User talk:John1987

welcome to wikipedia see Bajazet (opera) now for correctcategories and intro sentence. Year of opera important. See Vivaldi page - list of works at bottom. Feel free to start stubs on them. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Why are you reverting a fixed version back to a vandalized version stating that you are fixing vandalism (revert: vandalism, yet again. needs edit protection?)? --Zabadab 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsie. I feel quite ashamed - I wanted to revert to a correct version - it was my first revert ever, just figured out today how to do it. I apologize. -- John1987

Don't worry about it. We all make mistakes. :) --Zabadab 21:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callas?

Hey Benjamin - you (re)added Maria Callas as a famous singer of the Queen of Night character. As far as I'm aware, Maria Callas did not possess the range needed to perform the Queen of the Night arias and certainly did not perform it professionally. Recordings going around p2p networks titled Maria Callas performing Der Hölle Rache etc. are falsely attributed to her. Thank you ~ User:john1987.

Fair point - any recordings would certainly be from the begining of her career and in any case Callas was never really famous or notable for Mozart operas, more the romantics. B.S. 05 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, John1987, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask at the help desk, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up, probably in less than 15 minutes, to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here}

.

"Physical Range" section on Vocal range page

Hi there. I just looked at the Vocal range page after a bit of a break and noticed a new section on "physical range" that I believe you added. (I try to keep an eye on the whole range nonsense because it constantly attracts both Mariah-Carey-lover types and kids who've just started taking voice classes and are convinced of their expertise on the subject.) Unfortunately, I'm rather confused by it. I can't figure out what distinction you're trying to make between the "physical" and "Basic range" section. The intervals you list in the "physical" section seem generally to be wider than those in the "basic" section, but I can't see any rhyme or reason in the choices. (E.g., the "physical" bass range starts at low C, which is extremely rarely called for in classical music, but only extends to D4, while even bass parts in choral music routinely call for an E4.) Can you give me a hand? Thanks. -George 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "basic" section indicates the notes most commonly used for in classical music (from the renaissance to the post-romantic periods) while the "physical" section indicates the true vocal range available, though without including falsetto. Falsetto is not a normally singable voice - a female can go down to C#3, but she can hardly sing below C4. A male who is not a counter-tenor can go up to even E5 in falsetto, but that doesn't mean he can sing in those notes. The "true vocal range" is the one in which the notes enter the singer's major resonances and produce viable sound. If a soprano goes below C4, it's normally "soundless" (i.e. it can be heard, but doesn't have musical coloring or texture). As for the bass example - a basso's range only reaches D4, and beginning with E5 it's in falsetto, and therefore is not listed there. I hope I answered everything - some vocal types like coloratura soprano are not listed there unfortunately. Maybe I should clarify the distinction between the two. John Holly 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Hi, you recently tried to move O Zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn by copying its content to a new page. That was not the proper way to achieve this, because that way the page loses its version history. Moving an article is easy: simply click on the "move"-tab on top of the article and type in the new heading. See meta:Help:Moving a page for more detailed help. - The article in question has meanwhile been moved by RHaworth on my suggestion. --FordPrefect42 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry. John Holly 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y, hello there

I'm here, YO.

Michael Maniaci reversion

I recently reverted your edit to the Michael Maniaci page for the reason of vandalism and I thought I would explain to you why. First, your revision altered the information to be different than the sources listed by the article. The information was congruent before your edit. Second, your information does not really explain why Maniaci is unique. All singers use head voice. The issue here is not one of vocal resonation but vocal registration. The fact is Maniacci can sing in the soprano tessitura without leaving the modal register. That is he does not use the falsetto register vocal production at all. The ability for a male voice to do this has, prior to Maniaci, only been observed in men with hormonal imbalances or other physiological anomalies that in effect leave the male sterile. See castrati (modern castrato). Maniaci is the only documented male singer in the course of human history to possess this ability without having the associated physiological disorders. In the future when you make edits on pages you should discuss them first on the pages' individual talk pages. Also you must show your sources whenever you make an edit on wikipedia. You can not add or change material and assume the sources cited will automatically validate your opinion or viewpoint. Wikipedia is about fact and not opinion. If I catch you doing this again I will report you to the wikipedia administration which may lead to your banning from the wikipedia community.Nrswanson (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Oberon

The article Dark Oberon has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like The Woman Who Died a Lot when it already has a specific stub tag (here {{fantasy-novel-stub}}). It just wastes the time of other editors. I looked at Category:Stubs to do some stub-sorting and was surprised to see it listed there again as I'd dealt with it this morning! And if you're adding a stub tag, please remember to put it right at the end, per WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 12:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Woman Who Died a Lot

The article The Woman Who Died a Lot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book. No refs. No evidence of awards or charting

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. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Woman Who Died a Lot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Woman Who Died a Lot 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/The Woman Who Died a Lot 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]