User talk:Michael Bednarek

Hello Michael,

Thanks for fixing my formatting; I need to stop being a Luddite and do this stuff myself.

With regard to Osborne page, I suspect we are seeing different versions on line. Here is the page I was looking at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=QpUoBgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=osborne+concert+song+companion&hl=en#v=onepage&q=adelaide&f=false

With thanks, Opus33 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opus33, you're correct. I'm very sorry and embarrassed. The preview I get from https://books.google.com/books?id=QpUoBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22 shows the whole page 22, and the paragraph at the bottom ends indeed with [Adelaide is] "a bel canto aria in disguise, with its gentle opening theme and ecstatic cabaletta-like conclusion." Thanks for querying my edit, and more apologies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It didn't even occur to me to be offended. Please note: I really appreciate everything you do to monitor and upgrade article quality. The errors you fix must hugely outnumber the errors you commit, so we're way ahead in the long run. :=) Opus33 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to a disambiguation page for the name "Rausch". Doesn't that qualify? WQUlrich (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Franz Rausch: WP:ORPH#Criteria explicitly excludes disambiguation pages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I don't think there are going to be any other options. Unless I can work him into the article about Carl Haunold, who painted his portrait. That's what brought me to his article, WQUlrich (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Carl Haunold itself is almost an orphan, as is the de:Franz Rausch. Mentioning Rausch in the Haunold article would be rather arbitrary and forced, but that's up to you. Franz Rausch is mentioned as a piano maker (of an unremarkable recording) in the article on Schumann's Kinderszenen, but nowhere else in Wikipedia's 6.9 million articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vandalism in the articles created by me. That looks like Wikipedia:Harassment. We already discussed that stuff: I've got months ago the permission for stihi.ru (for my own translations) in Wikidata and have no wish to explain such things to any passerby in poetry. Don't remove my original translations from the pages created by myself until you may remove this collection. --~~ Tamtam90 (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed material from a) "Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli" and b) "Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär" that was not attributed to a source but copied from a website where it is marked with "© Copyright:: Сергей Павлов Стихи [Sergey Pavlov Potikhi], 2018 at https://stihi.ru/2018/08/15/9373" for a); and "© Copyright:: Сергей Павлов Стихи [Sergey Pavlov Potikhi], 2024 at https://stihi.ru/2024/08/29/5879" for b). If you have permission to use that material, you have follow the procedure at WP:PERMISSION or WP:DCP to allow the material being used on Wikipedia. At the conclusion of that process, the articles' talk pages will be tagged with Template:Permission ticket. For material from web pages that is marked with CC BY-SA 4.0., an attribution to the source must be provided in the Wikipedia articles where that material is used.

While rightly correcting a text error in the lyrics of "Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli", you introduced a grammatical error. Further, I don't think the poorly cropped page from the Almanach you restored into the infobox improves the article; it misses the lower part and is written in an obscure clef. The source shown in the Swiss (Greyerz) collection is better suited.

Lastly, I recommend you read WP:VAND, especially WP:NORESVAND, bullet #3. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look here: https://o.stihi.ru/ and read: " Все авторские права на произведения принадлежат авторам и охраняются законом" — "All copyright rights are granted to/ recognised for the authors." I'm the only author of those transactions, we agreed in Wikidata to publish them without additional tickets, merely pointing at CC 4.0. That's quite easy to show that license in Wikidata template.--Tamtam90 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 translations I mentioned above as a) and b) are not marked as CC BY-SA 4.0 and thus fail Wikipedia requirements for re-using material. I will mark those translations with {{Copyright violation}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]