User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page

still more past topics...

Opera DYK

Thank you for moving the Handel DYK up high, link to the existing archive and incorporating the hooks there. Sorry I was not aware of the Portal nor that archive. What do you think of expanding it by adding (for the new ones) a date, possible with a link to the general archive? And/or show some new ones on the portal, instead of on the talk page? "New" seems to mean all of 2010, which might be incorporated slowly, when there are no really new ones. Portal:Germany had five new articles just yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above in response to this – Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I had as look at Portal:Germany. I see that it was made a Featured Portal in 2006, but I'm not sure if it would now. The requirements are much stricter now, which is why we had the portal designed by an experienced member of WikiProject Portals, specifically to bring it to Featured Portal status and to make it virtually maintenance-free. I'm quite against adding dates or "new" to the portal content. First of all, it requires too much maintenance and can quickly go out of date (this was discussed when we were setting up the portal). Secondly, it makes the portal boring to have only one set of DYKs which doesn't change for days on end. Ours change each time you refresh the page. The goal of DYK on Portal:Opera is not to highlight "new" articles but to highlight interesting articles and to show the breadth and variety of opera coverage to someone new to the area on Wikipedia. But I will create a couple of new DYK pages over the next couple of days that can be added to the rotation. I also added a link to the page you created at Portal:Opera/DYK in the Nominations section. But it would be inappropriate to add that link to the portal page itself. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts! I don't think I was precise enough. Firstly, about the portal Germany, I only refer to the DYK section. At present that is fed by new DYK from the Main page, coming almost more frequently than we can handle. Older articles can be looked up in the archives, two different ones until the end of 2010, one since the beginning of 2011. Secondly, adding a date could be done as for DYK Germany, unvisible on the page but there once you edit, - no link then, though. One more thought: Fritz Lehmann will come up on the Main page with a hook about Bach, but for Opera it might be more interesting that he conducted the first modern performance of Tolomeo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. Yep, I know you were talking about the DYK section. But on Portal:Germany, the DYK is a static feature which needs to be manually updated. Such an arrangement is unsuitable for Portal:Opera for the reasons I gave above, plus the fact that the opera portal has many more sections than the German one and there's room for only 3 DYKs at a time. That's another reason for having it a ramdomly rotating section rather than a static one. Re Fritz Lehmann, the hook cannot be changed or re-worded to make it suitable for the opera portal. DYKs must appear exactly as they appeared on the Main Page. This was stuff I learned when we re-vamped the opera portal. Although there's no harm in adding hidden text about the date, there's no need to because the opera portal (in line with the current best practice on DYK sections for portals) requires that each DYK be sourced with a direct link to the appropriate recent additions archive. Here's an example Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I understand know how DYK on the Portal Opera works. I see that the sources are in the old style, just a sequence number, whereas the archive is now organized by day/month/year, - you know the archive, you know the date. - I don't know yet where I would see the date in the "complete" opera DYK archive. Where would I enter a "new" conductor, for example? Top, bottom, alphabet, birth date, anywhere, not at all? Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Portal:Opera/DYK/Did you know? now with instructions, and have added the new style archive links for those which haven't been added to the portal yet. There's no need to do this for the ones that have already been added to the portal Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

morgan pochin / Juliette pochin

I hope I am correct in setting up a new heading! We have had discussions previously ref the Juliette Pochin site and you kindly left some notes which I can no longer trace? (maybe its me!)...could you guide me please as it contained some useful advice I wish to follow? Secondly, I hope to add some other CD info..but cannot get any independent verification as yet...eg. Alfie Boe "Bring him home" was arranged and produced by Juliette Pochin and James Morgan. This is shown on the "discography" section of the Morgan Pochin website : http://www.morganpochin.com/ ..I am not sure a reference to this site would count as independent? I cannot find an image of a CD liner or anything else at the moment. Thanks for kind help so far. Pochinfan (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC) ps ..under the "much appreciation" section and the (made me smile) discussion ref "fishers" "PR" types etc. I am merely a friend of Juliette who asked me to have go at Wikepedia page. Without your assistance it would never have made it.... in fact I could well have ended up in an institution! Whether i will ever be brave enough to tackle another page remains to be seen. At least Juliette is a "proper" Opera singer i.e. she has actually sung in an Opera or two (unlike some crossover singers I know)..albeit her career has taken a shift recently. Thanks again Pochinfan (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The notes you're looking for are archived here. Re the Alfie Boe CD. Personally I'd leave it off until it actually comes out, on the basis that this is an encyclopedia article, not a newsletter. It's only a few more days. But if you do put it in the article now, the Decca catalogue number is a sufficient reference, if you just want to reference their credits. The actual credits don't need to be online. If you want to say anything more about it, it would require a review as a reference. Anytime you want to have a go at another article, I'll be happy to help. I'd recommend writing about a notable dead person. They're a lot easier to reference properly.

. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, The Alfie Boe" Bring him Home" album (gold so far) was actually issued in December so I will add it shortly ( I will need a stiff drink first!) Maybe I should find a dead person who did not achieve much ...for simplicity

. regards, Pochinfan (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

any idea why the page for Juliette Pochin appears in some sort of "minimalist " format currently. I have not altered anything! Regards, Pochinfan (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. You might have accidentally changed the display settings on your browser. Try logging out of Wikipedia, closing your browser, and then starting over. Voceditenore (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strange...as you say it is fine now. I looked yesterday on my daughter's laptop and today on my own...and it was very different. Did not alter anything on either machine. hey ho ...it is fine now :). thanks for responsePochinfan (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

same happened again today..tried both firefox and internet explorer...no wiki frame/logo etc etc. Very odd.Pochinfan (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that if I log in all seems back to normal ? Pochinfan (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

still the same intermittant problem...quite random and on different laptops.Pochinfan (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rinaldo title italicised

An editor has italicised the title of Rinaldo (opera). No other opera articles in Wikipedia seem to be italicised, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) does not mention italicisation, though WP:ITALICTITLE seems to suggest that titles should be. Is there a specific Opera Project policy, in writing, than can be used to justify restoring the Rinaldo title to its non-italic form? Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Title_display_.28use_of_italics.29, which is a recommendation not to use them in the article's title. But as we all know a determined italicizer backed up by WP:MOS, couldn't care less what the OP recommends.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD

Hi VdT. I saw you also asked the same question on DGG's page. He's now answered it. Does it harmonsise with what I suggested? He has excellent objective interpretations of notability policies. This is a purely academic question, as BLPPROD will be up for review sooner or later. --Kudpung (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QpQ for DYK

Thanks for the reminder, but to my knowledge you only have to review another nom if you nominate your own article, not that of someone else. I wasn't sure about being a co-author, so did a voluntary review when I nominated Ravel's Introduction and Allegro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I didn't read the fine print.;-) I thought anyone who nominates has to review, even if it's not their own. By the way, I'm enjoying your DYKs at the top of OP talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! More to come, Stoepel and Sharp passed. - I followed the QpQ discussion only partly, one argument was that nominating the work of others should be encouraged. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Lashuto‎;

This discovery of yours explains alot to me in how the editor was navigating this place so well for his first time. Moxy (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues his disruption and/or blows off my question with sarcasm, I'm going to bring an SPI and ask checkuser to look for sleepers. If anyone wants to bring one regardless, that's fine by me. If my analysis is accurate, the original editor has clearly done this to avoid scrutiny, i.e. make it hard keep a watch on his contributions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the closed SPI, Lashuto doesn't have the MO of the banned user I blocked based on private CU evidence. --Bsa dow ski1 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It could be a coincidence that Lashuto (and Teecono) registered at about the same time that Dresian started mass-adding the YouTube links as well as creating a template to make addition faster, and then simply took up where he left off, including editing the template Dresian created and restoring Dresian's deleted links. But whoever Lashuto is, he's clearly not a "new user". In addition to this comment, new users don't immediately head for a template and start editing it as well as creating several more in their first 24 hours. Similarly, the very first edit by Teecono (who had exactly the same MO as Lashuto including identical edit summaries) is highly unusual for a new editor. Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Neil Falcone again

This article was just recreated. It is up for speedy delete, but objections have been raised. See Talk:Ryan Neil Falcone.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you've probably seen, an admin declined the speedy but put it up immediately for AfD. I suppose the AfD will see more of the flashmob shenanigans outlined here. I've now put Aaron Raitiere and Peter Shalvoy on my watchlist in case they too rise from the dead. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your alert. Unfortunately, due to a series of misunderstandings, I am now on edit restrictions whereby I am not allowed to add materials to main article space unless it is first reviewed by another user for possible copyright infringement. Should corrective text be necessary, would you be willing to review it so that I could post it quickly? Many thanks for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page to keep the conversation in one place. Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the flashmob has materialized now at the AFD. Should we add these new meat puppets to the list? On another note, somehow I missed your message about Louise Homer on my talk page until today. I'm done expanding that article for the present, although doubtless much more could be written. Feel free to contribute in anyway that interests you. More pictures are always a welcome addition.4meter4 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see from the AfD, an administrator is looking into it and will probably file an SPI if it continues. The clueless cookie-cutter "Strong Keep" arguments put forward by the latest "contributors" to the discussion are higly unlikely to carry any weight. I wonder if they realize that at least three of the discussants there as well as the nominator are administrators, who will no doubt appreciate their explantions of what the notability guidelines mean, and a fifth is a science fiction author and publisher, who will no doubt appreciate their explanations of how science fiction publishing works. :-) Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Just wondering - did you remember to inform the user? --Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't per "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." Should I have done it anyway? Voceditenore (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always do, but it's a matter of opinion - don't let me sway you. However, as no one has responded yet to the SPI, unless they are all aware of it and come to their defence, the SPI might just go stale and get archived. CUs can only technically establish that the same machine was being used, and overlaps and relays in editing; they can't prove sockpuppetry, just as much as they can't disprove it. We'll never know what gets discussed off-Wiki, but 'little brother/flatmate' or 'I went out of the room and left my machine logged in to Wikipedia' are the most hackneyed of all excuses, while 'I heard my coworker tapping away furiously at Wikipedia in the next cubicle' is rather original. Of course, we have to AGF, but as I said on my RfA (which nearly cost me the mop), sooner or later GF has its limits. I'm sure the CU in this instance is acting in GF, but perhaps a broader view is required - too much of the stuff I turned up is worrying, and seems to support your own opinions. --Kudpung (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at the SPI stating that I didn't warn the user and why, asked the admin if it should be done, and if so to leave the case open. But if you look at the cookie-cutter "defenses" mounted at the last one, it's pretty obvious that they will be advised of what to say and how. The case will go stale eventually anyway. My impression is that the SPI process doesn't really care about meat-puppetry, and that's what this appears to be. The information about pledge season at the fraternity makes a lot of sense to me in terms of what went on with the Falcone article. I'm pretty sure the article's creator was supplied with a copy of the deleted article and given a mission impossible to see if he and his friends could get it back onto WP. If the flashmob shows up at the AfD, then it can simply be dealt with by marking their contributions as SPAs. There's no way any uninvolved editor could conceivably argue for notability in this one. Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been nice to inform me; have not been active for a while. Was informed by an e-mail. Think some technical understanding of how the internet works would help. See my comment, below. I tallied up the number of URLs I travel through in one week -- 7, folks. One of those is probably Racepacket's, as well, as he is in the same county as part of my weekly travels. On the rest of the CoI allegations, I think those were all cleared or stated last fall, and everyone knows to do so now. Racepacket took this to the Cornell Board of Trustees last year, but it is not clear if all Cornellians are conflicted from all articles that touch on Cornell, etc.Cmagha (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. Voceditenore (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Neil Falcone and Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)

Thank you for your recent edits. I have added more {{fact}} and {{how?}} tags today. Could you please review the lead paragraph of Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)? Two ideas that are missing from the lead are that the organization became coeducational shortly after women students started to attend the University and that it welcomed members from a variety of fraternities. Once those facts are reintroduced into the article, it will lose it promotional value, and the link to it may be dropped from the main page of the PKP website. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to use a new heading when posting on a different topic. Anyhow, I re-wrote the sentences in Falcone to obviate some of the tags you added—a rather Quixotic gesture on my part, as this article hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of passing the AfD.

As for the Irving, I did a bit of very basic cleanup last autumn after the 2nd AfD, but it still needs a lot more. Nevertheless (and not surprisingly), the cleanup tag was removed by another editor in November with no improvement to the article. I've now had a good look at it again and added a multiple issues tag. All of the references have to be checked to ensure that they actually say what they are claimed to say (I know for a fact that many of them don't), and it has multiple instances of synthesis and off-topic theorizing. The prose is atrocious and often "in universe" and the article generally lacks coherence. The lead is totally contrary to the Manual of Style. The article definitely needs more stuff about the Society's openness to women and to all fraternities, not to mention the fact that it was completely taken over at one point by... er... Delta Kappa Epsilon.

Frankly, I don't care who links to the article from their website. I only care that it ends up a decent article, which it currently is not despite its massive word count. I won't have time to work on it in the next few weeks, as I'm currently working on a much more gripping society, but I'll eventually get to it. I also have it on my watchlist and the closing admin at the AfD offerred support if any attempts are made to hijack it. The shenanigans that went on with this article (and its numerous offspring) make me very glad that my alma mater and her sibling had no truck with "Greekness". I find the whole concept faintly ridiculous, but à chacun son goût and all that. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it fascinating that they are reaching out to claim folks like the future President of Cuba and John F. Kennedy, Jr. although these celebrities have documented affiliations elsewhere. I think that by reaching out to the freshmen as individuals and inviting them to participate in Wikipedia in a positive fashion, we have curbed the original plan. They believe everything they are told about the Irving Literary Society, JFK Jr, etc., because they trust their fraternity brothers regarding their fraternity heritage. Thank you for all that you do. Racepacket (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about their attempt with JFK Jr. but Menocal takes the cake. I've fact-tagged it and will remove it in 48 hours if it's not referenced. In any case, just because the Cornell Phi Kappa Psi is now coextensive with their own brand of the ILS, doesn't mean it was then. By the way, have you noticed that after a 3 month hiatus, not only did this editor show up again on the day the Falcone article was recreated, but also this one. Interestingly, the latter has participated in the AfD today by plagiarising the third member of the triumvirate. Dear Oh Dear. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Menocal brothers joined the Irving together; Alfonso was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, later became a naval engineer. Mario had dual membership in Deke and Phi Kappa Psi, Deke becoming more important to him in later years. But all that was stripped out when you two rewrote the article last fall, along with the coeducational references I put in earlier. I stayed away from the text in deference to you. Just ask. Cmagha (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask by putting {{citation needed}} in the Menocal article. If you have reliable published sources verifying Mario Menocal's membership in Phi Kappa Psi and the Irving Literary Society, please add them to Menocal's article. One for each please, as the Irving prior to its demise in 1887 was not necessarily co-extensive with either Phi Kappa Psi or Delta Kappa Epsilon. Incidentally, the "stripping out" as you call it was done primarily by three other editors, not me, and rightly so. Material which was removed and/or rewritten was in compliance with the consensus at the second AfD and with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. The list of ILS members had not a single reference verifying their membership. Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you are staying away from the article out of deference to me is irrelevant and misses the point. As per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you or anyone else affiliated with Phi Kappa Psi should propose changes to the article at Talk:Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). As for Coldplay3332 and Lebowski 666, all three of you should abide by the advice you were each given following the sockpuppet investigation [1], [2], [3] and which you have so far completely ignored. Either avoid editing the same articles and especially participating in the same discussions, or openly declare the fact that you share the same IP. Be aware that even if you do declare it, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Sharing an IP address, your comments can (and usually will) be treated as if they were from a single user for purposes of deciding consensus. Voceditenore (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really interesting --- do you realize how the internet operates? Aside from someone on a land line at home, thousands of people are hook through the same URLs. It is good to post the common URL, when you know it is common. The one I am on right now, I think, is in New Jersey -- four hundred miles away. How many people are piping through it? Between here, Phildelphia and New Jersey? Co-workers is more serious, and when that was the case, we declared it -- was almost a year ago in one individuals' case; and was not a co-worker at the time. And note, Racepacket has yet to declare his conflict on the Falcone matter, even though he did on the Irving issue. He is a former Cornell Trustee and has actively lobbyied the Board of Trustees on Wikipedia matters, hasn't he? I suggest a double standard, and some quiet prayer and meditation might help the detractors come to peace with their disturbed thoughts. Cmagha (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how the internet works. Unfortunately, you have no idea how Wikipedia works. I based my arguments on the behavioural evidence, which is quite transparent. The co-workers clause is still in effect. You, Coldplay3322 and Lebowski 666 are of course free to ignore the advice you were given, as indeed you have. Voceditenore (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are we still co-workers, nor in communication. Does the CoI apply to past co-workers, and if so, how long is the statute of limitations? I have stayed off the AfD intentionally. And does your work for Racepacket conflict you? These are all good questions. Cmagha (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "work for Racepacket". Nor I do not consider myself "conflicted" as you can see from this and this. You may put whatever construal you want on the fact that you no longer share the same IP and building with Coldplay3322 and Lebowski 666, and all three of you can continue to ignore the advice you were given. It's your choice. As I said before, I have consistently based my arguments on behavioural evidence only, as have at least two administrators at the most recent SPI. I have no intention of continuing this conversation here. If yet another SPI or AN/I is opened, you can discuss it there with other editors. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

How do I put it in the Portal rotation? Do I need to have two others before I can do that? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roscelese. I was just about to leave you a message at your talk page. It's not that Gerda didn't believe it had been a DYK. It's that the green ticks are only for the DYKs that have already been added to the Portal:Opera rotation. The list you added it to is our "working list". I'll be happy to add it. Just give me a couple of hours. I like to get a balance of topics and need to add an image for one of them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized and apologized for my misinterpretation - I'd thought the removal of the tick and the "when" were part of the same edit, as it were, ie. "this has not been verified," rather than two separate issues. Patience and Sarah has an image if you want to use it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for an(other unclear) edit summary which I would have liked to change once I hit Save. It's resolved, I hope? The procedure to add to the archive (with a link to the date in the general DYK archive) is described, right? There are examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it now. Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, I've made a new page to add three more to the rotation, including the one by Roscelese. Portal:Opera/DYK/23.

Thanks! And if I want to add more, I just create a portal page at the next higher number, or is there something else I have to do to put it in rotation? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what to do...

Each new page must have three DYKs (no more, no less).
Each one must be sourced to the link in the exact Wikipedia:Recent additions archive where it appears.
The page layout/coding is at Portal:Opera/DYK/Layout.
The wording must be exactly as it was in the original DYK.
Each set needs an image. The image must be free-use and only 1 per set of 3 DYKs.
It's best to make sure the three DYKs reflect a variety of subjects, e.g. a mix of bios, operas and periods
Once the page is created. You transclude it at Portal:Opera/DYK.
Then you update the max number by editing the portal at:
Random portal component|max=23|header=Did you know...

I've got the portal pages on my watchlist, so don't worry about making a mistake. I can always fix it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks so much! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nina (Dalayrac)

I would appriciate your input at this discussion, whatever your opinion might be. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihadi tourism

I know this is outside of your editing interest, but I would value your input at this discussion. Thanks, 4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! Way outside.;-) I don't think I'd have much to contribute there. Having read the article and the arguments, I'm basically neutral about it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for taking a look anyway.4meter4 (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing question

I'm currently in the process of re-writing the article on soprano Eileen Farrell which was virtually unreferenced. As of now, I've pretty much been gleaning content from obituaries written in various publications. However, I did just do a preliminary google books search and this autobiography, co-authored by Farrell and Brian Kellow of Opera News, led the top of the list. I know wikipedia prefers sources which are independent of the subject, but I was wondering if it was possible (and to what extent) to use a published autobiography as a source of material. Best, 4meter4 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an improvement! I think autobiographies are OK as sources, as long as they aren't the only one. But if it's anything remotely evaluative or controversial, it's probably best to actually say in the text something like "According to Farrell's autobiography, blah...blah..." Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment and the good advice.4meter4 (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I concur. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Stanislao Gastaldon

I went ahead and nominated Stanislao Gastaldon at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 8. I didn't know if you were planning on nominating it yourself or not, but the time window for nomination was almost up for the article. I didn't want you to miss your oppourtunity to feature your work. If there is a hook you like better please suggest it.4meter4 (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sosnowski Redaction

Hello, why did you redact my comments about David J. Sosnowski in the Deletion discussion? I thought they were both relevant and important to the issue, but if you feel they were somehow inappropriate, please explain how, and I will be happy to listen. Thanks. Chillowack (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted them as a precaution per WP:Outing. I hadn't removed them completely from the history of the article. That was done by an adminstrator whom I contacted for advice on the issue and who felt they should be oversighted. In cases like this, it's OK to point out there that seems to be a conflict of interest, but not to explictly and definitively link a real person to a specific Wikipedia user name or a specific IP. Besides, one cannot be sure whether the person(s) who created and edited the article were the subject. It could have been a friend, relative, or agent acting on the subject's behalf. In any case, promotional language, conflict of interest, or even autobiography aren't grounds for deleting an article per se. Deletion is based on failure to fulfil the notability criteria. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see now why you did it, and I agree with your action. I was not sufficiently acquainted with the Outing policy, but now that I have read it I see that I unwittingly transgressed it.

On a side note: I do have proof that the article was indeed written by its subject, but that's probably a marginal issue at this point, so I won't push it anymore. Thanks for the explanation, I will factor the info into my Wikipedia process going forward.Chillowack (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Stanislao Gastaldon

Hello! Your submission of Stanislao Gastaldon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Stahl (conductor)

Here is an article I just came across that could use a great deal of copyediting.4meter4 (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had a look at it and gave it a going over. It's in a bit better shape now. I can't understand why it had all the links to the German WP, when there were perfectly good English WP articles. I fixed those. I tagged it with {{link rot}}. Can't be bothered to sort out the bare urls for now, but hopefully a wikignome will see the tag and get to it eventually. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. So we don't have any edit conflicts I'll work on something else for a while.4meter4 (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. After saying I wasn't going to tackle the bare urls, I got tempted. It turned out to be quite a decent article in the end. Terribly sad story though. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can't imagine how horrible that must have been for their children loosing both parents within one month of each other. Thank you again for the helping hand.4meter4 (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singers

User:Neddyseagoon creates large numbers of cats for singers. I'm not sure if this is overcat or if it fits within the sphere of your project. I'll leave it to you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is overcat espcially for the less common voice types, and ones which are almost exclusively operatic, but as they're separate from the operatic voice type categories themselves, e.g. Category:Operatic baritones, it's probably not an OP concern. There was already an issue back in 2008 with creation of things like Category:American operatic baritones . It was eventially "solved" by depopulating the cats. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Burton

Here is another article which has attracted COI editing if you care to help out. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've whacked out the copyvio from her Boston U. bio, added what I could including more refs, and tidied it up. But... I'm not sure this would survive an AfD. She's not a tenured professor and the citation index isn't huge. Though, it might just survive on the basis of the fairly extensive coverage of her work in Giacomo Puccini: A guide to research. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. I agree that she is on the notability border. I personally would vote for a weak keep if it came to an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operissimo

Hi VdT. I hope you didn't mind me bringing it up again on DGG's page. The point I was trying to make was that there were dozens, if not hundreds of extremely short stubs where Operissimo was the only ref. A poor ref indeed, but unfortunately sufficient to prevent the use of a BLPPROD template. I don't see the BLPPROD so much as a threat to delete, but more as a message to the creator that s/he has ten days to do something about it. Of course, if we want to do their work for them, that 's up to us, but in the case of the Operissimo stubs I had the feeling that the creator was actually quite aware of the Wikipedia requirements. --Kudpung (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all, it's just that I personally find them less annoying than the COI rubbish. ;-) Besides, the majority of articles using operissimo as a reference are for dead singers, and on the whole, I've found the operissimo database to be quite accurate. Even so, I've hammered home at the OP that this shouldn't ever be used as the sole source, and as far as I can see, this has stopped. Another one that editors (not the one you're referring to) were using a lot was bach-cantatas.com until I pointed out its unsuitability. In fact, it's even more of a primary source as most of the bios for living singers are plagiarised from their agents' websites. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fin al punto

Addressing you not for opera but Italian: how would you translate this title of music for strings by Wilhelm Killmayer? Btw, thanks for illustrating Hengelbrock. Reminds me of the 20th anniversary of his choir not yet mentioned ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Here via message on WP:Opera talk, butting in as another Italian-speaker) I'm not sure, because if it were translated literally into English, it would sound like it meant something different (ie. "To the point" sounds like it means "direct" rather than "to the point [of/where]." Good luck...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, just for my personal understanding. More to the point, until it goes to prep, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Noskaiová

Feel free to add to Petra Noskaiová, I didn't find more (then - and didn't look later). She is not very busy as a soloist, but the one and only alto of the Bach cantata performances of La Petite Bande, how to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally: as discussed before, in a way these (Bach cantata) singers don't belong to Opera at all, but I remember: all classical singers Opera. Joanne Lunn is singing with the Monteverdi Choir, not opera. She recorded Rutter with the composer, that says more than just a recording, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, re Petra Noskaiová, yes I realize it's hard to find more for these current/recent singers, but some articles in that case will have to remain permanently at start or stub class if they contain only a list of performances/recordings and virtually no actual biographical details. The OP banner is not only for opera singers, by long-standing tradition it's also for classically trained singers of oratorio etc. who sing classical works without amplification. I also remove the additional {{classical}} banner whenever I find it, because that project only banners classical music-related articles which are not covered by any other related project, e.g. Opera, Composers etc. As it is they have over 10,000 articles, and have abolished assessment completely. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken, I stopped using the template Classical long ago, after you explained that. I don't go for the singers, but the cantatas, so don't want to achieve more than start. But stub class and DYK doesn't go well together, Lunn case. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already had a DYK, so an individual project's assessment doesn't affect that and I didn't add a stub tag to the article itself. Projects vary in terms of the way they rate the same article. The reason I marked Joanne Lunn as a stub, is that it really only repeats a very abbreviated version of what's on Bach-cantatas.com who base their articles on agent's websites and official bios. Thus, they are basically a primary source. One of the problems with the article is that it simply lists the operas she sang in but not the venue or year for most of them or the roles sang in them. Most of that information is available, it just takes a bit of searching. She sang in Poppea (role unknown) for her debut at the ENO in 2004, for example, and Lepido in Silla in a performance at the RCM in 2000 (also recorded live) [4]. This is also largely true of her performances in Bach and oratorio — no dates for several of them, sometimes neither date nor venue.

In the absence of any basic biographical information such as year and place of birth, dates she attended the RCM, date/place of professional debut, etc. I think it's even more necessary to be a bit more specific about dates and venues of performances which can be verified. Otherwise, the reader has no idea of the course/timeframe of her career to date and it ends up reading like a CV rather than a biographical narrative. Same thing applies to the Tagore Gold Medal. The reader has no idea what it is or what it's awarded for. (It's the "Tagore Medal for Most Distinguished Student of the Year"). Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I saw what was missing and will be happy if someone can add, I am interested in different topics now and in real life. If you say, an individual project's assessment doesn't affect DYK, that's all I need in this case. Lunn's specialty is not opera. Btw I sang in the chorus of the German premiere Rutter's piece, and I was very impressed by a Monteverdi Choir's performance of Israel in Egypt, not remembering if she was one of many soloists who stepped forward from the choir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siphiwo Ntshebe: Opera project

You removed the template {{WikiProject Opera}} from Siphiwo Ntshebe's talk page. I met him at Opera Queensland and it's not clear to me why that template is not appropriate. Admittedly, he was still a developing singer when he died, but still… -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following your message, I checked out his obituary, and it appears he had started a career as a classical recitalist and opera singer, so have restored the banner. By the way, feel free to correct/reverse any of my stuff with the banners if you disagree. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pics in Opera DYK

Thanks for formatting the pictures in the archive! I suggest a different approach, thinking that the names of the images are of not much interest to the reader and should not be "bolder" than the subjects. Please look, if you like the first on the top, Opernhaus Dortmund, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

If you have time (and of course the inclination) I'd be glad of any comments you may like to make on the Thomas Beecham peer review page. I don't know that Beecham was a singer's number one friend, but any suggestions will be gratefully received. There's no rush. Tim riley (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. A drive-by editor has thought fit to close the PR after less than 2 days and has, for some inexplicable reason, nominated the article for FA. I have naturally opposed the nomination as premature (some might also say discourteous, but let it pass) and will get the PR reinstated as soon as I can. Meanwhile, sorry you are being mucked about by this other editor. Tim riley (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kind message - thank you. Enjoy your fortnight away! Tim riley (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on my GA reviewing

For your information a RFC/U has been started regarding some of my GA reviewing. Please visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2 Thanks, -- Racepacket

It's not really about areas that I am familiar with, but I hope you all can come to an amicable settlement. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humility

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I made Andrew Ladis today, so your readers won't say "Who he?" ;-) Will add more to it tomorrow. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Great. In fact he was more of a "big shot" than I had expected! History2007 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Campana

Thanks for coming to the rescue.4meter4 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work! I hope you put this in for a DYK. Funny how deletion noms often prompt article improvement. :-)4meter4 (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm rather chuffed that the article is now at least 10 times longer than the one in Grove.;-) I did put it into DYK too. I had to move the advert image back to where it was in the first place. A lot of readers have wide monitors, including me and left-aligned images can seriously interfere with block quote formatting if they aren't completely above it (or below). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Williams

Thanks for adding the picture and the assessment there. I should have thought of adding that portrait but my knowledge of images and copyrights is pretty poor. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love finding images and adding them. If you ever need one for an article, just give me a shout. Fascinating article, by the way. Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History

Thanks for the heads-up on the vote, and for researching the bot options. I wasn't sure if there was one we could have run, or if we'd need to make our own, which is when I bailed. :-/ - PKM (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have bailed too, if I thought we'd have make our own bot. ;-). Simple navboxes are just about the limit of my expertise. Actually, it was good to have a vote regardless of the outcome—brought a lot members back to the talk page, including the founder. It'll be interesting to see if this project gets anywhere. Voceditenore (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Gheorghiu page on Wiki

Dear Voceditenore

Reading the history of the page, I noticed that you're the one editing it. I thought you might help. I'll write in brief what I need and if it's possible to have a private conversation, it would be great. Miss Gheorghiu saw this page and she is not content with the bio section. She asked me to get in contact with you. There is an official bio on her website and she'd like to have it here too. She'd also like to have a photo posted on the page. As I can't copy/paste it here because it's against some rules, for sure you're the one entitled to give the best solution. Please be so kind and provide an email address. or send me a private message I could reply to. ThanksMadamabutterfly (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC) --Madamabutterfly (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of doing something wrong on purpose. my mistake about deleting that passage. I'm learning to use wiki.

yes, Mrs Gheorghiu owns the copyright of the photo.I added the info. please check to see if it's ok.I don't want the file to be deleted. I'll leave an edit summary each time. Thank you very much for helping. Madamabutterfly (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really OK, and you should be prepared for this to be challenged. You need to provide written proof from Ms. Gheorghiu herself stating that she owns the copyright and is releasing this photo under a free license. It can be done by email, but the address of the sender must be from an address officially and unambiguously associated with her which makes it clear that she is the sender, and the correspondence must be officially logged. It is not sufficient for you to simply state that she has given her permission. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has a full guide to this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Back to you for advice. When posting the references I tried to be balanced so I chose those most objective ones, not too many adjectives, only to give the idea of what happened there. Each time there's somebody else adding quotations which come in total opposition to what i posted before. Is this the normal way here? I think that you can become subjective by hiding behind a quotation. What should I do? Thank you! Madamabutterfly (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for quotes like this in the article at all. The reference is sufficient to establish that she sang the role. However, if quotes are added from the reference, then the use of only positive ones when there exist less positive or even negative ones by prominent critics makes the article unbalanced and misleading and does not adhere to Wikipedia's key policy of "neutral point of view". Editors will rightly address the imbalance. Normally, these types of descriptions go in a separate section titled "Voice" or "Critical reception" and when they do, they must reflect the full range of assessments, not simply the positive ones. See the example at José Carreras. Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. So is it ok with you to remove all the quotations and leave only the references? The problem appeared when writing about La Rondine at the Met and Adriana Lecouvreur at ROH. I'll keep on writing about other productions or concerts and it wouldn't be fine to have the same issue all over again. I'll only give references from now on. It would be great if the article is clean. Thank you Madamabutterfly (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be so kind and reply to the previous message? can you remove all the quotations from the paragraphs concerning Adriana Lecouvreur and La Rondine, leaving only the references? Thank you very much Madamabutterfly (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It's not a question of whether it's OK with me. I don't own the article, and as I have pointed out, I have been only one contributor amongst many, and have added very little of the actual content. It was another editor who added the review excerpts you are referring to. They are balanced, referenced to reliable sources, and do not violate Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. So, I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to remove them unilaterally. The normal way things are done on Wikipedia is to discuss changes like this on the article's talk page, i.e. on Talk:Angela Gheorghiu, so that other editors know what you are proposing, can express an opinion, and come to an agreement. I suggest you post your suggestions to the talk page for discussion, where I will be happy to participate. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ringraziamenti per Mérida State Symphony Orchestra e gentile richiesta di ampliamento e traduzione per José Gregorio Hernández, grazie in anticipo di vero cuore

Buongiorno a Lei,

saluti dalla Calabria e con il Cuore dal Venezuela. la scrivo per ringraziarla dell'aiuto che mi ha dato riguardante l'Orchestra Sinfonica del mio stato d'adozione, la ringrazio vivissimamente...e per lei ho pensato un semplice pensiero visto che come me ama Piotr Tchaikovsky e la musica classica in generale, ecco per lei: la Marcia dello Schiaccianoci. Adesso se non chiedo troppo, le chiedo una gentile cortesia, se potrebbe tradurre in corrente ed aulico inglese l'articolo riguardante un Venerabile Venezuelano che circa due anni fa salvò la mia vita insieme alla Our Lady of Coromoto, di cui sono particolarmente devoto, costui fu il Venerabile Dottor José Gregorio Hernández, conobbi la sua storia attraverso gli italo-venezuelani ed anche grazie ad un conosciuto e spesso criticato socialnetwork.

Tramite questo conosciuto socialnetwork, conobbi oltre che i miei famigliari, anche persone buone che mi stettero vicini in quei momenti della degenza, da ogni angolo del Venezuela e specialmente da Mérida, arrivavano preghiere, parole di coraggio, speranza e di augurio di pronta guarigione. Anche membri e reginette della nota Feria del Sol, in particolar modo la Queen of the Sun, fu molto vicina a me insieme agli altri organizzatori. Ora lei è la mia migliore amica, ma il regalo più bello arrivò il 26 agosto 2009, a due mesi dalla mia degenza per anoressia, lo portò in dono una giovane angelo, tramite internet, ma fu il motore della mia rapida guarigione, quando ormai la scienza non faceva che peggiorare la situazione.

Così una volta guarito decisi di rendere Onore e Gloria, alla Città ed al Popolo dei Miei Salvatori, con pazienza tradussi, traduco e tradurrò tutte le bellezze culturali del mio Paese d'Adozione. solo che per l'inglese sono negato, e spesso mi rivolgo a persone di madrelingua, ma non si può certo negare la mia buona volontà.

Sperando di non averla annoiata, le chiedo gentilmente l'aiuto che sono sicuro che non verrà negata. in cambio mi chieda l'articolo che vuole tradotta nei dialetti che conosco. sono certo che ci troveremo in pieno accordo, detto questo le auguro un felice weekend qualora non ci dovessimo sentire grazie e a buon rendere. suo Luigi Salvatore--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno, Luigi! Se non ti dispiace, scrivo in inglese, perché siamo nella English Wikipedia. I have added some sources to the José Gregorio Hernández article. Unfortunately, I won't be able to expand it from the longer versions on the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias right now, because I have little free time at the moment. But perhaps I will get to it later in the year. He sounds very interesting! Have you tried asking for help at WikiProject Venezuela?. Tanti saluti, Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, has handled to ask help varied times... and I apologize if I can seem stalker :'(.. however it is not it in my intentions, only that I look for help not having a good base of the the English language. to every way I thank you for what has done for me My Lady... if it needs me... they are always in the parts, thanks and to good to make :)--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Luigi, quando ho detto sulla pagina di Antandrus, "Hi Antandrus, your talk page stalker here. ;-)" parlavo (scherzosamente) di me, non di te. Sei sempre benvenuto sulla mia pagina, e se è più facile per te scrivere in italiano, va benissimo, soltanto che quando rispondo, scriverò in inglese (o con una traduzione aggiunta). Così gli altri che non parlano italiano possono capire la conversazione.

[In English: Hi Luigi, when I said on Antandrus' page, "Hi Antandrus, your talk page stalker here.", I was talking (jokingly) about myself, not you. You are always welcome on my talk page and if it's easier for you to write in Italian, that's fine. It's just that when I respond, I'll write in English (or add a translation) so that other editors who don't speak Italian can understand the conversation.]

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non si preoccupi Madame, error mio :P... ad ogni modo avrei il piacere se lei sarebbe il mio mentore e correttore in inglese, ne sarei particolarmente onorato :)... visto che lei è appassionata di musica, artisti e cantanti le segnalo due persone, la prima è un amico carissimo tal Lorenzo Branchetti, è un mio caro e stimato amico, nonché attore, cantante e conduttore per i programmi per l'infanzia, ma credo che sicuramente ne avrà sentito parlare sicuramente. Diciamo che è stato lui il mio propulsore verso Mérida, grazie ad una giovane amica in comune, modella, diventata mamma da poco. Lui è come il fratello che non ho, anche se lui è molto impegnato nelle varie produzioni della Melevisione e della Rai in generale. l'altro meritevole artista è Juan Félix Sánchez, un artista mérideño, semplice contadino ma grande artista apprezzato in tutto lo stato di Mérida. Naturalmente a suo tempo, ed al tempo che le occorre, se può farmi questa cortesia, io le tradurrò ciò che necessita in siciliano e altri dialetti dell'Italia in generale, Grazie a Dio la Vallardi fornisce ottimi dizionari. Per il Resto le Auguro di vero cuore un eccellente Weekend, che sia Prospero, Pacifico e Munifico. Yours Luigi--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CFR for opera singer cats

Your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 23#Operatic singer cats would be appriciated.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Die Stadt hinter dem Strom

Thanks for the opera! I will copy opera info from the composer, but will leave it with him also until after DYK - sorry that didn't appear in May, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Stert

I don't even remember why that one is on my watch list, anyway, "WDR-Radio Orchestra (Stuttgart)" is nonsense, important possible links are missing ... - What is "helmed the premiere" supposed to mean? A typo or an expression I don't know. - By the way: thanks for improving the opera refs (s.a.)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this today when I was checking out the contribtions of the editor of this newly created article. "Helmed" means "led" or "conducted" in PR-speak—the kind of language used in press releases and publicity shots. The whole article needs a good copy edit, as well as referencing. So does Cyndia Sieden. Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But how then can he, born in 1963, "helm" the premiere in 1952? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes! I didn't even read the article closely. It's obviously a load of nonsense. I removed the assertion that it was a world premiere. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: What do you think of addressing the contributor - with an almost empty talk page, rather than you and others do the work? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not going to do any more work on the article, now that I've taken out the obvious falsehood. It's tagged for maintenance, so presumably the creator has it on his watch list, will see the maintenance tags, and address them. If not, someone else will eventually come along and at least copy-edit it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Piatti article

Hi Voceditenore! On the 8th of March you deleted a contribution. I had a look at it and the contribution was absolutely genuine and therefore not a COI. I wonder if you would be so kind as to restore that contribution and delete your COI tag? Additionally, and since you have been editing the Polo Piatti article, have deleted relevant stuff and seem generally quite suspicious of contributions on it, I've got a question, please: I do not mind to continue contributing on this article, but wouldn't it be much better for you if Polo Piatti (my husband) communicated with you (and other editors) directly? My guess is that nobody would be in a better position than him to know what is true and what is not with regards to the 'Polo Piatti' article in Wikipedia? I would be every grateful for your answer. Thanks! Zaza888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello there. The reason I removed the material was because it was way too closely paraphrased and in some cases verbatim from here and here on the subject's own website. Not only that, the wording was inappropriately promotional. Please see Talk:Polo Piatti for more about these issues. The content, re-written in neutral encyclopedic language to remove the close paraphrasing and the unreferenced puffery can be re-added. To say that a contribution is "genuine" does not mean that there isn't a conflict of interest involved. This is especially true because you have provided no references from published reliable sources which are completely independent of Polo Piatti to support the assertions made. As in all these cases, what the subject says about himself, verifies absolutely nothing apart that he has claimed it. It does not make it true. Indepedendent published sources are required for that.

I will remove the COI tag for the moment, as in its current state, the article is reasonably neutral. But the other tags stay until the article is properly referenced and cleaned up. Per WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY neither you nor your husband should be really be editing this article at all. I would suggest you put any changes or additions you wish to make at Talk:Polo Piatti. I or another independent editor can look at them and add them to the article if they are appropriate.

Also, a note about the images you and your husband re-added (at least one of which had been previously deleted). Sooner or later, these are going to be queried and possibly deleted. On this one, File:Polopiattiin2009.jpg, you state that it was taken by Martina Mars, who also owns the copyright, but you do not state there that the person who uploaded that image, i.e. Zaza888, is Martina Mars. Even stating that, it may require further verification. This one, File:GrigorovitchPiattiBessmertnova.jpg, which your husband uploaded claims that he is author and copyright holder of the work. How can that be if he is actually in the photo? The file needs to clearly state who actually took the photo. Almost invariably it is that person who owns the copyright, not the person in the photo or the person who owns a copy of the photo. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials (if you actually took the photograph) and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission (if someone else took it) and follow the instructions there. Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Voceditenore! Thank you very much for your explanation and help on this. I am really sorry but I am totally new to Wikipedia and therefore not immune to making mistakes. Thank you also for removing the COI tag and for explaining where the difficulties did arise. With regards to the previously deleted article it wasn't me, Martina Mars, (or Zaza888 in Wikipedia) or my husband Polo Piatti (or Magiko in Wikipedia) that wrote it. So, I do not understand the conflict of interest you are referring to? I understand though that sources have to be verified by someone else, which is understandably fair. The only annoying thing is that my husband's biography is totally incomplete as it is in the article at present (references on his working periods as a music manager (at 'PPM Artist Management), as a teacher at 'Italia Conti Academy', etc. are not taken into consideration. Those are important facts in his musical career but unfortunately absent in the article, something which is very frustrating. We can only hope that someone independent will add them at some point in future. Finally to the photos. The new photo that I uploaded today File:Polopiattiin2009.jpg was indeed taken by me, Martina Mars (or Zaza888) and I hope that you will keep it there now. I hope I have licensed it correctly. The other photo you mentioned File:GrigorovitchPiattiBessmertnova.jpg was, as correctly assumed by you, taken by myself as well and not by Polo, obviously. I do not remember if I (or my husband) uploaded it (probably he did it, and probably did license it under his name by mistake). Unfortunately, when you are married for a very long time (like we are), things get confused in regards to who possessed what, who took what photograph, and accordingly who "owns the copyright". I would be very grateful if you could let me know how to amend the details on that photo. I can reassure you that I took the picture myself and accordingly, hold the copyright. I really need your help on this otherwise it will be deleted as you mentioned. Many thanks for your help. It is much appreciated. Zaza888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You put this current article on Wikipedia after it was written by your husband here. From what I can see, he also tried to post his biography on Wikipedia in 2007 multiple times (under a different user name) and then created this article publicizing his album when it came out in 2010. This was deleted and moved here to be worked on. A year later you pasted the contents of that page into a new article The Tides of Time. You and your husband are creating articles on Wikipedia which publicize him, his work, and his companies. That automatically creates a conflict of interest, regardless of what your intentions were. Once again, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography and really try to take on board what those guidelines are saying and why editing when you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged on Wikiedia. For one thing it almost invariably produces poor articles.

I'll give you concrete example of this. When you created Polo Piatti it was full of promotional language, almost verbatim from his website in violation of copyright, had no independent reliable souces provided to verify the claims, had serious formatting problems, and had multiple commercial links to sites selling his music or owned by him. It had a Review tag on it which clearly states:

"This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup."

Your husband (the one who actually wrote the article, even though you technically posted it), then removed the tag saying the article was OK, when it clearly wasn't. That's really not unacceptable.

I've re-written and re-added the information about his later career to the article. But I have also indicated multiple places where a reference is required. You can read more about these latest additions at Talk:Polo Piatti. Re the photographs, I suggest you amend the summary on File:Polopiattiin2009.jpg to clearly state that the creator was also the uploader, e.g.

Author and copyright holder of this photograph is Martina Mars (User:Zaza888), wife of Polo Piatti. Picture taken in England in December 2009.

However, File:GrigorovitchPiattiBessmertnova.jpg is more problematic, because your husband did not truthfully say who took the photograph, and it clearly wasn't him. Therefore he has to supply written permission from you that you have released the picture, and it needs to be done through a very exact procedure which you'll find at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you have questions or need help on this, you can post a query on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for your comprehensive information. I understand what you are saying. I can assure you that none of this was ever done with the intention to promote my husband. Neither he nor me are interested in that. We both only wanted to offer an accurate account of his life but never advertise his work or career. In fact, he doesn't really need Wikipedia to promote anything. He has worked in music for over 50 years and survived well without it. The only problem is pure ignorance (on our part) with regards to Wikipedia's methodology that neither he nor I really understand for some strange reason (call it age?). In any case you can be reassured that we will take your advise and do our very best to produce a good and unbiased article in the end. As you can probably imagine, we have hundreds of articles from newspapers from all over the world talking about my husband in some way or another (as a composer, as a pianist, as a teacher, etc). But until now nobody at Wikipedia has ever been able to explain the MAIN problem we have: We do not know how to deal with your "citation needed" tags. For example, I personally do not know if in order to show you newspaper articles I need to scan the article first and then upload it to some Wikipedia archive? Or is there a different system or method that you encourage to use? If you can answer that, I will be more than glad to comply. Finally, you have put a "citation needed" after the quote "He is married to actress Martina Mars". What kind of citation do you need here for us to prove to you that we are married? Do you wish to see our Marriage Certificate? No problem: I can send you a scan of it at any email address you can provide me with. Please let me know. Once again Voceditenore, many thanks for all your help and advise. It is really appreciated. Zaza888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Re citations. Wikipedia does not publish original research, i.e. material based on private unpublished documents or the personal knowledge of editors. Its articles must be based on and referenced only to material which has already been published elsewhere in reliable sources. This is a key policy of Wikipedia, and it's non-negotiable. Articles need to be referenced in such a way that any reader can verify the contents either via a link to the source online or via visiting a library which holds that source, in which case the offline reference must contain the full bibliographic information. And no, you can't upload scans of newspaper articles to Wikipedia. They are all under copyright and because of our license, Wikipedia cannot be used to host them. I'm going to put the relevant links to these key policies on your talk page so you have them for permanent reference. I strongly urge you to take the time and effort to read them and understand them.

As for what's required for specific assertions in the article which need references, I'm going to list them on the article's talk page (Talk:Polo Piatti). This is where specific discussions about an article's content belong, not on the talk pages of individual editors. This is so that all editors and readers can see and discuss the issues involved. Once I've put them on the article talk page, if you have any queries, you should discuss them there, not here. You and your husband have an inherent and permanent conflict of interest in that article (and in The Tides of Time), regardless of what your goals are. If you have any content which you think should be added to the article, you should post it on the talk page first so neutral editors can decide whether or not it is appropriate to add. The only things which are appropriate for you to add directly to the article are inline citations where they are required. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, many thanks for all your help. I will digest all the information you have provided and act accordingly. I am really sorry about the conflict of interest but I an starting to understand how you (and Wikipedia) really work. In the meantime, and as a sort of "trial" a few minutes ago I have provided 2 citations to the article (see after Monica Ward and Janet Gabriel). In both independent articles my husband is mentioned as manager. I would be very grateful if you could tell me if these links are acceptable and can stay in the article and if the "citation needed" tag can be removed on that line? Many thanks for everything. Zaza888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes those two are OK, but I've formatted the refrences properly for you. Take a look at the markup I used [5] so you can see how it's done. References should be footnotes, not placed in the actual text of the article, and they need to be fully described. See Talk:Polo Piatti for more about the remaining names.

Fantastic, Voceditenore! Thank you very much for your hard work! I all looks much neater and professional now thanks to your "cleaning operation". As soon as I get some free time I will look at how to create footnotes so that can add the missing names, etc. without making mistakes. Thank you once again. Your help is very much appreciated. (you need to tell me how to award you a Wikipedia star now!). Zaza888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A final thing, please: in References (Under "Elementarische Improvisationen") there is a tag asking for Full Citation Needed. I’ve got all the information needed but don’t know how to include in the article. Perhaps you will be so kind as to help me, please? This is the info I have now obtained about that article: The piece was written on the ‘Stuttgarter Zeitung’ Newspaper by main editor Otto Bantel. The translation of the article is as follows: "Elemental Improvisations - Polo Piatti at 'Forum Theatre': Besides counterpointed and fugal were also metricly ordered passages, original melismas and single intensive increases that occasionally remind us of Franz Liszt. It was pleasing to see how well this in many ways so extraordinary piano evening was visited, especially by young listeners.” Otto Bantel, Suttgarter Zeitung, Stuttgart, Germany. The article is shown here: http://www.polopiattiarchive.webs.com/aspianist.htm I hope that is all that is needed to validate the citation and remove the tag? Many thanks for all your help! Zaza888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have answered these queries at Talk:Polo Piatti. As I said above, discussions and queries about the article's content and referencing belong there, not here. Wikipedia is an open collaborative project, and these kinds of discussions should not take place on individual editors' talk pages, where they are not easily accessible to other editors. It's also taking up huge amount of space on my talk page. Please add further queries, discussions, and information you want added to Talk:Polo Piatti. I have it on my watchlist and will know when you (or anyone else) has posted something new there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voceditenore/Archive_14.