User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 15

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...

ABOUT MY ARCHIVES
Past topics I · Past topics II · Past topics III · Past topics IV · Past topics V · Past Topics VI · Past Topics VII · Past Topics VIII · Past Topics IX · Past Topics X
Past Topics XI · Past Topics XII · Past Topics XIII · Past Topics XIV · Past Topics XV · Past Topics XVI · Past Topics XVII · Past Topics XVIII · Past Topics XIX
Past Topics XX · Past Topics XXI · Past Topics XXII · Past Topics XXIII · Past Topics XXIV · Past Topics XXV · Past Topics XXVI · Past Topics XXVII
Schoolwork · AfC · DYKs etc. · Resolved notices

Theatrology

I am on chatzilla, searching for admin to move it properly! :) -WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you ask me, admin supposed to move it in the first place after we agreed, without any copy paste move. I just wanted to help. AGF, Voceditenore. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Above comment in reply to this. Voceditenore (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The person who did the cut and paste move was not an admin. and shouldn't have done that. I know you were trying to help, and I'm not accusing you of doing it in bad faith, but you were making the mess even worse because you didn't know what you were doing either. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's History Scope draft

Thanks so much for seeing this thing through. Tomorrow (or already today as you read this in your time zone) is the deadline for comments, and I find that I need to take a WP break for various reasons. Didn't want you to think I'd fled. Not sure how long a break, but wouldn't be more than a few days. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for de-tagging so many mis-tagged articles. Good work. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are AWESOME!! Thank you very much for all the detail work on completing the scope, updating the To Do list, and the de-tagging. Your experience has made this process run smoothly. The time you've spent is greatly appreciated and will have such a positive impact on developing the project. --Tbennert (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Xenobot Request

Hello. I am running some of the requests for XenoBot on behalf of Xeno using a very similar bot, DodoBot. I have a small question with regards to your request, would you mind taking a look at the page and answering it, please? Thanks. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Left another message there. - EdoDodo ^talk 09:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Women's History

No worries! I am currently taking a break from making major edits to female biographical articles, but when I start up again, I'll be sure to add my name to your list. Thanks! :) Ruby2010 comment! 14:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gérolstein

Grand ducal thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

re Portal:Opera/Featured content

I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave it for now, it's gonna look awesome after the bot run. (See the bot info from the edit summary.) -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Above in response to this. Voceditenore (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Voceditenore (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done diff and  Done diff. — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Esmeralda

Hi there - I was going to add my ha'p'orth to this but was baulked at the start - can I check why you head it 'Esméralda' wth an e acute?I know of no source which gives this. And in fact I have here (as it happens) the Pléiade edition of the Hugo's 'Théatre complet' (with a lot of info about the background which I was going to fill in) which gives the libretto without the accent. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I wondered about this. It seems to be what we call in linguistics "in free variation". I started out with Esmeralda without the "é". But then I found the spelling at the BnF with the accent [1]. And I saw quite a few French sources (but not all) using it. [2]. On the other hand, the accent doesn't appear the libretto published in 1836. But by the time I found the link to the full libretto, I had already put it at La Esméralda (opera) and created a re-direct from La Esmeralda (opera). I don't really care one way or another. I can always ask an admin to move it back over the redirect. What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well on the authority of the original printed libretto and the Pléiade edition I would go for no accent. Although I appreciate it is tedious having to call the admins in. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You can move it over its redirect yourself if no change has been made to the redirect page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Done. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hallo again. The notes to the 'Théatre complet' are very specific about the changes introduced in the performances, and differ from the accounts you have used in the article. I appreciate your sources are more recent, but the 'Théatre complet' (II, 1902) says that Veron introduced a substantial ballet from the second performance onwards, cutting a number of the scenes. Then for the sixth performance he reduced the whole opera to a single act, preceded by Taglioni in the ballet La Fille du Danube' as a curtain raiser. By the eighth and last performance (in this mutilated format) the 'disapproving cat calls of the audience were so menacing' that the performance was brought to a close before its end. I obviously hesitate to overwrite the present account in the article, but as you see this version differs in several repsects (not least in the number of performances). What do you think? Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

HI, I've responded at Talk:La Esmeralda (opera) where this sort of stuff ought to be discussed. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Helferich Clarke FAR

Hi Voceditenore - The FAR for Rebecca Helferich Clarke appears to be wrapping up. Any last/further comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added some final comments now, although I'm not sure it's up to a clear keep yet. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Grete Forst

Austrian soprana Grete Forst was my grandmother. She did not die in the Vitebsk Ghetto as her biographical entry previously reported, but died at the concentration camp at Maly Trostenets, Belorussia (USSR). This information is based on a List of murdered Jews from Austria found in Namentliche Erfassung der oesterreichischen Holocaustopfer, Dokumentationsarchiv des oesterreichischen Widerstandes (Documentation Centre for Austrian Resistance), Wien. She is listed under her married name, Margarete Schuschny.

I have edited her biographical entry to reflect this.--Julianne69 (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied here - Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob Chilcott

A fan of Bob Chilcott added a "charming work", I don't quite know how to deal with it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's History

Thank you for taking the lead on scoping the Women's History project. Let me assess how much I can continue to contribute and then I will respond. I originally intended just to help Shane get the project kick-started. - PKM (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also wanted to say thank you for the time and effort you have put into organizing the project. Adding the sub-headings for comment made the daunting task seem more manageable, and this is a task that clearly needs done. Hopefully we can reach consensus in a few areas at least. I certainly would like to get past the bannering and assessing stage and spend more time on contributing. --Tbennert (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the notification re WP:WH. By the way, had no idea you were a woman (the username is deceptive, but I still should have known better, having been in shows where a woman has played the male tenor lead), so I'm sorry if I've ever misgendered you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Helping move the Women's History Project forward. Total newbie crying out for help getting started...

Ciao, Voce. Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I've joined the project only recently, and I read through the discussion on the criteria for inclusion of articles. In there I saw the need for the long list of unassessed articles to be assessed. I thought here I could finally dive in to make lots of contributions. (Once I get clearer on those criteria, that is.) I went to the first one on the list. However, I'm such a total newbie that I had no idea what to do, or where to go, to assess it. I guess I need a little hand-holding at first from a more experienced WHP editor. I need an introduction to project work 101. Any suggestions? Thanks! Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Johanna. I'd suggest holding off on assessment until the situation re what's in scope is clarified. Not only because some articles may end up being de-bannered (thus wasting your time), but because the kind of importance we would attach to the remaining articles may be affected by the outcome of the discussions. If you're looking for manageble chunks of stuff to do, I'd suggest checking out the clean up list for Women's History. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! Looking forward to working with you. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

English National Opera

I've been giving the English National Opera article a thorough overhaul, and have put it up for peer review. If you have time and inclination to take part in the peer review it will be esteemed a favour. Quite understand if not, of course. Tim riley (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have put the article forward for FAC here, if you are interested in looking in. Tim riley (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:MCQ

Reading your question at WP:MCQ about File:Java code from uml.png, I thought you might want to know — there's a similar type of media help board on Commons at commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. I mosied over and found that Commons:Village pump/Copyright is even better as the Licensing talk page seems to be primarily for discussing content and changes to that page. At least I know where to go now. I wish they'd make these things more obvious on the main help page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ebony Bones

Can you tell my why you deemed the photo you removed as inappropriate in replace of a photo which is NOT the artist. Vandalism and trolling will not be tolerated and a request for protection on this page has been sent to Wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.109.30 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 October 2011‎

• Replied on your talk page. - Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

We spoke about adminship already. Perhaps you can mail me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Mysorean Army

Sir website author give the free licence to me to use it into wikipedia. Then how to send it to wikipedia. Sridhar100000 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've replied at your talk page [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Josh Groban

Why did you delete Josh Groban from the lists of tenors? IMO, he is a tenor. Cyhh2002 (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because you provided no reference to a reliable source to verify it. List of tenors in non-classical music is not the place to post your personal opinions, nor is anywhere else on Wikipedia. I'm not the only editor who removed your attempts to add his name without a reference [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You rock

Not that this is news to me. :) I'd have never found all that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett Defrocked

Ha, kind of like Bob Dylan Unplugged, anyways: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive 8 shows how he has been defrocked[5], IE. Lost his license and certification prospects. --BETA 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show anything of the kind. But never mind. Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

copyvio?

Hi Voce. This is an extremely close paraphrase of the source it's taken from. Bearing in mind that this was part of a certain SPI where thousands of similar poorly referenced stubs were created azlmost verbatim from certain web sites, policy allows us in such cases of SP + Copyvio to delete, rather than waste time trying to untangle and/or develop. However, from working with you, I appreciate your patience with getting even the most illegal articles up to scratch, so I would value your opinion before getting this, and maybe a few hundred more like it, deleted. Do not hesitate to reply on my tp if you wish. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the opera project has a whole tome on this saga. Having said that, I wouldn't consider the article you highlighted as copyvio or even extremely close paraphrasing. It's not verbatim, has material not in the source cited and there are only so many ways you can express basic information (and the order) in a short biographical article. Are you looking at these from the BLP point of view or as part of the CCI on this editor? I don't think the article would be a particular loss to Wikipedia, and not worth the effort to re-write (there's virtually no information in English about her). These articles are all linked from other articles, so when interested people eventually see the red link they can always create a new article. I'll leave it up to you.Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, well as I'm not a deletionist per se, I won't make a fuss about this one. However, I have all the same pages on my watchist as well as very closely following the work of the one that was allowed to continue. Singingdaisies was only one of four or five accounts that was used, one still exists, and unfortunately, to complicate the issue, opera is only one of several branches of classical professions to continue to be targeted.`no longer en masse thopugh. --Kudpung (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

La Tosca

Hi voced. Are you interested in taking this to FA at all? I think it's already FA quality and you deserve the recognition for the outstanding work you did here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi 4M4. Thank you! But, well, frankly, I'd really rather not go for FA. I don't care about recognition at all, and the process would probably start removing a lot of the stuff that I like about the article, and that I think the readers would also enjoy, especially about the backgrounds to the characters etc. They'd also start raising a fuss about the images, which are all PD in the US, but possibly not world-wide, hence some would have to be moved out of Commons. Since it's not an opera article, I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Hope that's OK. By the way, thanks so much for monitoring User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult. I've been so busy with other stuff, that I kind of let that slip over the past couple of weeks. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I completely understand your feelings on the FA review process. I didn't do the work at La Tosca, so I'll definitely defer to your wishes on the matter. On a related note to the AlexBot, I haven't been rating all of the articles and there is now a growing number of entries in Category:Unassessed Opera articles. Is it time for another assessment drive?4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Purcell Operatic Society

Hello Voceditneore, An excellent article - I see that it is classed as a stub; whilst I think it certainly more than that, I do look forward to more!

Just a note on the extract page from Up to Now - I see this originates from Inside Intelligence, which explains a lot. It is an edited piece of text from pages 26 to 28/30, but sadly does not show this. As such it includes part of one of Martin's delightful diversions, in this case on Handel and Milton, to make it look as if it were all part of what was sung by the POS, but in fact it was a) not performed by the POS at all and b) by being edited, curtails the delight.

Just to explain further, it is a diversion on unsuitable lines – Thus, on the fatal banks of Nile./ weeps the deceiful crocodile – which was sung by the POS, on to unsuitable lines in Handel's oratorio Samson which had not, but had been sung by the Middlesex Choral Union, (founded by his father James Shaw and Robert Newman) in 1893. I quote from Up to Now: "To man God's universal law/Gave power to keep his wife in awe./Thus shall his life be ne'er dismayed,/ by female usurpation swayed". Even in 1893 the sentiments seemed a little antiquated to me, although the chorus sang them without turning a hair. For years I imagined the author of these words to have been a bachelor! It was only recently that I learnt that they had been taken, with but little alteration, from Milton's "Samson Agonistes" ... ixo (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ixo. I assumed the bit about the funny lines in Samson was simply a digression. Probably most readers would too, especially after they've read the article. It's too bad the online extracts aren't formatted to show that they've been edited and what the original page numbers were. I might make a note of that by the external link. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Jarvis Street Baptist Church

Thanks for your help with the stub issue. Here is another situation that I would like your input on. A new user, User:Kategona, recently added content on Jarvis Street Baptist Church to Henry Langley (architect). It really wasn't appropriate content for that article, so I copy pasted that content into a new article titled Jarvis Street Baptist Church. Then another new user, User:Iboury, added a bunch of unencyclopedic promotional material to the church article. I know you have a lot of experience with coi editors and I thought you might know how to best handle this. Thanks for any help in advance.4meter4 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Off with their heads!" ;-) Seriously though, the second user had a point, albeit somewhat unencyclopedically expressed. Churches (apart from disused ones) are also congregations and neutrally worded information about that congregation's history and its activity in present times is not only appropriate but desirable in such articles. (I'm including it in an article I'm currently working on about a London church.) I've restructured the Jarvis Street article, rewritten the "Current activities" stuff, and added a section on the history of the congregation which predates the current church building by nearly 60 years and has included some quite famous Baptist preachers. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Great work on the article! Here is another image if you care to add it File:Jarvis Street Baptist Church.JPG.4meter4 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oooops. Forgot to mention that when copying or transferring material from one WP article to another, WP's license requires attribution, minmally in the edit history. I've done that now. Here's what it looks like: [6]. There's more about the process at Copying within Wikipedia. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that there was a licensing issue in such cases. Interesting.4meter4 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Geesh! Look what you started [7].;-) The other image isn't too great, but would be good in a gallery. I'm assembling one now with a couple of other images. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! I wonder if these editors are church members who are excited about the new wikipedia article. lol4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Adelina Patti

Here is a subject that falls squarely into your field of interest/expertise, that I believe could desperately use a dose of your red pen. This article is not referenced well (in terms of inline citations), has lots of unencyclopedic language, and, due to its poor quality, constantly attracts drive by editing. I hope I've enticed you to tackle this important historical singer.4meter4 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Manoah Leide-Tedesco Article

Thank you for your help with the article and photograph copyright on the Manoah Leide-Tedesco article. The article is greatly improved with your changes and additional source information. I am a novice at Wikipedia, as is apparent, and I greatly appreciate the help and support. Actually I didn't even mean to post the article as yet and thought that it was on my User Page for my eyes only and Wikipedia editors. Perhaps I should move it back to the "Sandbox" until the article is completely ready. How do I do this?

Which brings me to my biggest worry regarding the article. The COI aspect that you pointed out to me. Yes, there exists a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one. I intended to address this once the article was written and before I posted it, but. . .

Manoah Leide-Tedesco was my wife's great uncle and I am the producer/owner of the ZioBella website that you sited as a source. This was the reason that I did not site my own website as a source.

But first, a little background. Leide-Tedesco's family heirs have requested this memorial website and have provided me with numerous correspondence between Leide-Tedesco and his peers in classical music as well as other fields. Leide-Tedesco died in 1982 and his entire estate was bequeathed to his favorite niece, my wife's mother. My wife's mother came to live with us in the end of her life, and thus my wife became keeper of the estate, though not executor. All of Leide-Tedesco's considerable collection of art, sculpture, books, music and over 75 years of correspondence were crated and have remained, virtually untouched since his death in 1982. Within the collection of correspondence and music are a number of letters, photos and manuscripts signed by many luminary figures in the world of art, music, science and philosophy.

The family has decided that parts of the collection will be offered for public auction, private sale, and/or bequeathed to the most appropriate individuals or institutions as determined by their familial, artistic or historical significance. The family turned to me to help because of my love of the Fine Arts, historical genealogy, and artistic skills. I am not a recipient to the estate (although my wife is) and I receive no compensation derived from the sale of Leide-Tedesco's estate, nor do I accept any advertising on my website so volume of "traffic" is not an issue.

My main focus has always been in making sure that the things of musical and historical significance make their way into the the public sphere of knowledge and appreciation that they so rightly deserve. In other words I have become completely obsessed with Leide-Tedesco, his achievements and the sphere of friends and historical figures that he knew. He deserves to be remembered as the artist and philosopher that he was, and the acknowledgement of the recognition that his contemporaries gave him at the time.

I started all this as little more than a "hobby" but it has grown into so much more. Leide-Tedesco saved virtually everything from his life with hundreds upon hundreds of newspaper clippings from all over the world detailing his travels and work as a conductor-composer, public speaker, and proponent of cultural appreciation. I became truly fascinated by the man and came to feel that I had access to materials that needed to be shared and not lost to the world. When I came back down to earth, I was struck by my own inadequacies and lack of "proper" credentials to the task at hand. I finally came to the conclusion that if not me Who? and not now When? If ever. In the back of my mind a possible self-published book on the subject is forming, obviously not for any monetary gain as much for posterity.

So that is where I am. Should I give up this task? Is the conflict of interest too great for Wikipedia? Will a public declaration of COI be enough?

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss this with you and hope that I have not bored you completely. Any advice that you can give me concerning this would be most welcome.

On another note, I noticed your interest in Opera. Leide-Tedesco (as well as his sister Maria) were family friends with opera singer Rosa Raisa, in fact Maria started out in Opera with her good friend Rosa. I have an autographed photo and a personal note from her commenting on the different paths the two chose, her's in Opera and Maria's in raising a family and the loneliness sometimes of her life. If you wish, I can scan these and send them too you for your collection.

Thanks again

TCoussens TCoussens (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sources" which should be "Further reading"

Hi, V. User Viva-Verdi, in his subcategorizing the reference sections of Opera and Operetta articles, has often added "Sources" which were not actually used for the article in question. Would you mind explaining the difference to him, and cautioning him to label any "added" sources as Further Reading rather than as Sources? You seem to know him better than I do, and you have already fixed one incident, so I thought you might like to handle this. I don't feel like searching back and fixing all the mislabeled items, but perhaps between the two of you, you might be able to do that. If so, thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've brought this issue up at here. I'll be away for the next month, but if you leave me a clear example here of an article listing Sources which should be Further reading instead, I'll raise the issue when I get back. Lots of OP members are away in August, so it's probably better to wait 'til then anyway. Having said that, a work can legitimately be listed as a source if it was used for the article, even if there are no inline citations attached to it. This why I think the current new division between Cited sources and Other sources is confusing and frankly silly. But here's an example where a bunch of articles had been added in one go the other day and I moved them to Further reading. They clearly had not been used as sources for the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Silly" perhaps, but these are some of the types of sources I have been adding to the "Other sources" section and why. Sources I have found which could be used for improving an article which are in a language which I find it very difficult to read and/or haven't had time yet to use for an article. Perhaps other editors who are more fluent in that language or have some time can use them for that purpose. Other sources in English which I have found either through citations or bibliographies that I have not seen or read but appear to be useful and may be in a library near another editor who could use them to add information to the article. (I haven't labeled them "Further reading" because I haven't read them myself and am not recommending them to the general reader as a source of further more detailed information.) I have also added some reference works to the Paris Opera article which are useful for adding information to articles related to the Paris Opera, but haven't yet been used to add information specifically to that article. Perhaps these should really be added to the Talk page, but I have the feeling they would just get lost or ignored if I put them there. Personally I have also found these citations useful as text to copy for pasting in the references section of a new article where I have used that source. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to copy most of this to the discussion you have added to project page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthony A. Mitchell

That's some really nice work cleaning up - and shoring up - the article. I think it's a fine addition to the encyclopedia now. JohnInDC (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rescuing deserving kittens from being drowned is one of my occasional hobbies, although I've drowned quite a few undeserving ones too.;-) I think there were two main problems at that AfD. One was trying apply the Composer guidelines to this person, when their main notability lay elsewhere. Though, that was initially fostered by a very badly written lede. Another was the misguided interpretation of other existing guidelines, e.g. that the use of an obituary for a source is evidence that the person was notable for only one event, i.e. dying. Anyhow, all's well that ends well. By the way, I totally agree with you about the er... "close paraphrasing", aka copyvio. I still found some which had to be rewritten even after SarekOfVulcan had stubbed it. You did well to alert Moonriddengirl about the potential others. She's really good in these situations. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the AfD outcome. To me he looked like one of a series of Navy Band leaders who happened to die late enough in history, and to have hung around Washington long enough, to earn an obit in the Post. The difficulty of finding any other sources about him (qua him) suggested to me that he wasn't notable. And I didn't fully appreciate what leading the Navy Band means. (The article creator's emphasis at Talk:Washington, D.C. on Mitchell's having composed the "official", but to all appearances long-forgotten, march of DC is what put 'composer' into my head.) Anyhow his notability got teased out and explained better in the AfD, which is a good part of the point after all so, as you say, all's well. Thanks re Moonriddengirl. I think she has her work cut out for her. JohnInDC (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya

Hi, I've just posted to WP:BLPN#Marina Poplavskaya, relating to the Marina Poplavskaya article, thought you might like to know. Any help you could give would be great. Thanks Aegoceras (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I wrote to the woman to ensure that she saw your great advice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Cronaca del Luogo

Hello, I noticed you moved the article to "Cronaca del luogo" per Italian captilisation rules. However, the word Luogo is used by Berio in this sense to refer to God (in Hebrew), hence the capitalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.106.133 (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reference to support this, please add it to the article. My impression is that there is metaphorical relation there but that "luogo" (place)is not used as a another name for God. Note also that the word is not captialised by the Centro Studi Luciano Berio either. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Assistance reviewing Italian source?

Hi. :) There is an article listed at the copyright problems board with which I am in need of assistance I'm hoping you can supply. Pauly & C. - Compagnia Venezia Murano has been tagged under suspicion of being a direct translation of the history section of this website. (See its listing here.) Direct translations are, of course, derivative works and unusable on Wikipedia. I can see enough similarities to suspect that concerns may be justified, but since I don't read Italian I can't really say how close a translation this is. If you have opportunity to weigh in on this, I'd be ever so grateful. :) If not, please let me know so I can track down another active contributor who is proficient in Italian. I also try to keep conversations in one location, so I'll be watching your talk page. Thanks for any assistance you may be able to offer, even if it's just letting me know that you don't have time atm to offer assistance. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually I didn't need to do too much examination, since I found the English version of the site.;-) The History section is here and the bit about the mosiacs (Abraham Lincoln etc.) is here. And yes, it's a pretty close copy. If these links don't work, go the home page and at the very bottom under Language selection click on International. By the way, this is a very famous glass company in Italy and internationally. See, for example [8]. Certainly deserving of an article, although obviously not a copy vio one. Note that article's creator is User:Habanerosrl. Habanero Srl. are the Public Relations company for Pauly & C.. Hope this helps. Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius! :D Thank you very much. Very helpful. I'll check the closeness of copying and address the issue with the creator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi VdT. I know you're not an admin, and you will have your reasons for not wanting to be, but would you be interested in being an active member of a designated task force to design and implement a pilot project RfA reform? Pl reply on my tp. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cornélie Falcon

You deserve a "Gold Star" for knowing about (finding) Braud! Thanks so much! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Buongiorno + gentile richiesta di miglioria e traduzione per Cristina D'Avena

Buongiorno a lei,

la scrivo anzitutto per sapere come sta e per augurarle una buona giornata, che sia luminosa e gioiosa. Oltre a questo le segnalo, vista la sua passione per l'Italia e la Musica Italiana, l'articolo sulla mia beniamina della mia infanzia: Cristina D'Avena, avevo chiesto ad alcuni amici nelle varie Wikipedie di far una traduzione basandosi sull'inglese, ma come ho potuto constatare anch'io l'articolo è quasi decadente, per questo mi affido a lei, al suo buon cuore ed alla sua precisione. Quello che molto gentilmente le chiedo è un restauro dell'articolo una miglioria di traduzione, morfologia e sintassi, e referenze varie. Sa, Cristina ha praticamente cresciuto fino ad oggi ben 4 generazioni di bambini e giovani (me compreso), ultimamente si sta dedicando a temi per giovani un po' più cresciutelli, tipo la canzone che le vado a mostrare, dedicata ai grandi amori, la dedichi ad un suo caro o amico. detto questo sperando in una sua bella e certa risposta, la ringrazio in anticipo di vero cuore, anche a nome di Cristina D'Avena, che sono certo che le piacerà la canzone (spero), grazie ancora e Buona Giornata.--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ciao Lodewijk, ho aggiunto un paio di referenze. La voce in inglese non è male per dire la verità, almeno dal punto di vista di sintassi e stile generale, però manca i dettagli della sua vita. Purtroppo non avrò tempo in questo momento di espanderla, ma se vuoi espanderla tu, sarei lieta di fare il copy editing.

(Hi Lodewijk. I've added a couple of references. The English article isn't bad, to tell the truth, at least from the point of view of grammar and style. However, it lacks details about her life. Unfortunately, I won't have time to expand the article myself, but if you want to expand it, I'd be happy to do the copyediting.)

Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

La Ringrazio vivissimamente, certamente lo farò, in questo periodo, cosa posso tradurle in siciliano per contraccambiare la sua generosità? sono a sua disposizione, nel frattempo le chiedo gentilmente se potrebbe occuparsi della voce su una mia vecchia conoscenza, la conobbi nella mia terra natale durante una sfilata di moda, anche se in Italia e Paesi anglofoni è molto famosa, è una giovane donna molto dolce e simpatica si chiama Ludmilla Radchenko, quello che molto amabilmente le chiedo è una revisione generale dell'articolo, come lei sa fare, se potrebbe aggiungere l'IPA ancora meglio. detto questo le auguro un buon inizio di Giornata, che sia prospero e Munifico :D un sorriso. Luigi--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

qui alcune info sul suo nuovo sito--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NPP

You can see what we are doing here. Ironically, although it's badly needed, we all lost three week's development time on it because we were all tied up with IEP issue! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaichen Qiu.

Salted all the permutations. If you catch any more, let me know and I'll take his socks off. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Franchi Discography

Sorry I am not replying on my page, but you left your comment on someone else's page. Just excuse my ettiquette, if not correct, as I am a new editor. Re your comment about Sergio Franchi discography, I have just recently completed a full Franchi discography article, and I am waiting for review for it to be moved to it's own site. I will also be doing a major revision to Franchi's Wiki page and biography in the near future. Since he has been dead for 21 years, there probably aren't many people left who can do this. I started adding Franchi's recordings to the Song Wikis as that seems to be how a singer's Song list is created. I believe I have included a reference each time I have included a Franchi recording on a Song Wiki, and that is better than 99% of other artists that are included on a Song Wiki. I have also been trying to improve the Song Wiki pages as I visit them. I was invited, and am a member of the Wiki Song Project(Name?) So, be a pal and don't beat me down before I get started. However, I do and will appreciate constructive advice about how to be a more effective editor. You can always reply on my talk page, or I will look for your reply here. Interested in reading on your talk pages about some of your contributions. I am also interested in Opera, but I am only a listener. Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you've referenced it on the song pages, that's fine, and in any case it was just a suggestion about how categories are supposed to work. What on earth gave you the idea that I was going to "beat you down"? . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I misused a phrase. I guess I am learning about the workings of Wikipedia as I go along. It seems like the most constructive advice I have received has been from the first reviewer who contacted me. I had previously read that articles should have Internal References when possible. That is how I got started adding Sergio Franchi's recordings to the Song Wikis. I, like you, love "The Voice of The Tenor" and wish I had your language skills in translating from the Italian on my own. Like you, I have a strong interest in Landcape Photography, and have taken many photogrephs in connection with my own landscape paintings. I am particularly interested in the American Southwest as subject. Just noticing common ground. Thanks for your comments. CatherineCathlec (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just an update to apologize and let you know I have re-read the relevant material and have come to the conclusion that you are completely correct regarding the adding of Sergio Franchi to the Categories on the song pages. Removing this link does nothing to lessen the information on his Discography, and I have already included enought detail and reference so that his Discography should be properly formatted. Adding internal references did not need to include this extra step, which I will commence to undo! Thanks Again, CatherineCathlec (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Guidance on notability / sourcing etc

Had I access to a decent library I would be able to do so much more work on opera pages. But I don't and there we are. One thing I've noticed is that articles on current singers are far less likely to attract promotional-esque puffery once they are set out in a decent format, and with a dry tone established; furthermore, if these pages are already in existence then they are less likely to be created in a spirit of hagiography.

I had in the past created Anna Christy, Neil Howlett and Anthony Michaels-Moore, all of whom were all clearly notable. As I've said elsewhere I've been a little unsure of where the notability lines are drawn for opera singers. After looking at the examples you pointed out for me, I tested the water with Nicholas Sharratt, who has just progressed from many years of small roles with Opera North to the title role in Orpheus in the Underworld with Scottish Opera. That seems to have survived inspection.

As you also saw I created Artur Ruciński, where my problem, as you noted, was that of sources: he hasn't performed in English-speaking countries yet (though I think its only a matter of time if this is anything to go by) and his English-language publicity is a bit over-enthusiastic. I hope what I found will do for the time being?

Most recently I was surprised to discover that Gary Lehman hadn't been created. I think that I've done a decent job of that one - if you have any thoughts about it, please tell me, so I can then use it as a model in future almost-instinct 10:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Gary Lehman is a nice compact, well-written little article. You need to format the citations though. Bare URLs are not a good idea. Artur Ruciński is a little more iffy in terms of the kinds of sources provided, but it would survive an AfD. There is a lot about him in Polish, and there's nothing to stop you adding those, some of them are from quite reliable independent sources, e.g. Polityka, Rzeczpospolita, Polskie Radio, etc. I watched the video, by the way—gorgeous voice!

Re puffery prevention... Alas, I wish I had a pound for every time I've seen them march in and over-write a reasonably neutral article with complete dross, e.g. here, here, and here Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice. I've made the references for Gary Lehman look pretty. Thanks to reading through some messageboard chat when he had taken over from Domingo in a Met Walkure mid-scene I discovered that his past is slightly more complex than his official biography suggests... ;-) Fortunately I was then able to find one (but only one) reference to go with it. Now I've got that done I'll plough through those Polish sources for Artur Ruciński, armed with my trusty Google Translate. The bit of his singing, btw, which initially impressed me was his Valentin - a role I feel is usually given to far too light a voice. I suppose once you've paid for the tenor, the soprano and the bass.... almost-instinct 09:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reinstating the article Camelia Voin

Dear Voceditenore, This is an update regarding singer Camelia Voin, whose article has been deleted in February 2009. Please, advise if the following info is strong enough to warrant the reinstating of the article, and if so, what the procedure is.

- February 9, 2009 you made the following comment The soloist performances in Horst Gehann's Bach Project might help towards establishing notability. But it needs some kind of verification that this is actually the case, verification which is independent of Ms. Voin, for example press reviews or articles from Germany or at least official performance listings. The following website from the archives of Siebenburgiche Zeitund is a record of the June 23, 2002, 97th concert of the Bach Werke Zyklus Project. The article is mentioning only that there was a group of six international solo singers joining the Bach-Chor Darmstad and the Kammerorchester Pro Musica under the direction of Horst Gehann.http://www.siebenbuerger.de/zeitung/artikel/alteartikel/1111-dramma-per-musica-in-darmstadt.html However, the following link is the first page of the Concert Program collaborating the fact that Camelia Voin was the solo soprano singing the role of Momus. http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3597/bachwerkezyclus97konzer.jpg Professorgheorghe (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

- Camelia Voin is listed in the Dictionary of Celebrated Personalities of Opera on the Romanian National Opera webside. http://www.operanationala.ro/personalitati/personalitati.php?litera=VO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorgheorghe (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

- July 2010, Camelia Voin presented a concert at the Accademia di Romania in Rome, Italy. http://www.accadromania.it/archivio2010_2.htm

- July 17, 2009 – An article about Camelia Voin was published in the Romanian “Q Magazine” http://www.qmagazine.ro/caleidoscop/caleidoscop-opera/camelia-voin-%E2%80%9Evreau-sa-revin-pe-scenele-din-romania%E2%80%9D/

- October 9, 2010, Radio Romania aired an interview with Camelia Voin, which also included several musical selections. http://www.romania-actualitati.ro/virgil_nemoianu-20200

- December 2010, the city of Lugoj awarded to its most notable natives Lifetime Achievement Awards. At this Gala festivity, soprano Camelia Voin received the Cultural Lifetime Achievement Award. (Mrs. Voin was born in Lugoj, Romania.) http://www.redesteptarea.ro/stiri-actualitate/lugojenii-cu-care-romania-se-mandreste-au-fost-premiati-la-cea.html

- April 2, 2011, Camelia Voin performed the world premiere of Due canti per voce e piccola orchestra by Guido Alberto Fano at Loma Linda University, CA. http://www.archiviomusicaleguidoalbertofano.it/ Professorgheorghe (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

- May 2011, Camelia Voin was conferred the Doctor of Musical Arts degree with a major in vocal performance by the Claremont Graduate University. (Actual graduation date was July 2010.) http://www.cgu.edu/pages/4100.asp

Currently Dr. Camelia Voin is professor of voice at CGU http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1097.asp and UCR http://music.ucr.edu/people/instructors/voin/index.html

- June 12, 2011, Camelia Voin performed at the celebrated Teatro La Fenice in Venice, Italy. The concert, entitled “Antico e Popolaresco” was organized and sponsored by the Archivio Musicale Guido Alberto Fano, the City of Venice, the Region of Veneto, the Gran Teatro La Fenice Foundation, and the Giorgio Cini Foundation, in celebration of the 50 years anniversary from the death of Italian composer Guido Alberto Fano, and at the 150 years anniversary of the unification of Italy. Concert notes were presented by the Italian Radio RAI 3 producer Valentina Lo Surdo. http://www.agendavenezia.org/en/evento-21694.htm http://reynaldo-hahn.net/Html/actualitescentre.htm http://www.archiviomusicaleguidoalbertofano.it/ http://www.cini.it/en/event/detail/3/553

An excerpt from this concert can be viewed on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4JMScxAvB0

Warm regards Professorgheorghe (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. Sorry for the late reply. I've been quite busy in other areas of Wikipedia this week. I'll be sure to get back to you on this in couple of days. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page [9]. Sorry it took me so long. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Günther von Schwarzburg (opera)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Günther von Schwarzburg (opera), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://books.google.com/books?id=l6I6BwTMJ3sC&pg=PA391&dq=%22Holzbauer+still+possesses%22+%22whose+august+protection%22%22&hl=en&ei=JIvMTv3PL8nZ0QH7rPz7Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Holzbauer%20still%20possesses%22%20%22whose%20august%20protection%22%22&f=false, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Günther von Schwarzburg (opera), in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera) with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Jerzy•t 07:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

   It may not have occurred to you that a recent written translation of a unprotected work is generally subject to its own copyright. It appears that the Spencer translation of the German-language Abert work, and thus your quotes from it (tho they translate centuries-old texts), are under (Spencer's recent) US copyright.
   The Mozart letter appears to be quoted in English translation in many works (with different wording of the same content, reinforcing the evidence that your footnotes provide, of your relying on Spencer), and an older one among them may well be available for quotation in WP.
   On the other hand, the dedication may be quite obscure in English: the hits i found on

"august protection" palatinate

suggest (since they all include your misspelling, "Platinate", or concern unrelated palatines) that there's no other English translation on-line but Spencer's, and the most straightforward remedy for that passage is probably to trust Spencer's translation and thus be satisfied to paraphrase it, still using Abert & Spencer as the ref.
--Jerzy•t 07:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am fully aware that modern translations are copyright. That was why the very brief quoted material (3 sentences) + one phrase from a different page of the book were presented as clearly marked quotations and fully attributed both to the original author and to the translator (Spencer). Brief, clearly marked, and fully attributed direct quotations from copyright works are permissible under fair use. Please see Wikipedia:NFCCEG. Please see also the comments on the talk page of the article from another editor who removed your inappropriate tagging and restored the quotations. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note also this is at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_November_23 almost-instinct 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've now commented there as well. This was a complete misuse of those tags. If the editor had been concerned (albeit mistakenly) about those two brief quotes all they had to do was remove them and raise the issue on the talk page. --Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented further at Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera).
--Jerzy•t 06:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

More on Copyright problem: Günther von Schwarzburg (opera)

    At Günther von Schwarzburg (opera)#Copyright tags you said, apparently responding to point 2 (only, among 6 points) of mine (and not, i am sure, to my response -- to the other colleague's comment -- that you aligned your response relative to). That point 2 was

Copyright issues are existential issues for WP, and more technical than often imagined, and removal of one or more COPYVIO tags, other than after durable consensus at the designated page, where attention of the experienced experts, not just any self-selected group of self-imagined experts is assured -- let alone by a single editor, or one who cites no consultation -- is unacceptable.

I notice more complication in parsing that than i anticipated at the time; here's a restatement:

Copyright issues are existential issues for WP, and they are more technical than editors often imagine. Removal of (one or more) COPYVIO tags is intended to occur only after a durable consensus is reached at the designated page. That is because there, the issue has the attention of the experienced experts on COPYVIO (by which i mean, in the rare legal environment that WP constitutes. Such attention is needed because no self-selected group of self-imagined experts can be relied upon for such technical and existential issues. Such removals are unacceptable, as are those by a single editor, or by one who cites no consultation.

Your response (in an excess of caution, i've included -- but downsized -- the distracting coda) was

The tags were a misuse since all you had to do, and should have done, in a case like this is remove the brief quoted text which you believed to have been a copyright infringement and note your concerns on the talk page for discussion. See WP:CPI which details how to use those tags. I have now replaced the quoted text from an 1866 English translation from Mozart's letters, which unsurprisingly is virtually identical to Spencer's. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That requires no more response from me than

Oh, is that your opinion? I know it's wrong, and it would be silly to say why, since

you have not explained how those 475 words persuade you of that opinion, and
they actually reinforce my previous assessment.

However, i'd rather see this resolved soon than similarly (essentially slogan for slogan) delay that. And the relevant portion of WP:CPI would seem to be in WP:Copyright problems#Suspected or complicated infringement, and if so, obviously the bullet point beginning

Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.

You apparently construe that sentence in a way that would require me to choose between

1. doing potentially onerous research in the edit history, followed by likely creative work, or research, in order to do more than guess at what should replace the offending content, and
2. neglecting possible problems, of such magnitude that Wikipedia:Copyright violations bears a tag ({{legal policy}}) extreme enough that (after 8 years and 51K edits) i can't think of more than one other place where i expect it to appear, and one that seems like a decent possibility.
   

So i refer you, as it were, to an essay i've contemplated authoring, about how seldom WP guidelines (let alone policy) prescribe work, and the implicit preference for inviting freely chosen work by any given editor. And if you're as inclined, in this, as much toward legalism as you sound above, i suggest you weigh

1. the significance of the page you cited not being tagged as either {{policy}} or {{guideline}}, and, in {{Wikipedia copyright}}, being listed below "Policy", and below even "Guidelines", under the heading "Processes";
2. the stringency of construing "if you can" as "if there is any conceivable way you could" rather than as "if you find it practicable";
3. the lack of both the clarification obviously needed for it to be construed at all literally, and of specification of who (besides the tagging editor) is empowered to make the determination of what that editor "can" do; and
4. the obvious value and in fact importance of erring in the direction of too much rather than too little review by specialists at WP:COPYVIO.

   In a line, i anticipate this matter will be decided at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, after a point when removal of restored tags seems more unlikely -- and you have been wasting time.
(I note that NPA is largely intended to avoid confusing personalities with policy, and admit that strictly speaking the rest of what i am saying -- starting with this paragraph -- would be off-topic on the page where our previous discussion occurred, and arguably here; i would thoroughly support a choice by you to simply ignore this portion, and if you would like to snip it out of my signed contribution, you have my consent to do so as long as you also place

& trimmed with author's consent by ~~~~

after my sig as an annotation, so the edit history doesn't become cryptic.)
I'd rather you know that my personal reaction to your last contrib is "How dare you, sir?" You are still complaining about my actions, when i've

1. demonstrated that the colleague you described as having "removed the copyright tags, and rightly so" usurped admin prerogatives, and
2. effectively (via points 2, 3, and 6 of my article-talk-page statement) demanded an apology from you for endorsing, by your statement there, another editor's vigilantism.

I am surprised that any reasonable person would feel no need to respond (whether with "yea" or "nay" is far, far less important) to that, before or along with undertaking the edit i'm now responding to. I'm not offended or angry about your apparent gall, but it is hard to explain -- unless you're unaware of WP:OWN. (If you're confused by, or ignorant of, that, it's really not my business -- beyond perhaps heightened vigilance toward your edits -- any more than is the battered wife down the block -- but at least my saying something, here, is unlikely to lead to your experiencing a broken jaw or cerebral damage.) But do be aware that your experience here is bound to be increasingly frustrating, if over-investment in articles explains your omission.
--Jerzy•t 07:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Look, Jerzy, I endorsed the other editor's removal of the tags as common sense. It was clearly inappropriate of you to add them under these circumstances and they were never intended to be used in situations like this. If you feel that also qualifies as endorsing that editor's description of your edits as "ridiculous", then I apologize. However, that was not the case. You did not have to do "onerous research" in the article's very brief edit history. All you had to do was simply remove the two brief quotes and note your reasons on the talk page per WP:CPI. It would have taken far less of your time than plastering two huge copyright tags on the article and listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems where given the backlog they would have remained for days, with the ultimate outcome being either an admin doing what you could have easily done yourself or accepting them as fair use. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. By the way, I'm a "Madam" not a "Sir". Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Outcome – Voceditenore (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'd have addressed the points that others raised on the CP page, had our discussion and some non-WP commitments left me the time. But i acknowledge it as the community's decision and for now something of a precedent. IMO it demonstrates a failure to adequately address how we differ from an academic institution, so that any precedent deserves rebuttal on an appropriate future occasion.
--Jerzy•t 06:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you for highlighting a mental model i had failed to recognize: for me WP editors of unidentified gender apparently are implicitly of my own (which is male) -- despite my confidence that i succeed in my intention to ambiguate each as "they" when i use the third person.
   By the way, not all the CP folk are admins -- and i am one. It's an important part of my concern in this matter, that what justifies trusting admins to make decisions on replacement of the text and/or expunging it from the edit history (via selective deletion of revisions from the edit history) is not the admin permissions, but specialized knowledge or (in the case of admins) the presumption that admins can be trusted not to participate in the decisions without exercising sufficiently informed judgment on the technical legal issues. I'm actually not sure that even those currently closing CP decisions are sufficiently informed to know if they are sufficiently informed. (Nor am i sure i'd be tempermentally suited to the task -- even if i were to further beef up my copyright background.)
   In reviewing, i now see that i was not so compulsive in the 6 points as to use words as explicit as "removal of the template violated the template's terms". Nevertheless, i think it's obvious that at least the remover and the endorser (you) should have known that fact -- since each copy of the subst'd & then removed text began

<!-- Please do not remove or change this Copyvio message until the issue is settled -->

and the diff page would highlight that -- even if i had not been as explicit at User talk:Michael Bednarek#Günther von Schwarzburg (opera) as i was. In any case, i opined that endorsing that action, while either not knowing or not caring about that, was irresponsible. I didn't ask for an apology (let alone one personally to me) but rather insisted that the remover or an endorser label the violation as such, and each treat themself as obligated to remediate by restoring the tag. (I certainly hope i succeeded in suggesting that each should internally make note of their respective error, but FWIW i see no sign of that occurring.)
   I did take note of Wikipedia:BEHAVE#Conduct violations, but i am fairly nonplussed that that numeric-bullet point, where i merely stated a fact, is the only area where you have chosen to offer anything other than justifications of your own actions. One might treat that unsolicited "apology" (or its being more explicitly non-apologetic than is common among non-apologies) as a deliberate insult, but i've no concern about that. Nor even about your starting a communication with "Look," (which personally i would reserve for naughty children and defiant subordinates).
    But as to your presumption in attempting to assess my goals and means, and your use of "common sense" (which has at least 2 interestingly different definitions in each of several standard dictionaries) as an insinuated term of abuse, i do think that either would suffice to disqualify you from having the last word via the communication i'm responding to.
--Jerzy•t 06:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

   Aha, "Voce di tenore"! I stared at it at least a dozen times without parsing it; hmm, "edit" functions as a red herring in a WP-editing context.
    Even with the blanks it'd be a valid ID on WP, and if you wanted to, you could get a "move" done, with your old edits being reattributed to the new ID.
--Jerzy•t 06:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

La Petite Bande again

I found news on de, if you think it is reliable, please format the ref to be consistent, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. Duly done.:) I also copyedited the new addition a bit to what I think is a more accurate translation of what the Knack article said. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A few more

I notified a few more; am packing it in for the night. If you could do another tranche tomorrow I will do some more after work. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Replied here. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Max Schlosser

Thanks for the tenor! - Do you know more on the composer Reinhard Febel and his operas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A Wagnerian help request

Could you be kind and help with a balancing act so the cornered situation can be resolved in the Wagner discussion page .Thank you User:Major Torp (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Quietly raising something

I was rather surprised by a pattern spreading across my watchlist, and was wondering if this was a cause for concern? If not, pls just ignore me almost-instinct 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)