Talk:Sesto Rocchi

Not how to write an article at all...

I've taken out all the copyvio. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of information, not a verbatim recopying of quotes and articles, which is what it is now. Synthesize the material; don't repeat it. MSJapan 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this wikipage has been rated class B already. Please do not delete information that is relevant to the biography of this important maker of the 20th century. Much of the information here was written by those who knew him as well as the author of Rocchi's biography. We are trying to exapand the Lutherie section of wikipedia, since much of the information is not readily available to most people. Thank you in advance. User:Milliot 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to read what MSJapan said above. Until you adress the issues, I suspect this atricle will be reverted back. Your prior rating is as good as the ability to confirm its accuracy. If problems are found they must be dealt with, not ignored. You also need to sign your name with the four tildes. Jokerst44 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has been re-rated by Veesicle who had originally given it the "B" rating. Jokerst44 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to reconsider your position (unreferenced|biography|date=April 2007). Some of us (who are in the field of Lutherie and Music) have been trying to expand the Luthier section. This particular wikipage was started several years ago. Even the Sesto Rocchi biographer has contributed to the information. Much of the information that is sighted including quotes, is by personal friends of Sesto Rocchi who are professionals in the field of Violin Making, and references that were made are all valid references.

I welcome input by those who have information that would add to the article, but to claim that there are serious errors is extreme. The page has been maintained by many who knew and respected Sesto Rocchi. All of the information that has been contributed is relevant and can be confirmed with the references cited on the page in 'References' section. It has been updated with the help of Thorx

Incidentally, Joker44 who made the request, is no longer a valid user.Milliot 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think he is no longer a valid user? From what I gather, he is apparently still editing but has changed his user name. More to the point, unless banned from editing, all users (even anon IP editors) are "valid". Even more to the point... his criticisms of the article and how it is written are valid. Please note that these criticisms have nothing to do with respect or disrespect of Sesto Rocchi... they have to do with presenting a well written article. If you respect the man as much as you say you do, don't you think you owe it to him to have the best article possible? Blueboar 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the observation, and yes I agree. But perhaps experienced wikipedians like yourselves can help to use the given information rather than delete big chunks that are relevant. If we would like to link to other external sources, i see it done on many other pages. What is the best way of doing that?

Do let me know.Milliot 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Material is only relevant if it can be shown to be relevant, and hagiography is not relevant. You need coherent paragraphs of information, not dissociated quotes. You're not writing for an audience who knows the subject, but rather an audience that doesn't. you need "who, why, where, when, and how" as opposed to personal recollections. As for external sources, all youi do is link to the web address; that's it. MSJapan 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you MSJapan,

Point well taken. The quotes that were on there, are from authors and experts in the field of Lutherie, who also knew Sesto Rocchi personally. Incidentally, they were there before I had made my contributions.Milliot 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sesto Rocchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105075941/http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issues/strings80/MarketReport.shtml to http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issues/strings80/MarketReport.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105075941/http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issues/strings80/MarketReport.shtml to http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issues/strings80/MarketReport.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105075941/http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issues/strings80/MarketReport.shtml to http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issues/strings80/MarketReport.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)