User talk:Michael Bednarek

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam. --Joy [shallot] (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 [shallot] (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 [shallot] (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)

Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I linked her twice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for Tempora mutantur

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you kindly for your thoughtful edits of Tempora mutantur – making substantive additions, removing inappropriate material, improving formatting, etc. Just noticed your edits looking at the history of the (much-improved) article – thank you for your tireless work making Wikipedia better! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:36, 11 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 Jenova20 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 notable 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 Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)