User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 31

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...

Possible sockpuppets[edit]

Hello Voceditenore, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following: 84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following: 95.235.116.126 (see: Loayur, Duelai, Ddgfs), 87.17.102.163 (see: Sasalikasty), 193.204.194.210 (see: Dyukpore), 79.30.8.179 (see: Vufroled), 5.90.255.50 (see: Ksyru), 79.49.65.250 (see: Fruial, Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-) 198.46.84.16 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP 198.46.84.16. It looks like an administrator is on top of this. These IPs were blocked on the 25th. Obviously, with a determined block- evader like this one, I imagine they'll eventually return under a different IP or sock name. So let me know if there are any further occurrences, and I'll report them to ANI (I'm not an admin, so can't block them myself.) Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP 198.46.84.16. You posted a new message about this problem to my talk page on Simple Wikipedia today [1]. It's better to post here which is my "home" Wikipedia, especially when it concerns edits here. I'll watch 188.11.228.43 to see if they make any more edits. The changes they made to the IPA transcriptions were replacing e with ɛ, which I've never seen 84101e40247 and his socks doing. They were obsessed with gemination and changing z to s. Also that IP appears to resolve to Trento in Northern Italy [2]. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Voceditenore, I might have found the sockmaster behind all those sockpuppets and IPs. I think he's an Italian user registered from almost 3 years (more or less it's the time the socks started appearing), his edits about Italian IPAs are almost all regarding syntactic gemination and "Z" to "S". He's also been recently involved in quarrels with English users, both for Italian IPAs and for other languages IPAs, and he's already been blocked in 2 projects, in the first for edits about IPAs considered vandalisms and for using other identities, in the other because (as far as I've understood) he was identified by a checkuser as a noted Italian vandal who was blocked several times. Actually I can't say I'm 100% sure it's our man, but most of the evidences seem to indicate this. Just, I'd like him not to know he's still suspected of sockpuppeting until it's proven whether he's involved or he isn't, that's why I haven't told you his name yet, and I wanted to know your opinion about this issue: I don't think a CU request would be useful, because if he hasn't used other identities in the last 90 days (I've already checked the pages that the known vandal had edited in the past, I found no user restoring the vandalisms except, in a few cases, this user) and because CU policies forbid to link users to IPs; but if he's publicly reported he'll become aware of these suspects and he may turn everything against the reporter or move the matter from his identity to his edits, so he could even get away clean, also because en.wikipedia is a separated project from the others where he was blocked... Do you have any suggestions to give me? Cellettir (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cellettir. I'm not sure how I can help you if you aren't willing to state the name of the registered account of whom these IPs may be the socks. I assume you are not referring to this known sockmaster but some other account? At the very least, you'd need to give me links to an edit by one of these IPs and to another edit by the account you suspect. It doesn't matter if they are on a non-English Wikipedia. Linking to the registered account's edit will not ping them or attract their attention unless they are specifically watching my talk page, which I very much doubt. Until you provide those links, I'm afraid can't really make any suggestions. Note also that I am neither an administrator nor a checkuser here. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. The suspected user is (I'll remove it after you've read). 84101e40247 has just 50 contributions, he was more likely the main sockpuppet than the sockmaster. However, I'm not surely sure this guy is really the sockmaster, my suspects are based on a series of clues. Watch his blocks in his CentralAuth, the reasons are quite clear. He was also recently involved in a few disputes with some other users here, as you can read in his talk page, about phonetic transcriptions in Swedish phonology (it isn't Italian, but his non-collaborative behaviour is evident, his arrogance and aggressiveness, his starting from being the one right, which sometimes happens even in his edit summaries). It isn't the first time something like that happens: watching his contributions, the most recent episode was about "Il Canto degli Italiani", where he wanted to insert an absolutely wrong syntactic gemination in the text although even sources were against him. His obsession with syntactic gemination is proven also by the fact he's been inserting, arbitrarily, lots of texts similar to "" in a lot of pages, such as here. I'm now listing a few differences between revisions in the same pages where some of the blocked sockpuppets has edited in the same way, all regarding syntactic gemination in Italian names: [3] ([4]), [5] ([6]), [7] ([8]), [9] ([10]), [11] and [12]. And I haven't written examples dating back to previous years, but just to make one example: [13] > [14] (blocked sock) > [15] (non-blocked sock) > [16] (Southern Italian IP); also, please note the number of coincidences between this last IP's edited pages and our man's... I hope this is enough to let you get an idea. I'd like to hear your opinion about this issue, just an opinion before I do anything improper. Cellettir (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message read, Cellettir. On first glance it's not convincing, but I'll have to think about it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 20:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up[edit]

We're starting a major maintenance run on portals to transclude leads directly on the portal base pages.

The reason I'm contacting you, is because you expressed concern over carte blanche automation of all portals. We need your input/oversight to help point out portals, or ways to detect portals, that should not be converted from their current method of maintenance. So far, I've instructed the AWB'ers working on this task to not include the portals listed under the Specific Maintainers section in our project members list on the WikiProject page.

But in case there are other portals besides these that are sensitive, perhaps you can help.

The task thread is Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB team please tackle maintenance run on intro sections.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the edits you were complaining about on Portal:Opera were made incidentally to this planned AWB run which has not happened yet. I have tagged the portal with nobots. Any use of automatic maintenance should exclude pages marked with {{nobots}} or {{featured portal}} or {{Maintained portal flag}}. I highly recommend marking any portal pages you don't want the bots or AWB users editing. Note that nobots will stop all types of bots and should not be used on bot updated subpages. JLJ001 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, JLJ001. I appreciate that. I've also commented further here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to cause anyone much extra work so I am tagging all the subpages myself with JWB, to save you doing it manually. JLJ001 (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, JLJ001. Many thanks! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JLJ001 disappeared suddenly because he was blocked as a sockpuppet/LTA (long-term abuser) using a "goodhand account". See User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 20#JLJ001. — The Transhumanist 06:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, admins are reverting many of his edits, including the tags he placed on portals. Just a head up. — The Transhumanist 08:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Transhumanist, thanks for getting in touch. Yes, I saw that unfortunate imbroglio yesterday. I also saw the multiple reverts of the flags he'd placed on Portal:Opera (I have all the sub-pages on watch). Later today, I'll start restoring them. What a pain socks are! By the way, I added an extra plug for the portals project at WikiProject Classical Music. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more of the same?[edit]

Hi, VdT! It's hard to tell, but looks likely. The global contribs tool doesn't seem to be working. Regards, (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! I saw that. It's hard to tell with so few edits but the MO is very similar. The global contribs worked for me. His home-wiki is Italian Wikipedia. He has edited multiple Wikipedias the same day but only on the Hermitage (to add Petrocelli images) and Petrocelli articles. Also uploaded multiple Petrocelli images to Commons [17]. Petrocelli has long been one "our friend's" targets. I think we should keep an eye on him. I'm positive this IP is also him, but it's Vodafone. Our "friend" hasn't used that much, if at all. Maybe how he was able to register an account despite the global lock? Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Me again. I'm pretty convinced now. Put this title on watch. The IP above created it on the Italian Wikipedia yesterday [18]. Meanwhile, the Serbo-Croatian version was created 4 days ago by an IP which is almost certainly "our friend" [19]. That IP also edited... er... Amedeo Natoli, Sr. on the Danish Wikipedia this week. The Danish article was created by a registered account which is clearly a sock of "our friend". See [20]. Note also [21]. That account hasn't edited here, yet, but is blocked on the Latin (!) Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability assesment...[edit]

Hi, Voceditenore,

Can you please let me know about your evaluation of the notability of the following articles:-

Some good places to search for possible non-trivial coverage or reviews would be equally welcome:) Feel free to take your time....∯WBG^converse 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged Blades of Godric. This is not really my genre, but I'll have a look. So far, I'd say I Am (Pete Townshend album) is notable. I've added some sources to Talk:I Am (Pete Townshend album) which you can use. I'll do the same for the other three, if they appear notable. So keep their talk pages on watch. If I consider any of the remaining three non-notable, I'll message you here. But as I say, I am not an expert in this genre. I usually write about 19th-century opera topics. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged Blades of Godric. Me again. Generally speaking, for someone as notable as Townshend, virtually all their releases would be notable. However, unlike the first three, the self-published EP O' Parvardigar (album) is really pushing it. Personally I'd merge and redirect that material into Parvardigar Prayer. Ditto the material about the 7-minute O Parvardigar (film) (which quite rightly is at AfD). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for expending your time to evaluate the aforementioned articles:) And, now that I'm precisely aware of your specialties, I won't disturb you again save the particular area:)∯WBG^converse 09:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to call on me again Winged Blades of Godric. I'm happy to help. Just be aware that some stuff is not my field of expertise and might need a 2nd opinion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks again for that barnstar, Voce, it was a lovely gesture. However, I would like to share the kudos with Bri but can't because he and I work together. There's one here... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ifigenia, Clitennestra and Fedra[edit]

Hi, I have created Ifigenia, Clitennestra and Fedra. Thanks for reviewing and improving Fedra. Please also review the other two for further improvement. Thanks - Jay (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay. They're looking good. I'll have closer look tomorrow to see if they could use any further references or further reading. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have completed L'Oro as well. - Jay (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Thanks so much, Jay. Do you have any suggestions for the August CoM and OoMs? Feel free to suggest anything you'd like to work on. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also created Montserrat Martí, she is Montserrat Caballé's daughter. Feel free to add more in the article. There is not much can be found on the internet about her. - Jay (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from website[edit]

Michael Seal is up for deletion, + seems copied from here, - wasn't always like that. Can you help, expert in copyvio? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do have BBC and review in a decent paper. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zingarese cleared the copyvio, relief. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I've rewritten it completely with references and made a note of the copyvio removal on Talk:Michael Seal. You'd think that COI editors would realise how silly the subject looks when the article consists of tripe like that. But, alas, they never do. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas G Orphanides[edit]

Hi -

An article I wrote, Andreas G Orphanides was flagged back in October 13 as possible copyvio. It appears that a couple of things happened - first, the article subject copied elements of the article into his own CV (which I guess is flattering for me), and, second, an anonymous IP that I assume was his also edited the article without understanding copyright. It was a bit of a mess, but I believe is now fully straightened out. On Oct 16th I left comments on the article talkpage suggesting the minor rewrites that would be needed to sort out any remaining issues. Would you please be willing to take a look and remove the copyvio notice if you agree that this is sorted? I contacted the original admin but in nearly 3 months have not had a response. Vizjim (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vizjim. I've had a preliminary look at the article. Indeed, what a mess the history is! It's difficult to sort out. A quick question... have any of the IP edits been you editing while logged out, e.g 82.116.202.56, or are all the IP edits by someone else? Another quick question... Is this the page where you think parts of your version were copied to? The Wayback Machine indicates that your version predated that one [22], although we can't be sure that it did not exist previous to October 2017 when the Wayback Machine first crawled the page. Rather than trying to sort this out piecemeal from such a complicated history one possibility is that I rewrite the biographical material in a greatly reduced version, remove the blanking template, and request revision deletion for all the prior versions after this version. It could then be re-expanded taking particular care that any new material bears no resemblance to existing web pages. Pinging Justlettersandnumbers for input. Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, VdT! I'd be just delighted if you'd take on this one – which like many others is well overdue for attention. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okey Dokey. I'll get to this later today or first thing tomorrow. Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your hard work on this. Vizjim (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Vizjim.

Voceditenore (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright help[edit]

Hi, I found you listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks. I've been trying to fix a copyright issue at Discovery Institute and am wondering if you could assist me. There is a copyright notice on the page, and there was indeed plagiarized text on the page. I made an effort to fix it. I'm not sure what the next step is, as the notice says "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." I have reached out several times to the administrator who originally placed the notice but haven't heard back. Thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that was me, I apologise – unfortunately I have this thing called life that I occasionally have to pay some attention to. Marquardtika, I should have told you sooner: the edits you have made have not resolved the problem, as you can easily see by using the tool I showed you. To be useable, a rewrite should (a) not incorporate any material added by FeloniousMonk and (b) be on the appropriate rewrite page, as I've already explained on the talk-page of the article. Hi, VdT! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I could "easily see," I wouldn't be asking 🤦 Marquardtika (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marquardtika. I've left some advice/explanation at Talk:Discovery Institute in the section titled Suggestion for way forward. I thought it was more appropriate there as it may be of interest to more than one editor. If you have any further questions about the rewrite, it's better to post them there. I have the page on watch now, so can respond fairly quickly. Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Voceditenore! That's a very helpful explanation. I'll reply further on talk. I appreciate your guidance! Marquardtika (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opera portal[edit]

If you want, File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg and File:Le comte Ory - Dubois & chez Martinet - Final scene.jpg are now featured, both here and on Commons. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs} 21:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, Adam! I'll get cracking on that later today. Thanks so much. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just noticed: Try to remove the Rosabel Morrison Carmen image that's in the rotation. It turns out that's for a no-singing adaptation of the underlying plot. Probably easiest to replace. Joséphine Fodor looks like she'll be passing soon, and I have a Gilette de Narbonne image and a William Tell done, but am kind of waiting for the slump to end. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs} 15:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Chaperon[edit]

I know it's in flux, but I do wish you hadn't removed the Huguenots image right after I nominated it, listing its presence in Chaperon. Ah, well, it happens, and the gallery does look very good. Do think that one it's worth considering for there, though, just because he has a number of that sort of ceiling effect in his ouevre.

Oh, also, I updated the Oberon image for full resolution. I think you may have tweaked the colours? I wouldn't, though, the BnF is usually pretty accurate, and it clearly uses white paint, which often indicates buff-coloured paper. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. Thanks so much for the better image of Oberon. I feel that one is a much more interesting image than the gloomy Huguenots one, especially with that bulky framing which greatly reduces the visibility of the actual stage set. However, I don't think we should choose the images in an article purely on the basis of an ongoing FA nomination process, especially since the Huguenots image is linked in that opera's article. I've also added the Haydée FA to Portal:Opera/Selected picture/92 and replaced the Carmen poster at Portal:Opera/Selected picture/6 with the Comte Ory image, as you suggested above. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably right. Do kind of wish we used the Oberon image in, well, the Oberon article, though.

As for the image: Do you know {{CSS image crop}}? It's a little awkward to get used to, but very powerful. That's why I try to avoid too-tight crops where possible (the Rigoletto image, where it was obviously pasted into a frame then tore out again is one thing; but consider the situation where you want to fit an image onto, say, a postcard. If it's super-tightly cropped, there's nothing you can cut to get the aspect ratio except the image itself. If you have some paper, though, you can make it look nice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 15:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea about the Oberon article. I've added the image there as well and removed this one, a dreary sheet music cover with a very tangential connecton. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I mean, sometimes it can be useful to show that a song entered the popular repetoire... but that image. Better to just talk about it if it's useful enough. Think anything else on Gallica is worth it? I think only https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7001133x.r=oberon?rk=150215;2 is sufficiently well-documented, though, especially as the last image on that page indicates a second Oberon... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 17:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Portal[edit]

I'm afraid there may be a.. few new things for the opera portal's FP section.

Joséphine Fodor
Gillette de Narbonne
Les Huguenots Act I
Costume designs for Les Huguenots featuring Julie Dorus-Gras, Adolphe Nourrit, and Cornélie Falcon
Rossini and King George IV
The Barber of Seville
William Tell costume designs featuring Laure Cinti-Damoreau, Adolphe Nourrit, and Nicolas Levasseur

And La Esmeralda has one up for voting. Thought ye'd like to know. I've done the initial setup for all of them to cut down on the workload.

Little bit of strategic planning, but the Rossini and King George IV one might not be a bad way to get an extra main page spot (as part of WP:POTD for Rossini in particular, as opposed to his works. @Tim riley and Smerus:: What d'ye think would be a good date to grab for it? 29 Feb 2020?? Or is the article planned for then? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks so much for the set up, Adam, and even more for the beautiful pictures! You're really on a roll

. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I actually have a few more coming up: La Esmeralda and Fervaal, are stuck at four votes, as en-wiki FPC tends to do for a while, and Cavalliera Rusticana has one of the two images done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operal portal[edit]

Do you prefer to do new FPs in batches or as they come? Nothing's passed... yet... but, FPC is pretty predictable, so I cam fairly safely say there's two in the next couple days, and four within the week. I'm happy to do the summaries, but I was kind of of the impression you liked to try to keep some consistency between them. But I'm happy to do them if you don't mind. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 11:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just to note, I've set them up; I haven't written the descriptions because... well, frankly, you do such a good job at it that I didn't want to do them without permission. Do note the Cavalliera Rusticana images haven't technically passed yet, but it's universally supported and over the quorum so there's little chance of it not doing so; but you may want to wait a day and a half for it to be closed if that's a problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 14:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. I haven't been able to get to these yet and I'm off to the US for almost a month. Could you go ahead and do the descriptions? I can always nip in and tweak them later. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need to sit down and force out a couple short descriptions of Cavalliera Rusticana, have done the rest. Well, except Carmen has passed now, and I haven't done that, and I have two operatic sopranos (Lucy Arbell and Célestine Galli-Marié) in the FP pipeline, but who's counting, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 05:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]