User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 5

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

even 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

Günther von Schwarzburg - quick question

Thanks for spotting my mistake and for expanding the article. It looks good. One question - I thought we were having separate sections for (inline, specific, reflisted) references and general sources? This came up recently on the project page here. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. We might write a new guideline on it, though i don't know if it should be a priority. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I just forgot to add the sub-heading. This is the way it is now. I normally do something like that if there are both footnote citations and works that were generally used for background information in writing up the article. If there are no footnotes yet, I normally use a bulleted list either labeled "Sources" or '"References". I save "External links" for official web sites, or online information that isn't in the article yet. I did see the discussion on OP. It might be good idea to write some guidelines re this. I especially dislike inline references that don't go as footnotes, just external links inside the article text. It's sort of a deprecated practice now because if the link breaks, no one can tell what the reference/source actually was and when it was accessed. Apart from that, I must admit, I don't get too fussed one way or another as long as the sources are clear. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that clarity should be the objective. My only reservation about the way you've done the Günther article now is that it implies the refs are perhaps a bit more important than the 'other sources'. Re 'Asperta' I think that was another typo of mine. Grove have Asberta. As for history - or deviation from it - I'm not sure. The Grove article is quite short. Best with new (over the top?) sig. --Kleinzach 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the implications. I've now re-formatted per the MoS. I've discovered they use "bibliography" is a very idiosyncratic sense, i.e. basically synonymous with "Further reading" and not for texts actually used to support the article. The MoS suggests either having two separate sections for "Notes" and "References", or if the list of notes is relatively short, to combine the two into "Notes and references". I chose the latter. But feel free to separate them. The more I think about it, the better it might be to re-word the OP page on article and formats. I'll put my thinking cap on. Re your new sig... I'm sort of a Mies van der Rohe follower in those sorts of things.;-) I'm about to send you an email on another matter. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A two part ref section looks good. I agree about the idiosyncratic WP terminology, but I suppose it's not a huge problem. Re. project guidelines, I've just done a big switch around/consolidation and I'd be grateful for your opinion. Maybe a first step towards a possible Opera MoS? And adding a reference section would certainly be good. --Kleinzach 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Is your present signature minimal - or can we expect something something even more reduced in the future? --Kleinzach 12:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's a thought.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Angela Gheorghiu

Apropos Angela Gheorghiu and your changes to my additions: I have aimed to improve the piece by toning down the original article which apparently was dictated by her PR department. All of my writings have been from documented and reliable sources. There still remain several completely gratuitous remarks, which have little use in an objective article. The last, was directly from the Grammy.org association itself, but apparently inserted a less reliable surce. AG WAS NOMINATED IN 2001 not 2002 according to "The Recording Academy" BTW -- so it made no sense to replace my footnote with a less reliable source. I took the trouble to TALK to someone there regarding that fact BTW, and can supply his email address if you doubt that. As matters sound, the article is still an obvious fluff/gush piece by a FAN rather than an objective article. I appreciate your interest, but I will escalate the problems with your overly complimentary comments, if you continue in such a biased manner. I also had nearly THREE years of correspondence with AG, from which I can draw information and material that can be documented. And, if you doubt any of my assertions, check with operchic.typead.com, or Norman Lebrecht, who have been observers of AG for many years, and know much more about her in most ways than I.

BTW There is one other little tidbit at this time about AG: "The Recording Academy" (Grammys) verified that AG was never nominated other than in 2001. and, that she never won. Howver, for several years, she/Rolex have claimed a Grammy win on her homepage -- www.angelagheorghiu.com/en -- and The Recording Academy is proceeding accordingly -- probably a "cease and desist" order.. I'll let you be the judge of what to say about that, if anything, in the wiki article.Sidney Orr (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reply I did not create that article. Nor did I write the "gush" you are referring to. Please take any concerns that you have about the article to the appropriate place - the article's talk page. However, note that your personal opinions of and speculations about the article's subject have no place whatsoever in the article, on its talk page, or on the talk pages of any of its editors. Nor does your alleged correspondence with either the article's subject or anyone else belong there. Claims which cannot be verified by published sources will be removed from both the article and the talk page in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living persons. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before further editing. Voceditenore (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Libel":

Nolo is a universally recognized source of information on American (and probably, UK and worldwide common law. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/7613C25C-8E5D-47A5-9E0D93B952DE16E7/alpha/L/ They are a reliable source of the definition of "Libel":

"An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community."

"Untruthful" is obviously an essential part of the definition.

Granted, it is the responsibility of the speaker to provide reliable sources for their assertions.

I place my trust in the majority of serious critics and musicologists -- and they have many times said in print, that which the nonobjective, narrow-minded, and emotional fan would consider libelous.

Furthermore, an "injury" must be proven, and in the case at hand, it is quite impossible to do so, given the SRO situations, etc that prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney orr (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please read WP:BLP. What I wrote on the Angela Gheorghiu talk page reflects the non-negotiable policy which must be followed in all Wikipedia articles about biographies of living persons. Any edits to that or any other biography of a living person on Wikipedia (or on Wikipedia talk pages) that violate that policy will be reverted. Any persistant restoration will be reported to the Administrators' Incidents Noticeboard. Please confine any further comments on this matter to the article's talk page and please direct any further enquiries or comments to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes by Composer

“Notes by Composer” still exists in Bells for Stokowski, UFO (composition), Dead Elvis (composition), Metropolis Symphony, and Niagara Falls (composition). I can’t find anywhere these things have been copy pasted from, but it seems likely that it is the composer who is writing them. They seem to always be written in the first person. Shall we revert these sections? It seems to me that regardless of other concerns they are not in any way Wikipedic.--S.dedalus (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit to add. User:Ethreinen does claim to be Michael Daugherty himself. [1] --S.dedalus (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the composer notes aren't in any way Wikipedic and should go in their present form even if they weren't copyright. As for the copy vio, I've found all the specific URLs - they're all from pages on his web site, each of which carries the © sign. I've now put the "big" copyright infringement notice on all of them, e.g. Dead Elvis (composition). In most cases the lead paragraph is plagiarised too. He has no independent references at all to establish notability. He is notable undoubtedly, and these compositions probably are too, but he doesn't seem to get the point. All of the articles merely link to the front page of his web site (which also contains purchase links to his recordings) and given his COI, it also qualifies as spamming. Interestingly, Bells for Stokowski was created by another editor and they actually had the link to the specific page where his "Notes" were, but Ethreinen removed it and replaced it with the generic link to the home page of his site. By the way, judging from the contributions and identical style of edit summaries, he also edits anonymously as 69.209.56.100

The articles can be re-written as stubs by following the link on the Copy Vio notice, e.g. Talk:Dead Elvis (composition)/Temp, with an external link to the specific page on his web site with more info about that piece and tagged with {{primarysources}} and {{importance}}. I'll leave him a message on his talk page, maybe he'll put in the work himself, since the instrumental pieces only relate to him. Before I got my hands on Jackie O (opera), his version was all about the composer. No mention of the singers who created the roles, the stage director, or the librettist's input into the project, apart from naming him in the lead. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethreinen (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Hello there. This is a message from Ethreinen. I am the one that has been working on the Michael Daugherty site. Ethreinen is NOT Michael Daugherty himself, as someone above suggested. Please do not continue to make that assertion. All of the issues you have discussed above are simply mistakes on my part as the 'editor/author'. I am new to WIKIPEDIA, I have never written an article. When I started working on his article, it was simply to enhance what was already there (very scant and out-of-date) with more historical, relevant, and current information. I have been consulting with Michael to be sure that what I add is correct and valid (obtaining more biographical information and photos) and I looked at other composers' pages for ideas of what was stylistically appropriate (repertoire, categories, additional links).

The dialogue above suggests negative intentions that are certainly not mine (or the composers). I am simply trying to add relevant material to the article. I did read the 5 pillars before editing and tried to follow the rules as they are listed. I honestly didn't realize that using direct program notes from the score ("Note from the Composer" in first person--as this is how they are written in the cover) was considered plagarizm. This is simply a misunderstanding on my part.

Please know that there is no malice in writing/editing the article/s, only inexperience. I read the 'how to cite living people' article on WIKIPEDIA and tried to follow the guidelines, but I admit, I was a bit confused by how to properly site the information, and clearly I have failed. After I received a 'citation/reference flag', I added the reference category. However, from what is stated, this isn't enough.

From above... "He has no independent references at all to establish notability...but he doesn't seem to get the point."

The bottom line is simple, I am just trying to add information that I thought would enhance the MD article (which was already on WIKIPEDIA). Obviously, I have come across some issues that will have to be changed or erased. If anyone can provide more direct advice or suggestions for work that is about a living person and hasn't been formally published (beyond program notes and internet sites) yet, that would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethreinen (talk • contribs) 06:27, 13 July 2008

Hi Ethreinen, I'm sure you didn't have any bad intent. A lot of new editors don't realize how strict Wikipedia is about copying material from copyright web sites. Also, simply putting quotes around the material doesn't make it OK. Direct quotes can be used under 'fair use' but only very short ones and the number of quotations from a single source should be strictly limited and form only a small proportion of the total text in the article.

The thing about independent references is that the web site, or the autobiography of a subject will always be slanted to a particular point of view and the material needs to be balanced with that from sources which are independent of the subject. It also needs to be written in an encyclopedic style, not one with a personally invested tone. The other thing is, Wikipedia is not a primary source. Thus, unpublished information which is claimed to have come from the article's subject or editor is inappropriate. (See WP:OR for more.) The article needs to reference published, verifiable, good quality secondary sources, such as books or journal or newspaper articles about the subject. (See WP:RS for more.) There's plenty of good quality independent stuff on Michael Daugherty out there [2], [3], [4].

I'm going to be away for the next week or so, and opera is more my cup of tea. So I'd suggest you look at some of these contemporary composer's biographies for models to aim for: Steve Reich and Philip Glass. And perhaps this for a composition: Variations for Winds, Strings and Keyboards. You can always ask for help from the Wikipedia Composers Project and Contemporary Music Project on their talk pages. And one thing to always keep in mind, is that Michael Daugherty is not "his site", it's an encycylopedia article than anyone can and will edit. The absolute requirement for verifiable reliable sources is for his protection as well. As for conflict of interest, you still have to be careful, even though you are not Michael Daughterty himself. If you are a friend, student, colleague, relative, employee of him or his publisher, etc. this also constitutes a conflict of interest when editing articles about him or his compositions, and you need to make sure you follow the various guidelines very carefully when you edit. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethreinen (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Thanks for your comments above. I will be able to make the changes you suggest before the end of July. Again, my effort was/is to enhance MDs pre-existing article, and the links to the selected pieces were added to provide the reader information on the piece (date, premiere, conductor and ensemble) with the exact Program Note that is given on the inside of each score (always in first person narrative). Updates will be incorporated. Thanks again for your suggestions and examples provided above.

24.127.89.110 (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Another question: Is there any way to get the information back (in any kind of format) that has been deleted, ie, the links to the various pieces (Dead Elvis, Jackie O, Metropolis Symphony, etc.)? If so, please advise.24.127.89.110 (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The information has not been permanently deleted. It is available in each article's history as explained in the copyright enfringement notices. Simply go the page, click on the history tab and then click on the last version you edited. Please read the instructions and information on the copyright ingringement notices on each article. All of this is explained there as well as what you should do if you want to re-write the articles without copyright violations using a temporary page. Jackie O (opera) has been completely rewritten. There is no copyright enfringement notice on it all. There is now a link in the footnotes to the exact page on Michael's Daugherty's site were the composer notes appear. The links to the other articles are on your talk page User_talk:Ethreinen#Copyright_violation_in_Jackie_O_.28the_opera.29_and_other_articles. Note that for those articles, an administrator may at any time reduced them to stubs or completely delete them depending on the extent of the copyright violation. Voceditenore (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethreinen (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Thanks for your note. I 'cleaned up' the paragraphs and other sections of the complete biography of the MD site. In addition, I deleted the note on the MD discussion chapter (on his page), which stated that paragraphs were too detailed and were written in a personal tone. Thanks for the updates on the opera and the link/footnote addition, too. Will continue.Ethreinen (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Ethreinen (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)By the way, the Jackie O article is really great.Ethreinen (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Center for Contemporary Opera‎

Thank you for your additions to this page. It is a much better article now. If this is a particular interest of yours, you may be interested in working on the article on American Opera Projects‎. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, contemporary opera is not a particular interest of mine, but I think this aspect of the subject shouldn't be neglected. I haven't got time to work on American Opera Projects‎ right now, but I did have a quick look at it. It looks rather copy/pasted to me and needs to have all that 'advert' phrasing removed. Better to have a short matter-of-fact stub that's in encyclopedic style plus some good references so that others can expand it. Otherwise, it just risks deletion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. That article also has way too many red links. They just make the subject look even more non-notable. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescuing Opera Theater of Lucca etc.

You've done a great job recreating this article. Perhaps I should explain my thinking on this and similar articles that have been created by 'single purpose accounts' as adverts/copy and paste etc? I'm tagging and prodding them in the expectation that either the creators will fix them or they'll be deleted. From my point of view they are not a priority (like CotM, SotM, Can you help? and items raised on the talk page) and not usually worth taking time to repair. Should I assume that you think differently - that they are worth saving? If so, maybe I should not mark them up - but instead refer them to you for rescue treatment? What do you think? Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, my thinking is that we shouldn't neglect or necessarily give low priority to articles that deal with opera today (in its various manifestations). Otherwise, it gives the impression that the artform is completely fossilized. It also helps raise the profile of opera (and the Opera Project) to have articles on relevant festivals and schools, companies specializing in contemporary or new operas, etc.

The fact that an article was created 'disingenuously' and/or is a copy/paste job isn't automatically a good reason to completely delete it. I'd say to tag them for notability, referencing, cut/paste, etc. where relevant, and then give me a shout. If I think they're worth rescuing, I can fix them. If they seem hopelessly non-notable, I'll PROD them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a lot of the articles are dross and after lengthy processing are deleted anyway - The Dreamers being the (possibly/probably) worthwhile exception in this case. Most of these articles are created in minutes and we subsequently spend days on them . . .

Having said that I'd be delighted to work with you on them as you suggest. I'm hope that we - and others - can get used to using the To do list. Perhaps if I go through the sections and then hand them on to you after I've worked on them? For example I can have a look at Articles needing expert attention and then let you know. Is that OK? --Kleinzach (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Most of these articles are created in minutes and we subsequently spend days on them..." Yep. That's the curse of Wikipedia. Seriously though, every once in a while there is a nugget amidst the dross, so I try not to be too hasty about getting rid of stuff. Besides AfDs are also time-consuming, if they're done properly. Letting some opera articles of dubious notability lie around for a while doesn't do any real harm compared to the mountains of real dross there is on Wikipedia.

I keep forgetting about the OP "To Do" list. Once I get back in late April, go ahead and start reminding me of stuff you'd like me to take a look at if I miss it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Incidentally there are some faster deletions procedures we can use. In addition to 'speedy delete' (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) there is also the 'Prod2' or double prod. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mozart's operas

Thank you for your notes. I am leaving a note on the project's talk page so that people will have an idea what I'm up to. I agree that the article title isn't the obvious one to choose, but I wanted the list to include all Mozart's works of an operatic nature, not just the acknowledged operas, and I needed a title to reflect that. It was always my intention to use redirects so that Mozart's operas or Operas by Mozart would reach the article. Thank you for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

David Giménez Carreras‎

Hi, thank you for your interesting in the page of David Giménez Carreras. As you noticed I changed few little things: the name (without Ramiro), the year in which he was born and changed the phrase "the nephew of". I made that change not because the information is not correct, but because Mr. Giménez Carreras asked me to. I think that it is a very small change and in respect to Mr. Giménez request I think it would be not a problem to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.9.129 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to you at User talk:81.39.9.129. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Melanie the Mezzo-Soprano

Thanks for letting me know, but my only contribution to the article was to 'prod' it. Delete away ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. But since the pranksters removed your prod, I thought you might want to reiterate your views at the AFD.;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I see - you mean before those delightful little scamps decided to remove it :-) Thanks - views reiterated :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Opera Carolina Chorus...show me a copyright notice on that page.

Hi, in regards to your edit of the Opera Carolina article and deletion of the Opera Carolina Chorus article, you state that you removed copyrighted material from the site OperaCarolinaChorus.org. There is no copyright notice on that site. There's not one there because I did not add one when creating that site. WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the article isn't deleted, it's merely merged and redirected. The original article is still available in the history [5] and you can undo the re-direct at any time. Re copyright. It's not sufficient for there to be no copyright notice on the OCC site. You must have an explicit notice there saying that all content on the pages concerned is released under a GNU General Public License, or you need to explicitly email the Wikipedia Foundation to that effect. There's more about this process at WP:IOWN. But, the direct copy from the OCC web site, even if released under free license was basically written like an advert or PR, not an encyclopedia article, and as such was unsuitable. Also, there was no evidence of the subject's notability provided in the article. (See WP:NOTE for guidance.) In addition, if you created the OCC site, you have a conflict of interest both in writing the article in the first place and in linking to the site. (See WP:COI for guidance about editing in those circumstances.). If you do undo the redirect, without remedying the advert tone and without providing evidence of the OCC's notability, you run the risk of other editors proposing it for complete deletion. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about photos in Singer articles

I have replied in User talk:Kleinzach. Thanks - Jay (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Good day to you. I have replied to your message, please check here: [Luis_Miguel31 Talk page]. Best regards, --Luis Miguel31 (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Baton handover?

Hi. Welcome back if you are back. I've been watching the new articles at User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult but perhaps I can hand the baton back to you now if that's OK? --Kleinzach 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hand away.;-) Actually, I already started checking them today and ended up writing a veritable tome on Ángela Peralta. If you have time, could you have a look at it and see if it's more than than the "start" class. I think it probably is, but since I basically wrote it, I don't think I should self-rate. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed Ángela Peralta and have put it provisionally/nominally at B. Next month I'm going to suggest we start doing written assessment of B class articles and will be in touch about this soon. Reg. --Kleinzach 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated year

About the year in Kathleen Battle's, I deleted the “repeated year” after fixing the frame about 1/2 hour ago, like how I did to all other recordings frame (Including all the “Selected recordings” + Discographies such as Pelléas et Mélisande discography, The Flying Dutchman discography, Plácido Domingo discography and many other). I do not see why we should have the same year one after another unless if they are not in the frame format. - Jay (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. Given the table's format it's not obvious that a blank date means it's the same as the one above to someone viewing it who's unfamiliar with the rationale. It just looks like the date is missing But I've taken them out again. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

thx

for the reminder Victuallers (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Carola Darwin

Hi. You raised doubts about the notability of this article in May. I have just nominated it for deletion. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)