this article since then! Anyway, I think it's fixed now. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

List of operas by Donizetti
I know you will will look it over with a good critical eye. Do we need something like "[see also 1 revision]" or "[see also 2 revisions]"? Do you think we really need a "Notes" column? (We should likely also discuss this with Guillaume Tell. I added the footnotes as an alternative approach, but I imagine some might prefer a column for this.) BTW, thanks for all the help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Notes" column seems unnecessary at the moment. If only a few works get annotated, footnotes are probably better.
 * A reciprocal set of "[see also …]"-notes to the corresponding revisions seems quite helpful to me, although they are not strictly necessary and may be seen as cluttering the table. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Warrning
Good Evening Mr, Michael Bednarek,

I would like to kindly inform you to '''please stop writing such disgusting and incorrect lyrics to Mozart Bona Nox'''. For you are incorrect and offending Mozart's work, so I here by would like you to please stop doing so and kindly sod of!!!! This is acting maliciously to Mozart and Wikipedia for confusing and intentionally disturbing the public, especially children, and Mozart's image. If you do not comply to my request, I shall report you to Wikipedia!

Thank You and I Hope WE Fix This Little Circumstance, and Have A Wonderful Day,

Cordially,

Thepianospeaks1756 --Thepianospeaks1756 (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepianospeaks1756 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean. Please refrain from butchering articles, like you did, , and . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then Who Is Doing This??? --Thepianospeaks1756 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Colin Kendell - Puccini "expert"
I see you've encountered Mr. Kendell too. I've left a more detailed note about his cite spamming at the WPO talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Whitacre
Thanks for the clean-up! Our concert titled Lux Aurumque went well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

List of compositions by Igor Stravinsky
Here is the list we were discussing about in List of compositions by Igor Stravinsky. This is just the backbone; arrangements and notes are still not present or incomplete. Please, feel free to suggest me anything to improve the list. Once it's finished, I will seek consensus among the editors to replace it. Thank you very much. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Two points: 1) the sorting feature needs more thought – do we want to sort the titles simply "as is", or should definitive articles ('The' …) be excluded? Also, 'Étude' should probably sort under 'E'. Further, the work numbers should sort properly in numerical order. Both these things can be done with the template Hs or similar. Sorting for the 'Notes' columns should probably be turned off. 2) Nitpick: ranges of years should be separared by an ndash ('–', or &amp;ndash;) and not by a hyphen-minus. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Now I'm wondering how we should sort all the arrangements. I was thinking of keeping the arrangements together with the original works, regardless of the sorting criterion (with a background color or with a smaller font, maybe?). Plus, I think we should keep the "Player piano" section. And one last thing - Eric W. White has two lists: one with Stravinsky's own works (sorted as W(arabic numeral)) and one with Stravinsky's transcriptions of works by other composers (sorted with roman numerals). Should they be listed in separate tables? Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that seems a bit awkward. It's too late here now; I'll think about it and get back to you tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I showed on your sandbox how to add an arrangement to the table row of the original work; the wiki code is quite awkward. I don't like colour coding much, or small font sizes, but that can be done, too. I think it's quite acceptable to keep the pianola section as the existing list. I suppose the list of Stravinsky's transcriptions is better placed in its own table. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Looks great, I like it, but it's going to give problems when there are more arrangements than catalogue numbers and viceversa. I tried to do that with The Firebird but I can't get works and catalogue numbers to match up. How can we fix that? Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If a table row has, say, 4 lines, subsequent years/work numbers need to be "pushed" into the appropriate line with . In the case of Firebird, I don't know which work number refers to which suite, so I added 2 sets of that code to push them to the top. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I regret to inform you that I will be unable to continue completing the table we have been discussing about lately; I'm moving to Denmark and I won't edit regularly on Wikipedia for, at least, three or four months. If you want to help completing it, you can find the necessary information on French and Dutch Wikipedia. However, if you could propose the article for substitution (so that it could draw more attention to other editors), it might be finished or discarted sooner, which might be better for all of us. Sorry for that. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad influence(s/d)
I happened to come across your several-months-old post at Template talk:Infobox writer. I agree that these pernicious fields should be done away with, and I've participated in discussions that have led to their removal in specific articles; but template talk pages are so out-of-the-way that it's hardly surprising that you got no response whatever. Do you think creating an RFC at Template talk:Infobox writer and posting a notice of it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (or maybe even getting it listed on the WP:CENT template) would attract enough notice to get a consensus on the matter? Deor (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The way some of the recent RfCs have gone, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Article titles, I'm reluctant to start that process and then see it veer in unexpected directions. If such a RfC should be started (and if I become aware of it), I will certainly state my position. As for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography: there doesn't seem to be much dialogue, either. On the other hand, there was a brief discussion recently at Template talk:Infobox person, sympathetic to removing these fields. On the whole, however, I am resigned to accept that there is not a lot of interest in removing these problematic fields. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for fixing the ch'ella mi creda page redirect! david.thompson.esq —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. (For the record, this is about .) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean up on Marika Rokk page
Thanks for the formatting of links and spelling corrections on my recent additions to the Marika Rokk entry. Very appreciated and helpful! kind Regards Navsikand (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Orchestrette Classique
Many thanks for the excellent adjustments you made to my editing on this page. User:Mx96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.193.59 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The boy who cried wolf
I notice you've been policing this article for the best part of a year now and would like to thank you for your vigilance. I've no idea why but it attracts more vandals and crackpots than any other of Aesop's Fables. Like another of your correspondents, I'll soon be away in another country (Taiwan in my case) and unable to keep an eye on things. I'm therefore grateful that there are folk like you around. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Classical music edit-a-thon
Hi Michael, a few of us are organising a classical music edit-a-thon between 8-14 October with the theme Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown. There will also be a meetup in Sydney, so we are using Meetup/Sydney/October 2012 as our main discussion page. A lot of the hard work will be done online, somehow. I hope you'll join us. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Carpani
Hello Michael, and thanks for fixing up Carpani. Branscombe, reviewing Jacobs, celebrates what he seems to consider a breakthrough by the latter in getting Carpani's birth date right. So I took him at his word, but kept a footnote for the claim of other sources. Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure whether your not changing Giuseppe Carpani's day of birth as the 28th was intentional or an oversight when you changed the month and year; the French and Italian Wikipedias give 29 as the day. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Re -piano sound file
Thanks for your edits to In the Hall of the Mountain King, which have focused the article well. I can see why you removed the See also section, when all the topics were linked to in the lead (and the repeated link to Grieg's music in pop culture didn't really help), but the removal of the melody of the piece is beyond me. Many people will want to listen to the music, if only to recognise it, and so the original orchestration isn't essential, in my opinion. Until we have a freely licenced version that includes that (and, ideally, the lyrics), the piano piece should be kept. As such I've restored it, but if you would like to discuss this further, please reply to this here, on my talk page or the article's. All the best. -- xensyria T 15:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. It seems Grieg meant "cowpat" literally, though I prefer your interpretation! -- xensyria T 02:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding comments. I listened to the piano version included in that article and found it, eh, inadequate. I think the interested reader can either find any of hundreds of available recordings on YouTube, or we can provide one under "External links", e. g. this one by the CJD Orchestra, or this one by the Deutsches Filmorchester Babelsberg under Scott Lawton. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see what you mean: I hadn't actually listened to the entire recording until earlier today... I've found a public domain recording by the Czech National Symphony Orchestra through Musopen which I've put in its place. Please let me know what you think of it when you have the time. -- xensyria T 19:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Much, much better. Thank you (and also for Morning Mood). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Lang-x/doc
I noticed your recent edit to Template:Lang-x/doc and I had a question regarding your edit summary. I was wondering: why shouldn't ";" be used for bolding? I couldn't find anything at Manual of Style/Text formatting (MOS:BOLD). Hyacinth (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD only explains when to use boldface (or not), not how to achieve it. That is explained at WP:MARKUP which does not mention the semicolon, and MOS:ACCESS explains why it ought not to be used. The semicolon does have a function in lists of terms and their definitions where it bolds the term; its general use to achieve boldface is a longstanding Wikipedia habit which has only recently been pointed out as erroneous and harmful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility
Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Template talk:Bach family that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't template the regulars. 2) I didn't and it wasn't. 3) If you wanted to collaborate in the creation of a template for the most influential composer ever, you would have sought opinions from other editors in this field at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and/or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

BWV 226
How would I (or you) describe how irregular the fugue theme is for "Sondern der Geist selbst vertritt uns aufs beste" and how regular "Der aber die Herzen forschet"? - The music is with me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So is Requiem (Fauré), - now I am surprised that the article has so much on versions and pop, but not the music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of counterpoint and fugue is very limited and does not extend to regular/irregular variations. But I find a reference in J. S. Bach and the German Motet by Daniel R. Melamel to that motet's irregular contrapuntal harmonies on page 78.
 * Thanks for the source, however, no knowledge of counterpoint is required, just look at the themes in the score: I lack the vocabulary to describe that the first one enters on a long note on a weak beat and is full of Synkopen throughout, whereas the other has all regular Halbe-Viertel-Achtel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know those words – syncopation, half note (minim), quarter note (crotchet), eighth note (quaver) – but the terms regular/irregular fugue have a meaning among musicologists with which I'm not familiar.
 * A much simpler question for me is the title; the NBA calls it "Der Geist hilft unser Schwachheit auf" – why doesn't Wikipedia ? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will try to find out, I found it like that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you read Bach's handwriting? Seems "unser" to me, - we sing "unsrer", though, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it "unsrer"; there is a distinct squiggle after the long "s" (" ſ "), identical to the last squiggle of the word. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for Fauré's Requiem: I know even less about that work, but the "Pop culture" section has no sources and largely no relevance – it ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you do that removing, please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: I am also not fond of stressing Pie Jesu in the lead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for another clean-up! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

QUestion about the template about western art music
Umm, i am perfectly aware that pop and rock music is not art music. but progressive rock is. Do you have a suggesion for your change? McLennonSon (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The template is named History of Western art music and its headline link is to Classical music. That article does not mention the items you added to that template: Baroque pop, Progressive rock, Progressive metal, Krautrock; even the article art music barely mentions these genres. That's why I saw no good reason to include them in this template which is used in those articles which it listed before your addition.
 * All that is my opinion. If you felt that these genres ought to be included, you should have raised a discussion at the template's talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Bist du bei mir
For some reason the template breaks the link.--Random Little Helpertalk 00:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this notice. I really should have noticed that; it's fixed now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hochexpressiv
How would you translate this title in the context? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go for the obvious: highly expressive. (Der Artikel strotzt ja nur so mit unübersetzbaren Idiomen – "kapitaler Brocken", "launiges Fagott-Quintett", "aufgeräumter Kehraus"? Und die Pianistin war attraktiv? Puleeze!) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, translation taken! - Agreed, you taught me about purple language. Yes, the pianist is attractive, the German WP mentions that one of her grandfathers is a producer of cosmetics, - I didn't translate that ;) - I couldn't listen to the Munich concert but there will be a Frankfurt version, arranged by a publisher. No pianist, the publisher didn't publish those pieces (but Piano Album, with two pages dedicated to me) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

TheatreHistory.com mass deletions
Hi, I saw your post at the ELN. Another discussion has been started about these mass deletions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles Sanford Terry's Collection of Bach's Chorale Harmonizations
Greetings Michael Bednarek. On 22 May 2009 at 13:15 you included into the article List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach the reference for Charles Sanford Terry's collection as being Oxford U.P. 1929. But all references I've seen and the scans of that collection I have say published 1915-1921 (vol. 1 1915, vol. 2 1917, vol. 3 1921) at the Cambridge U.P. Is it possible there really are two editions just 8 years apart of the same work with two different publishers or did you make a mistake? Could you double check please? Thanks. Signed: Basemetal00 ( write to me here) 23:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The information I used in that article comes from Bach – 371 Harmonized Chorales and 69 Chorale Melodies with Figured Bass, ed. Albert Riemenschneider, pp. x & 112, G. Schirmer, NY, 1941. Let me give you the relevant passage on page x verbatim:
 * "A man to whom modern Bach research owes much is Dr. Charles Terry. His three-volume work on the Bach chorales, published by the Cambridge University Press in 1915, 1917, and 1921, contains extremely valuable information on sources and other details concerning the melodies and hymns. His J.S. Bach's Original Hymn-Tunes is also a valuable contribution to this subject."
 * "His latest work, J.S. Bach's Four-Part Chorales, published by the Oxford University Press in 1929, is perhaps the most comprehensive work covering the subject of the chorales. The book contains 405 harmonized chorales and 95 melodies with figured bass."
 * On page 112, he formally cites:
 * Charles Sanford Terry, ed.: The Four-Part Chorals (sic) of J. S. Bach (Oxford University Press, London, 1929).
 * This then is the work to which he refers throughout his detailed "Notes on the 371 chorales", pp. 113–162. I hope this helps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, thank you. Signed: Basemetal00 ( write to me here) 09:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is another work. There was apparently a reprint also from OUP in 1964 (see here) and that too is out of print. It must still be under copyright (the poster's claim notwithstanding), and is out of print. Worst possible combination. Sigh. I've also got Riemenschneider and obviously I have not read thru it thoroughly enough. Anyway, thanks again. One might add a mention of the 1964 reprint. Not that it is terribly useful, mind you. Signed: Basemetal00 ( write to me here) 00:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Fauré Requiem
Thank you for careful ce, again. We sang it in Bruges and Wiesbaden. Enjoy your vacation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronouncing Johannes
Thanks for your correction of my edit of Johannes Brahms. I don't know why I made such an error — actually, I do; it was because of my distracted state of mind during finals — but the fact of making it makes me so ashamed that I must assure you that I do know the most basic rules of German pronunciation and had I paid more attention, I would never have made such an error. Anyway, I apologize for this post, which has very little value to you, and for my error, whose blatancy you must have wondered at a great deal. — Eru·tuon 06:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Brescia Casket
Ah, thanks a lot! Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Sorry about "O Tannenbaum". I guess I didn't look everywhere.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Austria / Germany
Let apart Vienna was officially part of the 3rd Reich at the time, Romy Schneider never held the Austrian citizenship anyway since she grew up in Germany and her mother married a German man. She's not German just because she was born in the then-German reich. Plus, past history doesn't need "legitimation", is a matter of fact that since 1938 till 1945 Austria was part of Germany, by decision of Austrian people... -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

List of works in infobox at Harry Partch
Hi. You've removed the link to the list of works for Harry Partch twice now, both times citing MOS:INFOBOX. I can't find anything there recommending against it. Could you point out what exactly I'm missing?  C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I based my removal on this: "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 22:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ulrike Meinhof - books
Hello Mr Bednarek.

In ulrike meinhof page I put on the top of the books the biography (a great work from jutta ditfurth with more than 300 citations (I haven't the book here that I am right now) and around 600 pages - seems a work of many years to me). Then you undid the editing putting it after 2 books of a journalist (Klaus Rohl's friend...) and some ... articles...

I can't understand your thinking.

And.. yes it's not something important ... that's another reason I was confused ... why would someone bother to revert back in older revision because of that? Stelarov (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in my at the Ulrike Meinhof article: "restore alpha order" – which is universal practice for bibliographies and mentioned in WP:FURTHER and Further reading. Ordering a bibliography by perceived order of importance would violate several Wikipedia principles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. You are right. I didn't know about the alphabetized ordering since in most pages there isn't :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelarov (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)