User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jusdafax 05:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

MUSTARD

Hi, I saw you reverted why I've done. It seems you didn't really read what I wrote. I corrected a French attribution to an Italian work (Margarita.. which isn't looking very French) (but let's revert everything, who cares about correcting things?) and I changed the French § which is wrong. Of course, it's easier to revert than to read fr:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_des_majuscules_en_français#Titres_d.E2.80.99.C5.93uvres_ou_de_p.C3.A9riodiques where you could have seen I was right. If you're too lazy to read this link, here are the examples given in this French article (oops, sorry, I forgot French wp doesn't know how to capitalize French):

Si le titre commence par un article défini (le, la, les) et qu'il ne constitue pas une phrase verbale :

• alors le premier substantif prend une majuscule :
  • Les Liaisons dangereuses
  • L'Homme qui rit
  • La Liberté éclairant le monde
  • Le Beau Danube bleu

• tout adjectif ou adverbe précédant le premier substantif prend alors une majuscule :
  • Le Grand Meaulnes
  • Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry
  • Les Cinq Dernières Minutes

Si le titre est constitué de substantifs énumérés ou mis en opposition (et, ou, ni), chaque substantif prend une majuscule :

• La Belle et la Bête
• Le Renard, le Loup et le Cheval
• Guerre et Paix

Next time, I think it would be more productive to first read what is written, especially if it has been by a native speaker as my page indicates it and, if not convinced, to ask the contributor. This revert shouldn't have been done if you had made your part of improving wp as I made mine. Thank you for reading. BIRDIE ^® 06:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Edit) I saw you created several operas articles, as you may see by using the interwiki links, your French operas titles don't follow the MUSTARD rule saying it should be like in the native language (e.g. your L'étoile du nord instead of fr:L'Étoile du Nord (opéra)…). Now you know what you should do. BIRDIE ^® 06:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Birdie, WP:MUSTARD did not make a French attribution to an Italian work (Margarita); the paragraph Titles (classical music and opera) summarises the rules for four Romance languages, Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Second, you should have noticed the hatnote of that page which denotes its mere historical interest and for current relevance points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music which for this subject refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Capitalization: original language titles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines#Operas: capitalization and diacritics (which of course contain the same advice). The WikiProjects Classical music and Opera are well aware of the passages you quote from the French Wikipedia and have discussed them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and even more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. The pages Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/archive index and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/archive toc provide a helpful entry into browsing the archives for this topic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Michael for his explanation. The basic point is that WP:MUSTARD is superceded, It only exists as a historical record so it shouldn't be changed. Thank you for your understanding. Kleinzach 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Rileybot

• I'm just popping in to say that articles in userspaces, such as User:Riley Huntley/sandbox cannot be deleted via PROD and generally speaking, are fairly difficult to nominate for deletion in general. It's not impossible, but you'd have to go through WP:MfD and show that it doesn't need to be in a workspace. I did note that it was a bot running through and nominating it for a deletion purpose that didn't really fit what was in the sandbox, but it said it was nominating it on your behalf so I thought I'd drop a note here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry about the above message, Kleinzach (I replied to you on my talkpage btw). Tokyogirl79, I was testing my bot in my userspace and I thought that was clear by how I reverted my bot's edits three times. Anyways, thanks for removing that for me and have a good day. -- Cheers, Riley 07:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedia

One citation to a paper encyclopedia is more than sufficient for a short stub. Asking for a refimprove is nagging and unwarrantedly degrades the article. Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:DIPLOMAT. Are you going to work on this article? Kleinzach 08:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Are diplomats covered by WP:POLITICIAN?

You claimed that WP:POLITICIAN applies only to elected officials. I don't believe that appears anywhere in the guideline; if it did we'd have no articles about royalty, dictators, or US cabinet members. According to our own article, a politician "is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making". I assert that an ambassador "is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making" "who [has] held international [or] national…office". Pburka (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember suggesting that dictators etc were not politicians. Obviously I wouldn't agree that a civil servant is a form of politician, but in any case this is hardly the right place to discuss this. I just don't have the time. Why not take this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and explain you want diplomats to be considered as politicians? --Kleinzach 15:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Double navboxes on Handel operas

Your removal - I prefer the navbox (as better organised) to the sidebox which will be replaced eventually by {{infobox opera}}, - please leave it in place. - You most welcome to find a way to say in the infobox that the navbox is available, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's always reasonable to remove duplicated material like double navboxes. You can of course raise this as matter a discussion. In fact I encourage you to do this. I've never heard of {{infobox opera}}. What is the relevance? I hope this is not another piece of mischief. But please take this to an appropriate place . . . Kleinzach 07:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(Not sure if I understand mischief right.) The template was initiated by User:Voceditenore, reached a consensus that I would even have presented on TFA Carmen on 6 April, but others were more cautious. We wait for Voce's return, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. In the meantime, let's continue to improve articles by removing duplicated information. --Kleinzach 09:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now had a look at the {{infobox opera}} discussion at the Opera Project. Nothing seems to have been decided, so this is all a bit of red herring. Anyway I've gone ahead and collapsed the huge infoboxes on all the remaining Handel operas. The information is still duplicated but at least it's now hidden. I am archiving this. Kleinzach 09:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus?

In the infobox Bach composition, you acted on a "consensus" of no more than 10 editors (!), against the thousands of readers (!) who saw abbreviations since December and didn't object. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, please listen to what the other editors are trying to tell you. They include professional writers and editors and people who understand the way the encyclopedia has to serve the reader. --Kleinzach 08:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ps: in the example, please at least make the code match the presentation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain. --Kleinzach 08:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The coding for the obbligato instrument says (12), it doesn't show, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please explain. --Kleinzach 11:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that if you don't see that "| obbligato = oboe d'amore, viola da gamba (12)" has the number of the movement, but the presentation has not, I am unable to help you.

Please keep the style of the infobox (lists as Plainlist or Flatlist) and give the number of parts,

"| instruments = {{Plainlist|

• tromba
• oboe
• oboe d'amore
• bassoon
• 2 violino
• viola
• viola da gamba
• basso continuo

}} --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to take this to the actual page involved — whichever it is — then this will be clearer. Kleinzach 15:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You changed a template documentation, I politely ask you to change to the above THERE, in the style of that template, or actually all templates, you just don't write lists separating entries by commas. The present "example" shows how NOT to do a list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think readers understand tromba better than tr with an explanation that tells them trumpet? Do you think they realise that "flauto piccolo" is NOT a piccolo? Do you think "taille" will help them without the explanation "(tenor oboe)"? and so on, - you are in the process of reducing information, kindly think again before proceeding in that line, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not expert on these instruments. Please edit as you think appropriate, without using abbreviations. Kleinzach 11:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you write International Business Machines instead of IBM? Really? - I will not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi there, just some advice, when you are de-stubbing articles please also do so on those article's talk pages for corresponding article group projects. Thanks. RoyalMate1 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have time to do this because of the numbers of articles involved. I'd appreciate some help with this (as i have asked here). --Kleinzach 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:NeedsLove

Would you care to put this warning on the user's talk page. I think they need to understand that they are going against a broad consensus, and it is not just me getting shirty with them. SpinningSpark 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I was looking for the right warning notice, but I see he's now been blocked. I hope this means this is over. There were also problems on Berlin Philharmonic, Vienna Philharmonic, and Martha Gellhorn. Thanks again for your help with this. --Kleinzach 22:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

How did this guy go for so long on Wikipedia with nothing on his talk page? Just shows how tolerant we are. SpinningSpark 23:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In that spirit of tolerance, I'd suggest waiting a reasonable interval after his block has expired tomorrow next week, before archiving those posts on the Harmonic dab page. In other words, let them have a chance to reply before closing the discussion; it seems like a civil thing to do.

Whatever you decide, I'm easy. Thanks for taking care of this! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see the block has been extended. So far no one has replied to any of this stuff — what's the point? However I'll hold off on the archiving if you thinks that's best. Incidentally I see this user is also active in Japanese, see here. --Kleinzach 02:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill, is there some reason the Talk: Harmonic (disambiguation) is likely to be archived any time soon? There was nothing on it before this blew up and it still pretty short now. SpinningSpark 03:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested archiving it. --Kleinzach 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that anything constructive remains to be said in that exchange, which is why I'd be easy with archiving it right now. Waiting a while is more like pro forma civility, and wouldn't cost anything of importance. That said, I'd love the astonishment of seeing them change their attitude; stranger things have happened. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's now archived. I think the problem is English language-related so I don't think we will see any change in attitude. There was no provocation involved. The attacks really came out of the (proverbial) blue. --Kleinzach 03:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

I am curious why you removed the Oregon Symphony albums from the category "Oregon Symphony albums" and the Oregon Symphony discography from the category "Oregon Symphony". Seems counterproductive. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically overdeep categorization. This is out of line with other orchestra cats. However if you want to use the cat for a special purpose and revert my edits, that's fine with me. --Kleinzach 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Richard Wagner, you may be blocked from editing. This covers the premature archiving of discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I observe WP:1RR, hence by definition I do not edit war. This is in contrast to the editor who placed this notice above. He has been banned 30+ times for edit warring. --Kleinzach 09:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see I'm not alone in getting this treatment after one edit, see here. And even some two-month old archiving is being reverted now. [1] and [2].--Kleinzach 10:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Re this, see this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Right. --Kleinzach 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx

Ur help is so appreciated O.OPhead128 (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but please cool it down. Try to win the argument just on the facts with no incendiary language, OK? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valencia Instrumental Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your support!

Phead128 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My friend, UrbanNerd has been blocked for 24 hours for his repeated deletions/manipulation of other ppl's texts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UrbanNerd#Only_warning Justice! :) Phead128 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Welcome you are using

Hey Zach. The welcome you are using includes my name as a reference. I don't mind one bit but I just thought you should know. It would probable be best if you changed it prior to placing it at a new users page or even after. Either way, you should get the "credit" rather than me. TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 00:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Should have check it more thoroughly. Thanks for telling me. Kleinzach 02:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Refracktion

The article Refracktion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable and unverifiable WP:ORG. I can't find any references in reliable sources. The only hits I see are on social media and in German (where it's a word). Probably eligible for speedy, but PROD to be on the safe side.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Silly. Kleinzach 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Refracktion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Refracktion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refracktion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pburka (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for being fairminded and caring about other editors. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your helpful move to Chris Field (composer), don't know why I hadn't thought of that, — Cirt (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. --Kleinzach 00:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted the old Bruckner user pages

Thanks for the advice. I deleted the contents of the Bruckner user pages. LazyStarryNights (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

From the AN/I — Just noticed this:

Ched: I posted a list of music-related box infobox discussions above (in the pale yellow box). Can you at least scan some of the discussions? I posted it particularly for people like you, so the content of this debate could be more accessible. --Kleinzach 09:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've read a lot, or at least skimmed a lot of "infobox discussions", but very likely am missing much too. If you have 3 or 4 recent ones, I'll gladly look them over. Also, are you interested in my views on infoboxes in general, the discussions in general, or a specific "editor" or "editors"? I'll try to remember to check back and follow up on this .. if you don't hear back from me in a timely manner - feel free to ping me. — Ched :  ?  14:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Those were recent discussions. A few have happened more recently and I may add them to the list. I have to say I'm not particularly interested in hearing more opinions about the boxes. I just hope that anyone intervening in discussions is up to speed. Unfortunately you weren't — that's why you got a bit of a hostile reception. Are you going to close down your Userspace Rfc? I understand you've abandoned it so that might be a good idea. Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 15:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel that I'm not "up to speed"? I guess I could close it, I haven't really looked at it for a while. Or if you want to close it - I have no objections. — Ched :  ?  15:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC) .. OH .. and I haven't taken anything you've said as hostile in the least. I took it as a "can you have a look at this" comment. — Ched :  ?  15:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, I didn't intend to sound hostile. I'll leave closing the Rfc to you. I wouldn't want to meddle with someone else's user page. --Kleinzach 15:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Animal transportation

Hi, just to let you know that as you contributed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthony Seldon/Box of seals, there is a related discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal transportation which you may be interested in. Thank you! Seal Boxer (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Composer navboxes

Bzzt, Kleinzach, do you understand that the composer opera navbox is redundant where a more complete navbox exists at the bottom of an opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe bottom line boxes are usually ignored by readers. So the top right position is more suitable. --Kleinzach 01:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe collapsed section are usually ignored by readers (based on many instances of me pointing out a navbox to someone (in-person), and clicking [show], and their resulting astonishment). Just a thought. :) –Quiddity (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a composer navbox for Jules Massenet, you removed it as "provocative". You felt provoked, I don't know why, no provocation was intended, just help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I feel my time is being wasted, which is far worse of course than being provoked. Deliberately duplicating information on pages is a serious disservice to readers. It's pretty close to vandalism.--Kleinzach 14:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not duplicated on La Navarraise where the question came up. The oratorios and ballets are now unconnected to the operas again, speaking of service to readers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The question "came up" on Don Quichotte. Kleinzach 14:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have misunderstandings, sorry: Robert.Allen asked about La Navarraise, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#List of opera links in Template:Infobox operas, I tried to help fixing that, there was no duplication, - at least not at the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No misunderstanding. See what Robert.Allen actually said. I think this should end here. I'm archiving this. Kleinzach 14:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Verdi articles: creating separate articles for "Recordings"

It's good to see you back on Wikipedia again!!

I see you've created the separate Ballo recordings article and think that it is a good idea. I took a look at the Category:Operas by Giuseppe Verdi and saw that some had the link to the corresponding recordings article and some didn't, so added in the missing ones.

Are there any other Verdi articles which deserve their own article do you think? And by what criteria do we decide to create them. e.g. how many recordings have to be listed before the main article gets so weighed down? In my view, some are reaching that point, especially where I see that no recordings are listed since from about 1992, which the case with Luisa Miller#Recordings, I think, but almost all the later ones seem to come from pirate sources....so we can't add them in..... All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Somehow, in adding the above, I seem to have also added your Talk page into the Verdi operas category and do not seem to be able to find a way of removing it....! Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not have replied earlier. (I mistook this for another attack.) Anyway thank you for your welcome. I've noticed that a lot of the Verdi operas now have long recordings section which could be split off. Almost all of them seem to be in table form which makes it easy enough. I think the main articles are easier to handle without long recordings sections. I don't know whether the discography pages are developed more as stand-alone articles. Perhaps they are. Anyway I think Simon Boccanegra, Luisa Miller, Ernani, and Nabucco might all be suitable for discographies. --Kleinzach 04:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this for another attack ;) - For example, when the table of Kafka's works was found too long to stay in the FA, I made it a stand-alone article, Franz Kafka works, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Gerda, your attack was here [3]. I'm waiting for an apology. Until I get one I'd prefer it if you didn't post here. --Kleinzach 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR

I added you here ... [4] —Ched : ?  23:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox/nav box disputes

You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Infobox/nav box disputes.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)