User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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



    yet more past topics...


    Category:Unassessed Opera articles[edit]

    Thank you for de-populating Category:Unassessed Opera articles. This has bugged me for a long time, but I didn't have the guts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not as friendly as I'd hoped?[edit]

    Thanks much for your help at my talk page. :) The template that drew the unhappy reply was {{Uw-copyright-new}}, which was intended to be less bitey than {{Uw-copyright}}. His response suggests that he still found it offensive. :/ Maybe it's the inclusion of "plagiarism" in the headline? Do you see any way that could be made better? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi MRG! The word "plagiarism" in the header might well cause upset to some as it normally carries connotations of "intentional dishonesty". I think it would be enough to change the header to simply: Avoiding copyright issues or Avoiding copyright problems. But leave in the points and links about copying and attributing PD/WP sources, as this is useful to beginners. The template's really only used in copyright infringement situations anyway. We already have reasonably friendly {{Uw-plagiarism}} for failure to attribute PD sources and {{Uw-copying}} for failure to attribute copied Wikipedia text. By the way, I notice that {{Uw-copyright-new}} has no categories and isn't linked from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace either. I had a heck of time trying to find it a while back when I wanted to warn a newbie :) Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks. :) And I forgot to add cats when I moved it from my sandbox! That's taken care of now. :) It's in both Category:Copyright maintenance templates and Category:User warning templates. I also added it to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A cup of tea for you![edit]

    Thank you for clarifying things for me in our recent debacle. I regret the tone I used to characterise your edits and I hope this won't affect a future constructive editing collaboration. ClaretAsh 11:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem and thanks for stopping by. . Voceditenore (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you![edit]

    Hi Voceditenore! I was so excited to see that WP:Opera is going to participate in Women's History Month! Anything I can do to help, promote and contribute, just let me know. ...you know, I've never been to the opera. Someday, I hope! SarahStierch (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    José Iturbi International Music Competition[edit]

    I recently came across an article on the José Iturbi International Piano Competition which was in a poor state. I then went to the competition's website here which states that the competition has two tracks: one for pianists and the other opera singers. I accordingly moved the wikipedia article to the José Iturbi International Music Competition (which was a redirect previously) since it seemed to be a more appropriate title. However, the history for the competition given in the article does not appear to match the history given at the competition's website see here, which makes me question whether there may be more than one competition with this name. Perhaps you might be able to help me solve this puzzle/correct this tangle?4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's what I did. The previous garbled text in that article actually referred to a completely different competition with completely different winners—the Valencia International Piano Competition Prize Iturbi. So I took that content and created Valencia International Piano Competition Prize Iturbi. I changed the redirects to that page as that's what they are basically referering to in the articles in which they are linked. I then rewrote José Iturbi International Music Competition to reflect the piano voice competition by the José Iturbi Foundation. I also put {{distinguish}} hatnotes on the two articles. There's more on Talk:José Iturbi International Piano Competition. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!4meter4 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: linking references[edit]

    Hi Voceditenore, Our conversation with User:Jean GUERIN 2 concerning Jean-Vital Jammes has been interesting, to say the least. He is inexperienced with the Wikipedia, but well motivated. However, I wanted to make some comments about formatting links in the sources, which is not specific to that article, so I thought I would put it here, where it won't distract. I realize it is common practice to link titles to online sources. I want to explain why I prefer to link the page references, book titles, and online copies separately. In some situations an article may cite more than one page in a source, so keeping links to specific pages and/or text in the notes section allows more than one page location for a particular source to be linked. In the source list itself, it makes sense to link the title page of the online copy, which is after all the location of the bibliographic information in the citation. This practice also makes the citation universal, ie, the item in the source list can easily be copied and pasted, without further editing, into other articles where the source may also be used. There are also advantages to keeping the links to online copies in the same location where we usually put an ISBN or OCLC number. I started doing this for cases like the following:

    It may be better to reserve titles for linking to Wikipedia articles about the books, and keep links to online copies in a similar location to OCLC numbers and ISBNs. This location also allows us to identify the website where the copy is located, and in cases where there are two online copies, for example, the Internet Archive and Google Books, one can link both and let the reader know ahead of time exactly where the link is going. These copies are sometimes identical, but sometimes not. Different scanned copies can have errors, so that some pages are unreadable. Linking both lets the reader know that alternatives are available. Also, I personally find that the book browser and book text search facility for the Internet Archive is awfully slow, especially for long books. The copies at Google Books can generally be searched and browsed much more efficiently. However, I can see that some readers might prefer to use the Internet Archive reader. Isn't it better to give the reader a choice? --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, I'm rather unexperienced in using Wikipedia, but I know how to use a wiki ...
    Some information about my publications (in French) here : http://fr.geneawiki.com/index.php/Utilisateur:Jean_GUERIN
    Jean GUERIN - Paris 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply to Robert Allen: You raise a good point. I'm not really fussed one way or another about how the links to a source are presented.:) So please amend wherever you think it appropriate. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean-Vital Jammes[edit]

    Hi,
    Thanks for initializing the Wikipedia article about Jean-Vital !
    However, this article has been written from sources which are compilation books or newspapers copying one another without any verification. I have been gathering precise and official documents about Jean-Vital for about six years. These are either official French documents or family documents and photographs. My documents are “primary sources” in Wikipedia understanding, but I assert that they approach the truth closier than fanciful texts of “Touchatout” ! I will try during the next weeks to give you more valid information according to the rules of Wikipedia.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jean GUERIN - Paris 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean GUERIN 2 (talk • contribs)

    Hello, Jean. I've copied your message to Talk:Jean-Vital Jammes in this section and responded to you there. I think it's better to discuss these issues more generally with all editors working on the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    re: File:Jean-Vital Jammes and Marie Garcin.jpg[edit]

    This seems like it could have been uploaded to Commons, since the photographer died in 1931. I'm curious why you decided to upload it to the English Wikipedia. (There is apparently a big effort underway to move files like these to Commons. Not sure why.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    re: File:Le journal de Rouen black and white.jpg[edit]

    I saw that this very useful file that you made was moved to Commons, and created a new category for it. You may want to check it over to make sure everything is OK. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "See also" sections[edit]

    I looked for a guideline that gave guidance concerning the location of this section, but I wasn't able to find one. So with the two examples I found where it was place below the references, I thought it was worth a try. I think it might actually be preferable since this puts it nearer to the Categories which is another method for finding related articles. But I realize, of course, that it is almost always just before the references. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. The guidance is at MOS:APPENDIX. I think we need to keep to the MOS as much as possible for consistency across articles and with the rest of Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I confess that I was unaware of the three navboxes already at the bottom of Opera when I first added the new Template:Navbox performing arts to the "See also" section. This made me think that maybe a lot of readers totally miss seeing them. At least the "See also" appears in the TOC. We should probably discuss this further on the Project page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Voceditenore, you are invited![edit]

    • Hmmm. Don't know how I got this. I've never edited in that area at all, and did not attend that university, but I wish you every success for the project.Voceditenore (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    TB[edit]

    You have new messages on my tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio[edit]

    Hi Voce. I just caught and deleted David Lively as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.joseph-marx.org/artist-biographies/david-lively.html © 2001-2006 Berkant Haydin. The entire page was copied verbatim with just a few very minor rephrasings, and Wikilinks. My concern is, that User talk:Clover999 as the major contributor (but not creator) to Claudio Arrau may have introduced text or sections copied from other sources. This is the only other article to which he has contributed to any extent - he only has a total of 77 edits. What do you think? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look at the article history going back to the beginning. All his contibutions have been lists of awards, recordings etc. and minor copy editing. Seems OK. Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm signing off for a while, and not sure when I'll be back. Mail me if you need anything. BTW: I assume you've read Tory's report. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for Sourcing Ibrahim Tatlises as a tenor[edit]

    Hello,

    I was traumatized because someone deleted Ibraimh Tatlises and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan from the tenor page without due process... so thanks for sourcing Ibo. As for the great Ustad NFAK, any search for "Nusrat Jeff Buckley" should do. AFAIK, Jeff was the main source of comments on NFAK's voice from a fellow-singer perspective.

    This is from a guy who likes writing in Wikipedia but finds the current reference format too tiresome to even contemplate (I have some 2000 edits). So, thanks again. elpincha (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Elpincha. I've now added a reference for Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan as well as Ibrahim Tatlises. The unreferenced additions were especially problematic because neither of the Wikipedia articles for those singers even mentioned that they were tenors. I know it seems tedious to have to provide references from reliable sources for assertions which are not obvious or common knowledge, but this is becoming increasingly mandatory on English Wikipedia, and it's really important. Otherwise List of tenors in non-classical music and similar lists can rapidly become full of disinformation and false information and (at the very least) worthless to readers. If you find referencing tiresome, don't use the the {{cite}} template. I agree, it's a way too complicated and inflexibile. I have over 40,000 edits and I still reference everything by hand. The simplest thing for you to do in future is to click on the referencing tab in the edit tool bar (2nd from end on the right). This produces:
    <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>
    Then simply replace "Insert footnote text here" with the URL of the source. Like this:
    <ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-fourth-tenor-1344618.html</ref>
    It's not elegant, but it's adequate. Other editors can then format it better, and you won't find your additions reverted.
    Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I get ya. Back in the day, 2005 or so, there used to be a due process where you would be challenged first, and then reverted, giving you a week or so to come up with the reference. I still think that just undoing an edit is not the Wikipedia way. But you're correct, if I want to stay an editor there's some stuff I should learn. Alas, this won't happen soon... constraints of age. Thanks again. elpincha (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it would have been preferable to add [citation needed] and leave it for a few days before removing it, but you wouldn't believe how many unreferenced "drive-by" additions that list gets, many of them with completely false information, and the editors who watch it get impatient after a while. As for your age being a constraint, don't get discouraged. I'm nearly fifteen years older than you and a grandmother. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP Women's History in the Signpost[edit]

    The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Women's History for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    About Javier Vargas[edit]

    Hi Voceditenore. I've seen you've deleted the english translation of the biography of Javier Vargas I filed few days ago. This translation was made by ​​a partner of Javier, and I'm allowed to use it. I wonder if there is a problem, and the cause it was removed. Greetings Blues power — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blues power (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied at your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I received your reply. The reference to the copyright of Warner Music Spain is not correct. The text entered is an english translation of the spanish biography of Javier Vargas in Wikipedia, and i´m the author of a good part of this text. The translation was done by Annie Altamirano, an english teacher and personal friend of Javier and myself. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blues power (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooops RS/N[edit]

    Voceditenore, I was posting something on RS/N about the same time as you. If that's a cause for concern I will be happy to withdraw my issue or attempt to merge mine into yours. I was not attempting to distract others from the issues you raised. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. See my reply here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Mob "consensus" in hasty sloppy reverting[edit]

    The article "Holy Roman Empire" says clearly..."In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was officially changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation

    no valid reason to remove that, as that IS what it was fully called, and is accurate, and good faith. Simply because “you don’t like” is not a valid WP reason to disrespectfully undo or remove. The elaboration is valid, better, clearer, and it stays...see talk.

    his is just one example of WP policy on it, and it says clearly:

    "Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy." Or "Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary".

    And "Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like."

    These are all words from WP help, and recommendation. I did not make up the recommendation. WP policy is clear that you are NOT to undo an edit that’s proven to be accurate, per other WP articles,& per outside sources, simply because you “don’t like” it, with the lame front excuse of “consensus”. The word “consensus” is not some magic wand, if there’s nothing else. “Holy Roman Empire” article is clear.... Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edit to Mozart was not "proven to be accurate". You provided no source for it. You have multiple editors disagreeing with you. The burden is on you to seek consensus on the talk page. And please do not lecture me on wikipedia policy. I've been an editor here for 6 years. 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

    Second opinion on a rewritten paraphrase?[edit]

    Hi. :) Would you mind offering a second opinion on Antony Polonsky at its talk page? The author has rewritten to address close paraphrasing concerns. I've removed the tag, but would just like a fresh set of eyes to look at the formulation as it stands against the source ([2]). I don't want there to be copyright issues, so I want to make sure that I'm not seeing what I want to see. If I am, I welcome your dispassionate and every so finely nuanced input. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi MRG! I'll be happy to take a look. I'll do it first thing tomorrow morning. Just got back from my granddaughters' school pageant and my brain is somehwat... er... un-nuanced at the moment. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Vcd :) Thanks for your comments. I'll try to execute some of your suggestions on Polonsky. Best, Mick gold (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you much, Voceditenore. :) I hope your granddaughter's school pageant mushed your brain in a sweet way. I appreciate your taking the time to review and offer some suggestions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The pageant was not only sweet but hilarious (at times unintentionally). All 3 grandaughters appeared and were very cute, although I'm a bit prejudiced.:) Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is good, as it's the only thing that gets us through these pageants sometimes. :D I wince at the very words "school assembly". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Voceditenore, many thanks for the research & the comments, :) It may take me a day or 3 to get my head around this material. It's all interesting, thanks to you I may end up addicted to this blog [3] & this [4]. Mick gold (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted a draft on Polonsky Talk page for comment. Mick gold (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft included. Many thanks for your constructive input. Is the "unbalanced" tag still germane? Best, Mick gold (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Radio Studio 54 Network[edit]

    Cordiali Saluti da Campora San Giovanni e gentile richiesta di rilettura e miglioria per Radio Studio 54 Network, grazie come sempre di vero cuore--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Buongiorno a Lei da Campora San Giovanni,

    le scrivo per sapere come sta e per salutarla ed augurarle un eccellente weekend qualora non ci dovessimo sentire prima. Oltre a questo le chiedo sempre e comunque gentilmente una breve rilettura dell'articolo creato qualche giorno fa sulla radio ammiraglia della mia regione natale, e che viene ascoltata quasi in mezzo sud Italia. giusto una decina di minuti per migliorare la morfologia, la grammatica e la sintassi in inglese. le chiedo sempre e comunque gentilmente le chiedo come si mette lo streaming della radio che in questo caso si trova cliccando su on air nel sito della radio sennò esce così, ad ogni modo la ringrazio per tutto quello che ha fatto, fa e farà per me. Un Luminoso Saluto dalla Calabria, con l'augurio che possa venirci a visitare presto--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ciao Luigi, come vedi, ho fatto quello che posso per la voce. Per il futuro, guarda qui per vedere il tipo di miglioramenti che bisogna fare per avere una voce che conforma alle regole della Wikipedia inglese. Il più importante è di rispettare copyright e di non copiare mai da altri siti web (anche se viene tradotto in un'altra lingua, rimane in copyright). Una altra cosa importantissima è di sempre citare fonti indepedenti. Se no, la voce non sopravviverà mai sulla Wikipedia inglese. Vedo che gli utenti italiani ti hanno dato dei buon consigli a it:Discussioni utente:Lodewijk Vadacchino. Cordiali saluti, Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to non Italian speakers: Lodewijk Vadacchino was asking me to improve the article he had translated from the one he had written on Italian Wikipedia. I told him I had worked on it and also gave him some advice on respecting copyright and providing references to independent sources. Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Buonasera e Weekend, la scrivo per salutarla e ringraziarla per tutto, con certezza seguirò i suoi preziosi consigli, un abbraccio da Campora San Giovanni, Suo Luigi--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dannyboy1209[edit]

    FYI. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I saw that, but CU can only prove two accounts do not trace to the same computer/IP. It can't definitively prove that they are not the same person, which I still suspect is probably the case. For example, we have 2 computers in our house, each with a completely different ISP. But nevermind. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a checkuser, but AFAIK "unrelated" tends to means the IPs are not even from the same city. Otherwise they give us "inconclusive" or "unlikely" or somesuch. My gut tells me that someone was trolling an easy and unsympathetic target, but regardless both accounts are indeffed. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that he shouldn't be tagged for sockpuppetry given the CU report, but what an amazing coincidence that at the same time (20:47, 23 May 2012) Dannyboy1209 wrote that he was going on a wikibreak, and Dannyboy1209 2 registered a new account. Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, maybe he really is that stupid. I've certainly been wrong before. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My recent edit at AN[edit]

    My recent edit is in the middle of a thread at AN here. As it responds to a point you made, I wanted to let you know.

    While the editor in question has behaved badly, I think we as a community failed. I'm trying to figure out what went wrong. My analysis may well be flawed, but I think we could have done better. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the heads up. I had finished editing for the day by the time you wrote that. I agree, I could have used more apt links, most obviously the relevant sections of WP:Harass and WP:Outing. Having said that, this was clearly harassment of another editor. It was also intentional in my view, if you look at the timeline. He took exception to this comment, which suggested that his calling the article's subject "a piece of filth" called into question his neutrality/lack of bias, and later claimed quite falsely that the editor had "accused him of dishonesty". After multiple editors told him not to refactor talk page comments, he writes to another editor on his talk page I'd like to get User:Joseph A. Spadaro off my back. Four hours later, he tells User:Joseph A. Spadaro that he has reported him to the Anti-Defamation League (who are known to take legal action) and on their page reserved for reporting anti-semitic crimes and threats, claiming quite falsely that the editor "appears to assert that Holocaust denial is a legitimate form of philosophy", when he did nothing of the kind. I think he also knew exactly what such an act could result in and why. He was very careful to tell his victim "This is absolutely not intended to escalate our dispute on Wikipedia" and "I am adding this talk page entry purely for informational purposes". Frankly, I don't believe either of those assertions.
    He also wrote at the Teahouse: "I'm on my way out", 36 hours before this was even brought up at AN. Once it was, he then tried to present his actions as purely an attempt to alert outside bodies to "anti-semitism on Wikipedia", which it quite clearly wasn't. It was an attempt to silence/get revenge on one particular editor by creating real-life problems for him. His subsequent actions and threatening emails to admins and others speak for themselves. Note that he was only blocked (and very rightly) when he proceeded to make a second report to the ADL accusing anyone who failed to support him at AN as anti-semitic, and that was after multiple editors had explained quite clearly to him what was wrong with his original action and linked him to many relevant pages. He is a literate adult and quite capable of taking in what he was told and reflecting on it. Instead, he chose to ignore it and feign an inability to understand, when in reality he had an inability to acknowledge his own errors, let alone apologise for them. So no, I don't think we failed him. Failure to block him would have failed not only the original editor who was harassed, but any other future editor who ventured to disagree with him. Voceditenore (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Come and Join In - the tea is always fresh.[edit]

    Hi! Voceditenore, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here
    Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the invitation. I've known about the TH since its inception, and think it's a great idea. But from a purely personal point of view, I prefer more informal ways of helping new editors. Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that mean you can be recommended as a helping hand and possible mentor? From experience as a newbie editor I know how hard it is to find a helping hand and good guidance. The Teahouse may not be everyone's cup of tea - and some do prefer a more classical approach! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really, I have too many other regular committments on Wikipedia + my own article writing. The only time I "block off" for mentoring is every year in November for small groups of students on a course at Longy School of Music who edit Wikipedia as an assignment. I've been working with them since 2007. Voceditenore (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Brown's Brewery[edit]

    The very kind barnstar from Northamerica1000 now resides here

    A barnstar for you![edit]

    The very kind barnstar from Kudpung now resides here
    Thank you. That's very kind! Voceditenore (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ta[edit]

    Ta for this - I have been away for a few days -bestSmerus (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Diaphragm pump copywrite problem[edit]

    Thanks for doing what I was afraid to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikfr (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 June 2012‎

    You're welcome.:) By the way, the reason it wasn't showing up on the Duplication Detector was that the web page used Flash to display the text. But it was definitely word-for-word. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ...[edit]

    Hi,

    I may be rude but I'm good. Drop in some time for a chat.

    Your Persistent Vandal..)))))))))

    Amanbir Singh.

    ps: mishal husain my sister...in house matter..hope you understand...))))

    you seem like a very sweet guy....i wish i was you..i wish... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.111.137 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 July 2012‎

    Jonathan Cohler[edit]

    Given what Classmusic posted on the JC talkpage and on my own talkpage ("Your attempts and collusion here and elsewhere have nothing to do with the substantive discussion of articles at hand" - yes he means you, too!) I've moved the discussion here. Hopefully some helpful admin will take control of the situation.... Happy editing ;-) almost-instinct 08:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if I can call myself a helpful admin, but hopefully I am...
    *ahem* Hi! Almost-instinct brought this to our attention, so I figured I'd take a look. Turns out Classmusic and Cohler are indeed one and the same. Given that fact, I've blocked Cohler (as that's the account the user retired) and left a warning for Classmusic here. Hopefully, that's the end of the sockpuppetry.
    As for whether or not Cohler/Classmusic is the subject of the article is unprovable - if they are, then there's a clear conflict of interest and the article will have to be rewritten to avoid any bias. I'm sure Almost-instinct and yourself can figure something out in this department. Of course, this isn't free leave to spin the article as you wish; rather, try to weed out any possible bias or weasel words. I've told Classmusic not to edit the article for now, and I'll keep that restriction in place until they venture out onto their talk page and actually discuss this issue.
    That aside, hopefully this eases your guys' workload a bit. Keep up the great work, m.o.p 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so much a helpful admin, as a Deus ex machina ;-) almost-instinct 19:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I've always fancied being a plot device. Cheers! m.o.p 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I could be a Deus ex machina ;-). On a more serious note, see Talk:Jonathan Cohler#Copyright issues. User:Cohler quite openly said he was the subject of the article and that he had added a GDFL license to his website so it could be copied verbatim onto Wikipedia. Not sure how much more proof is needed, re the conflict of interest. It's funny, people who use WP for PR never quite realize how blindingly obvious promotional text is, nor do they realize that it actually reflects negatively on the subject, regardless of who put it in the article. Anyhow, thanks again for your help. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't know there had been an admission of personal identity - funny, because he was accusing you two of trying to out his identity, yet he did so himself.
    Anyway, a bit of stuff happened behind the scenes, and it's clear Mr. Cohler does not wish to participate in the project further. He won't need his accounts to edit. Again, you and almost-instinct have been great: keep it up! Cheers, m.o.p 19:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if VdT regrets bringing her "latest tussle" to my attention? ;-) I hope m.o.p. got accused to having "an axe to grind" aswell? Sometimes I wonder if the warning "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" should be written in flashing pink almost-instinct 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case you don't spot it on your watchlist....[edit]

    ...see what I added in this diff almost-instinct 16:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Very nice! As I was watching, I couldn't help thinking that he looks like a more svelte version Carlo Baucardé. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh yes! Good to see that modern lush-toned voices don't have to come out of half a tonne of New World granite jaw-line :-) One thing the recording doesn't give a real indication of is just how big a sound he makes. On Ye YouTube from the concert there's also this bit of Bellini, which makes a nice contrast. Ok, time to stop spamming you with links ;-) almost-instinct 12:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Provincetown Playhouse[edit]

    Voceditenore, Thank you so much for restoring this article. I had wanted to do this but could not untangle the history. I am very interested in theatre articles and it always disappoints me to see one of them in trouble. Especially a key theatre like this one.--Foobarnix (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Precious[edit]

    For the lovely sapphire, see User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 3

    Replied on Gerda's talk page. Voceditenore (talk)
    Thank you! Would you perhaps use your skills in copyright and review one article in the CCI of the gem's photographer? Sorry, not much opera, only Judith Blegen in a list. - Second request: someone red link created Elizabeth Connell, it still looks like the obituary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ref for Ursula Schröder-Feinen! (Of the above, the photographer is solved, back to work.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voceditenore/Archive_17&oldid=843760278"