User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 26

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...

When you come back...
Hi Voce. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on  Wikipedia for a long  time to  come. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. A very happy new year to you too! I'm back on January 8th. I have a wonderful but neglected baritone (or two) to write about. Hee Hee. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Manorbornlife
The user seems to be trying to get in touch with you. Could you take a look please? - NQ (talk)  15:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi NQ. Thanks for letting me know. Quite mystifying but the person sounds very distressed. Without the name of the article, there's not much we can do, and I can't recall any article that fits this description that I've edited recently. Anyhow I left a message on their talk page and also suggested they contact OTRS volunteers if they're worried about revealing the name of the article on-wiki. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was about to leave a message on their talk, but thought you might have a better understanding of what they were referring to. - NQ (talk)  04:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rose-Baley Party
Thanks for your guidance and suggestions. Are you willing to monitor my progress at the article as I rectify the issues there? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there is a greater than zero probability that the editor who keeps adding misguided and unhelpful comments at the RBP talk page is a sock-troll that is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rationalobserver. Re the monitoring, I'll keep an eye on it, but I haven't the time for any detailed stuff. I'm "looking after" a load of music conservatory students who are in the process of taking their first steps on Wikipedia, I see that I JethroBT has said he'll be looking at the prose issues in more detail over the next couple of days, which is great. I'm pretty much finished with the talk page discussion for now. My main concern was to dispel some of the serious misconceptions being bandied around about the Bayley book, and to suggest some other directly relevant sources which you could use to round out the narrative and vary the perspective.


 * Re the other stuff, my advice is to strictly avoid speculating about the motivations of other editors. It never ends well. If their suggestions are useful for improving an article, take them up. If not, ignore them. I think both you and the editor in question got off to a shaky start here because both of you had dived almost immediately into meta-issues and discussions, some of which were interpersonal minefields. In fact, I'd advise both of you to stick solely to content creation for at least a year. Voceditenore (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Will you please make a comment there regarding the current state of paraphrasing and attribution, as I've made several improvements in that regard directly related to your suggestions, and it would be helpful to get some input from you there that addresses the initial concerns? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're interested and not too busy, I've opened Peer review/Rose-Baley Party/archive1. It would be great to get some feedback on the current state of prose and paraphrasing. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, Just To Be Clear...
I found out on ESCKAZ.com that Mary-Jean O'Doherty was born in April of 1982. In other words, please stop changing her birth date to February of 1989, okay?

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)RebeccaTheAwesomeXD
 * No, I'm afraid it's not OK. I have left you a lengthy explanation at your talk page and further comment at Talk:Mary-Jean O'Doherty. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
I'm not convinced this article should even exist. It starts with a statement about the commission's function which only mentions part of its role, it's got a minor controversy that doesn't seem to belong, it lists too many officers, and doesn't even show notability. I guess we could stub it. Any suggetions? Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug. I was just concerned to get the copyvio out. But I agree with you about the article. Its notability is pretty marginal. I think stubbing for now to the bare facts, and removing all the names apart would be the way to go. Ditto the image of the chairman. I may have to open a CCI for the creator, User:Donyi Taga, if they've created any more articles. See also this incident yesterday involving one of his socks. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. And rev/deleted the copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Polish School (music)
Isn't that a draft you could either accept as a stub or decline in a very few minutes? Use, or use directly in the draft. Best, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sam. I've accepted it as a stub—manually. (I've never been able to get that stupid script to work, and in any case, I prefer a more personal touch when accepting articles.) Anyhow, it's slightly more than what is already in one small part of Music of Poland, and can easily be expanded. It's clearly is a topic worthy of a stand alone article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, I knew it was one for you. Enjoy your day, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Rose–Baley Party 2
An editor has restored the copyvio tag at RBP. I thought this was the wrong tag in the first place. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Commented at Talk:Rose–Baley Party. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Steven Gerber
Hi. Are you sure that Steven R Gerber passed away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.227.188.166 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Hi back, 41.227.188.166. I have no idea if he has passed away. There was nothing in the news about it or on his official site yesterday. That is why I reverted the editors who were adding to the article that he has died on 28 May. They provided no references whatsoever. Reporting someone's death without published proof must never be done here. Voceditenore (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update. I checked his official website this morning, and his death has now been announced there. I have amended the article accordingly. Voceditenore (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Query
Thank you for your post on my StudentQuery talk page. I was blocked as a sock puppet of DMRRT, which I am not. I am not trying to badger, I am trying to ask questions, but the section of the deleted article is closed and says not to type there. There doesn't seem to be a board where you can discuss things like this – at least I can’t find it. And I cannot type on my own original talk page. I honestly feel like what’s the point?

But trying to do my due diligence. I went to the library this morning and found many newspaper and magazine articles about her. I think it would be easy to justify an article. I also pulled the original articles about the Bird Award. There are 4 about it in different magazines. Apparently, she is a winner of the Bird Award, not the Bird Lifetime Achievement award. Medscape got that wrong in their bio of her and it appears to have been carried over by others. Not sure I can attach a picture here of one of the original articles showing that? I checked her website and she has it right. Her website says” She is the 1996 recipient of the Bird Award given at the American Association of Respiratory Care Annual Conference for her extensive writing in Pulmonary Medicine.”

So, this is interesting, this is a case of the author’s website being right and the third party source being wrong. And as for her self-published book, it doesn't mention it at all. It says: “Margaret Varnell Clark is an award-winning writer and editor. She has been a field correspondent for Advance for Respiratory Care News Magazines since 1990. She has also worked with Reuters Health and PBS television and is the author of Inspiration: Your Guide to Better Breathing; The Louisiana Irish; and Asthma: A Clinicians’ Guide.” That’s it! Not very promotional.

Tulane has a lot of information about her, but it is in their archive and not indexed. It is just in vertical files. What would you do with that? I had no intention of writing an entry about her when I started this. I am finding though, that there is so much more to this author. She wrote a play that was performed from February - September 2002 in New Orleans and then in other parts of the state as a one off. But she doesn't publicize that. There are a couple of newspaper articles about it. The list of television shows is extensive too, but there were only 4 in the article DMRRT wrote. And again she doesn't publicize that. According to some sources she was also the editor of a journal called Impressions for the International Edgar Degas Foundation, now defunct. And there are references to writing for some kind of television work in Canada? The articles just say things like, currently working on a television show in Montreal, etc.

So what would be the best thing to do now? I read that you are away. Have a great trip. StQuery2 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And thank you.StQuery2 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not create a second account to evade your block. An administrator has left instructions on your talk page on how to ask for your original account (User:StudentQuery) to be unblocked. If you are unblocked, I will continue the conversation on the talk page of your original account. However, from what you have written here, I very much doubt it will be fruitful as you do not appear to have read or understood even the first paragraph of what I wrote there. Voceditenore (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

From Conceptual Aesthetics
Dear Voceditenore, Thank you so much for your time and I will contact Audrey and let her know the article is now up. Take care and please let me know if there is something I can do for you. Mary L. Conceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Conceptual-Aesthetics
 * Replied at your talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you again for your help previously. I have just saved some edits to the Audrey Capel Doray article. Can you please let me know what changes I need to make, assuming I need to make some? Conceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Conceptual-Aesthetics April 21, 2015
 * Replied on your talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As of today's date April 27, 2015 I have uploaded what I can to my neophyte article about Audrey Capel Doray. This includes one image, which I understand may be deleted. Because she is a visual artist I feel that she needs a gallery of her work added to the article. The article also needs to be edited, with her input, for errors and also for further Wikipedia errors I have made. I am not able to continue with this project at the moment and ask if you are willing to assist her with the article directly? I know that she appreciates the work we've done so far. If you agree I can give you her email address. Conceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Conceptual AestheticsConceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Will answer on your talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your response on my talk page, etc. My image of Audrey has disappeared as predicted but meanwhile it looks like the copyright permission email sent to permissions at Wikipedia is still in transit? I have added the image again with a caption this time but am not sure if this is correct. I also received notice of a missing ISBN--but the book was published before ISBNs were created. Finally, yes, I will discuss the gallery copyright complications with Audrey next week. Best Conceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Conceptual AestheticsConceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Conceptual-Aesthetics
Help! I lost two hours of edits to Audrey Capel Doray today! I did not save page thinking I wanted to add more and then without thinking closed Safari. Can I get my edits back? Conceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Conceptual-AestheticsConceptual-Aesthetics (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive communications. I am a complete neophyte to Wikipedia and so would simply like to thank you for you help up until now. Best Wishes. 50.92.141.27 (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Conceptual-Aesthetics


 * Hi Conceptual-Aesthetics. I've combined these two messages under one heading. You don't need to start a new section for each comment if they are related. Just go to the section with your previous comment, click "edit" beside the section title, and add it there. Anyhow, I'm really sorry to hear about the loss of your edits. It's happened to me a couple of times as well and I know how frustrating it can be. Unfortunately, there's no way to get them back if you've closed the browser without saving. I'll leave more about the Audrey Capel Doray article on your talk page later today or tomorrow. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Cat:" in table style recordings
Hi Voceditenore -

In looking at recordings of Norma I wondered at the superfluous use of "Cat:", and found that another user had attempted to remove these unnecessary indications, only to be reverted by Viva-Verdi. Whence I found, per his note, at the project recording styles page that "Cat:" is not used for "short style" but only for "table style". Since this doesn't make any sense to me, I wonder if you might be able point me to the project discussion(s) where this seemingly strange distinction was decided. Thanks in advance for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother to leave this question at the styles talkpage because it appears to be only very rarely looked at, and I knew you are an active participant in opera articles. And contrariwise, the project talkpage has multiple gazillions of entries, so I was hoping you might remember roughly when this was discussed and settled. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Milkunderwood. I didn't have anything to do with writing those particular style and format guidelines. They seem to have been largely written by Viva-Verdi (who passed away recently). I think the closest we had to a project discussion on this issue is here (2010) and a much earlier one here (2006). As you can see, none of them are conclusive on that subject. In my view the catalog numbers are superfluous, often misleading, and a maintenance nightmare. Per my comment in the 2010 discussion, the Discography/Recordings sections shouldn't be shopping guides and should list the format/label of the first edition recording only with possibly a note re the principle CD reissue if it was originally released as an LP.


 * The Norma discography is a particularly egregious example of what goes wrong with these recordings lists. That 1937 live recording with Cigna and Stignani is listed with the pirate label "Premiere Opera Ltd.", when it has been released on CD multiple times under multiple labels and far earlier than the Premiere Opera one, e.g Nuova Era (1990), and in fact it was released even earlier as a three LP set on the Cetra label in the 1950s. One thing the Opera Project does agree on is that Premiere Opera and their ilk have no place in discographies. See WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines and this discussion and its links.


 * So I'd say to use your judgement and common sense. I'm going to be away from tomorrow through Sunday. But if you run into trouble or want to have a wider discussion on the project talk page, I'll be happy to start one. Despite the large number of topics there, new ones are very rarely ignored. Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate your finding those two references, neither of which seem to make any such distinction. I'll try posting this over at the project talkpage. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now posted there - please see. And thanks again for your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Shocking!
There's no article for André Previn's song cycle Honey and Rue! I might give this a go at some point. What do you reckon? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it, FoCuS! Famous composer, texts by famous poet, premiered by famous singer. What's not to like? SMirC-smile.svg Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just finished it! What do you think? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Google books
Thanks for those edits to the Greenlandic film. Quick trick, you can quickly draw up google books refs using this :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :). Actually, I find it faster to use my method, believe it or not. I use it so much it's second nature and besides I'm an elderly canine. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Opera
I went ahead and added Un ballo. You may want to tweak my text, which is done while kind of ill. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam. Thanks for adding it. It was on my "to do" list yesterday, but I got distracted. I've now given it a few tweaks. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Arrowsmith School
So far I like most of your contributions to the article and how you added more detail to the methodology. I also saw the template there. What I'll do is wait for you to finish editing over the next few days and then review your work before bringing up any issues. So far it seems 95% neutral.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Taeyebaar, these sorts of comments belong on Talk:Arrowsmith School. One of the main reasons that the article was such an appalling mess, was that instead of discussing changes, improvements, etc. with your fellow editors, you simply reverted virtually every change by every editor with no talk page discussion whatsoever. Instead, you left notes all over other editors' individual talk pages, making any coherent discussion impossible. That has to change. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Arrowsmith School
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Arrowsmith School. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC
Hi Voce. AfC is something where you and I despite collaborating well for years may have opposing opinions. I and some other admins and users, including have maintained for a long time that AfC is not actually doing a very good job at all. In fact it creates more heat than light and a lot of confusion. It also is the venue for one or two editors whose main objectives are to demonstrate their strength through rivalry of developing scripts. AfC has been the source of a lot of acrimony, a great deal of dishonest reviewing, and even more simply cluess treatment of submissions. I introduced some minum criteria for reviewers which was endorsed by a majority consensus at not one,but two RfC but nobody at AfC wanted to enact what they voted for so there are still several users every week who attempt to add themselves to the list of accredited reviewers. Ironically, and even more poignant, a RfC was indeed held and a consensus retained to either merge AfC to NPP, or to create an NPP style feed and software solution for it. That consensus still stands but those of us who might have carried it through to its final development and implementation gave up on it without following it through - AfC as a project is too fractious to really collaborate as a team. And this is what may probably be missing. Best, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. I actually share your and DGG's views about the inherent problems at AfC, including the dreadful inertia. It's one of the reasons I mostly bypass it completely. I provide advice to one or two conscientious reviewers about my specialist areas, and once in a while improve drafts on obviously notable subjects myself and simply move them to article space rather than pressing the various AfC buttons. I was only telling the two participants in that section that my message was not about me arguing for its disbandment. I was hoping they would then pay attention to it rather than complacently proclaiming "Nothing to do with me, mate!" I was sorely tempted to add that their reaction indicates you had a point, but bit my metaphorical tongue instead. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And these are precisely the reasons why they won't weigh in at the ANI discussion. They are much too afraid of reawaking that spectre of disbandment and losing what appears to have become a social gathering. Note that NPP doesn't have even the vaguest tissue of a 'project' surrounding it and despite protestations, they get through a thousand new articles a day without so much as murmur. Not saying that their reviewing is any better than AfC's though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kudpung, there may be an element of that. I'm still seeing denial on the AfC talk page from some participants that the AfC process is the locus of the scamming, even if the scammers themselves aren't members. We'll see if they decide to put up the notices or as per usual do nothing, deny responsibility, and wait for it all to blow over (go underground again). If they go the latter route, I'm taking my name off the members' list. It's embarrassing, frankly. 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I might have actually missed this discussion during my year off Wikipedia, but merging AfC-NPP is a brilliant idea. It's currently like having 2 simultaneous governments; except one works fine and the other is run by a drunken, fat politician; and we all know how that turns out.
 * I mean, you could argue that AfC has its benefits, but honestly NPP is an efficient breeze compared to the latter. I also believe that paid editing is a whole different issue as opposed to a group of extorsionists. There might be thousands of them (non-extorsionists) for all we know, 99% of which we'd never find out their identities. Of course the extorsionists would target AfC, it's plain common sense; just open a new account, cause some mayhem and cash your check.
 * We should strive to disband AfC as soon as possible, cause it's dying little by little as we speak. It all comes down to Wikipedia's bureaucratic nature...decisions about decisions about decisions. AfC was the consequence of one of those decisions, and until we motivate the powers that be (Wiki bureaucrats), we won't accomplish much. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have some questions (Musiclanka)
Hi where can i place Dinesh Subasinghe's Film scores and teledrama scores,could you please help me to create a new page for that,List of Dinesh Subasinghe's tv and movie scores or a filmography,give me a suggestion & please help me to find those data,i dont have back ups for subasinghes film scores and tv scores,thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclanka (talk • contribs) 07:52, 18 June 2015‎
 * Hello, Musiclanka. The material which Dan arndt quite rightly removed from Dinesh Subasinghe discography can be found in this version of the article. You should not start a separate page for that material and you certainly don't need to use that elaborate table format which takes up excessive space and is unjustified by the relative triviality of most of the subject matter.


 * It is very unclear from that material whether it pertains to a single song or an entire sound track and whether he merely performed the music or actually composed it. And virtually none of it has adequate supporting references. It also contains very inappropriate material, e.g. work allegedly "in production" and shows that were cancelled before they were even shown or produced.


 * After weeding out all unreferenced items, trivial items, and work which has been cancelled, not broadcast, or not yet produced, put the material in simple bulletted list format—not tables—into the appropriate sections of Dinesh Subasinghe. The problem has been and continues to be that you are treating an encyclopedia as if were a free website for Dinesh Subasinghe and have attempted to plaster his name all over Wikipedia on multiple pages. The article about him is repetitious, disorganized, overly detailed, and full of puffery. It could be easily cut to half its size, and should be, before you add yet more material to it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
Barnstar archived here Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure my one (and only) comment on the Proposed decision talk page qualifies me for a barnstar, but thank you very much for your kind words, Vordrak. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

triangular-shaped building, reminiscent of a grand piano
Thanks for your work on this, lots of good stuff in there! If I had to describe the building, though, I'd go for something more "scimitar-like":  What do you think? Scarabocchio (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Scarabocchio! Well, it's sort of a piano swooning :), hence the "reminiscent". I'm just going by what the French seem to think of it. I've added a ref. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to self, this is about Opéra de Dijon. Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Voceditenore, I was very much taken with the Daliesque 'reminiscent of a swooning grand piano' and am disappointed that you were not able to find a ref for that. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sylvia Shwartz
I looked at the edit dated 20th Feb, and it was essentially the same as the Amazon review, so no copyright infringement. I'm unconvinced that it is ready for submission yet, given the generally hagiographic tone, eg She is the latest of her family to achieve international renown. followed by sections of her family's achievement (notability is not inheritable, so no real point to this), Miss Schartz instead of just the surname, "Career highlights" rather than "Career". Shall I recreate in Lisaby's sandbox?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim, I answered over at the AfC Help Desk where I suggested moving to User:Lisaby/Sylvia Schwartz (a previous redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sylvia Schwartz). It sounds like it needs a good going over for style and tone as well as referencing and I'll try to help the editor with it before they submit it again. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Inspirational!
Hi there! I was lead to your userpage via a recent edit to Annea Lockwood, and I just wanted to say I'm amazed by how many articles you've created. Thanks for all your hard work. Rl1573r (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rl1573r. Thank you so much for your kind message! Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Need your input
Hello again, Voce! Could you drop a few words here? I don't seem to have any patience left in me today. Thank you heaps! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi FoCuS! I presume it's re Draft:Nicole Crespo. It's almost supper time in jolly old London. I'll have a close look tomorrow and reply to him/her at your talk page. Having glanced at their lengthy tirade, I can see why your patience is exhausted. Hang in there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, enjoy dinner! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi FoCuS. I've left detailed and very frank advice for that editor at User talk:Nimbus10. As it was lengthy, it seemed better than cluttering up your talk page any further. Also, I'm sure she's not going to like what she hears from me and thus even more reason not to clutter up your talk page with the inevitable response. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great response, thank you. They're not going down quietly... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Hence, my second epistle just now, FoCuS, and it's a whopping 3,100 characters. But it will be the last. Once we've given all the help and explanations that we can possibly give to new editors, there has to be an endpoint. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Spoke too soon, FoCuS. Alas, I have apparently "defamed" the subject by my commentary on the inclusion criteria and the subject's failure to meet them. Never mind. I see that reaction all the time at AfD when there's a heavy personal investment present. Anyhow, I've now pointed her to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music if she wants a third opinion and explicitly taken my leave of her talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good heavens... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Violinist
Comments from Nimbus10 moved to User talk:Nimbus10#Advice on Draft:Nicole Crespo to keep the conversation in one place only. Voceditenore (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

La circassienne
Hi, voceditenore. There appears to be a slight mistranslation in the lead paragraph. "Morte d'amour" can't mean "death of love"; French for "death" is "la mort", and "death of love" would be "la mort de l'amour". "Morte d'amour", where "morte" is the feminine of the past participle of "mourir", translates as "[woman] dead of love". I'm telling you here because I don't seem to be able to follow it up, or at least I don't see it in Casaglio's Almanacco, which is where the link goes. Cheers, Awien (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Awien. Thanks so much for that! Amadeus revamped their website last year, and the links to the almanac entries all changed. Grrrr! We're trying to fix them all, but quite a few have slipped through the net. Anyhow, I've fixed the the link, and it is "Morte," and you're absolutely right about the translation. I've fixed that too. I went for "Died of Love". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome ^_^ Awien (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Callum James Greens
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've commented at the AfD which another editor has opened. Voceditenore (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

René Bazinet
I don't know how to reference this information, but his birthday is plainly listed, on his own Facebook account, as follows: https://www.facebook.com/rene.bazinet2/about and I believe it looks better as the exact date, too. Can you please change it? Also, please change the photo caption back to how I edited it, as listing his name, again, is redundant and it's more accurate the way I listed it, as the photo wasn't taken during a workshop session. It was taken at the Studio Bizz workshop facilities, while -No- workshop was in progress. I believe it looks better the way I listed it, too. It would be the respectful thing to do, as well, considering it's the caption to my picture. I didn't change any of your lovely article, out of respect for your work and I'd appreciate you doing the same for me. Thank you, again, for composing such a very nice article. Blythe Spirit (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Blythe Spirit. I have changed "during" to "at". However, the standard style for the infobox caption is to state the subject's name and in the style I used. The word "photographed" is even more redundant since it is obviously a photograph, and we never separate words with hyphens as you had done. The fact that you took the photograph is irrelevant, as is the fact that I wrote most of the article. Editorial decisions are made with reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It has nothing to do with "respect". It's about complying with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. As for the date of birth, that is a content issue and should be discussed on the article's talk page. Please see my comment at Talk:René Bazinet, and comment there if you wish. Voceditenore (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you have some sort of personal vendetta, which you're now playing out against my making -any- edits to your work. This is unfortunate and it makes no sense. I have given you praise and thanked you for the lovely work you've done on Mr. Bazinet's page, as a direct result of my picture Deletion Request, and was only endeavoring to make the area - beneath my picture of him - appear accurate. His DOB is substantiated on both his own Facebook page, which is 'publicly' accessible and also on the IMDb site, which is used as a reference for his article, here. There should be no problem including it beneath his picture. Besides which, surely you can see that it looks strange and unprofessional the way it stands. Moreover, I do not see the relevance of discussing the -personal- problem(s) you appear to have, with me, on the article's talk page.Blythe Spirit (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a personal issue. Your comments to that effect are both unconstructive and unwarranted. I do not have "personal problems" with you. I consider your edits inappropriate per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As I said before, and as you have been told elsewhere by at least one other editor, please take this discussion to Talk:René Bazinet where it belongs—minus the personalised commentary. I will not discuss it any further here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Golden Rule
Hello! I am new to this forum, however I wanted to say I admire the way you dealt with such an unpleasant circumstance concerning the "onslaught" you were subjected to concerning your edits of Rene Bazinet's page. It just so happens that I "know" the identity of the "person" who gave you trouble; suffice to say that "she" DOES NOT have a relationship with RB, DOES NOT speak for RB, nor does she have RB's "ear" or approval for anything concerning his page (with the exception that she did indeed take the photographs that were in dispute). She is misleading everyone here, giving the impression she "knows all" and has the inside track concerning RB... I assure you (as one who knows RB personally), she does not....

Thank you for your time Voceditenore. Parenchyma18 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, Parenchyma18. Your assessment of the situation is pretty much what I had also assumed. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The best to you as well....Parenchyma18 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Gossip Mongering Allowed on Wikipedia?
To clarify things, Voceditenore, the person who is spreading this gossip does not have an intimate relationship with René Bazinet. She is simply a fan, who has recently begun to develop an acquaintance with him. Conversely, René and I spent a significant amount time together, throughout the years, but ultimately had a falling out over very personal issues, which are really no one’s business other than ours. Talking about them is not suitable in a public forum, such as this.

Parenchyma18 is guilty of a falsehood by stating that I do not know René personally. In point of fact I know him far more personally than she. Suffice it to say, he is extremely unhappy about how our relationship ended and is still quite bitter about it. Therefore, I have prevailed upon the help of another person to try and get through to René, for me, in regard to the matter of his birthday, which he is apparently unwilling to change on the FB page, due to not knowing how.

It is unfair and inequitable to talk about me behind my back and I consider it quite offensive, too. I’m only going to mention this once and not attempt to defend myself against any future messages between the two of you. Please understand, however, that if Parenchyma18 really believed in "The Golden Rule" she would not be posting gossip about private matters, which are none of her affair and that don’t concern her, in the least. Moreover, I don't believe Wikipedia should allow it anywhere in its venue. Blythe Spirit (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Utterly incorrect, Blythe Spirit....
 * You presume I "gossip", when in fact I merely point out to others who are unaware of your history, that you pass yourself off as Mr. Bazinet's "spokeswoman". Gossip is when one talks behind one's back to others... this is an open forum, no hiding behind curtains here...
 * I am neither a "fan" or "acquaintance" of Mr. Bazinet - I have a friendship that long pre-dates your supposed "significant time". The fact that I know your identity does not equate to you knowing mine... a Chester Cat never reveals his true identity... nor did I reveal yours. You make personal, rude and disparaging remarks to others but have the audacity to lecture about impropriety? You opened the door, I merely closed it.
 * One should suggest you retire your personal qualms with (it seems) several of the Users here on Wikipedia, the appearance of such is very unbecoming. Parenchyma18 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What pray tell is a "Chester Cat?" When did you meet René -- was it pre 2002?  I think not.  You are who I think you are, too, and you just met him last year.  Furthermore, you have not had a romantic or any other such personal involvement with him.  I have had a personal relationship, which I do not mean to sound boastful about, because I actually regret it.  My identity is on my pictures and I have not passed myself off as anyone's "spokeswoman."  That's your misconception and if anyone else got that impression, that's their misconception, too.  Please stop posing as an authority, on René Bazinet, while putting me down and as previously mentioned, telling falsehoods - about me - as neither is at all in keeping with "The Golden Rule." Blythe Spirit (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Blythe Spirit, I could not care less about whatever relationship you claim to have with the article's subject, although I do have my doubts about some your claims. You have repeatedly said outright or implied strongly that he has been in direct communication with you about the article and the photographs, e.g.,
 * "I deleted my article and the pictures, because Mr. Bazinet did not want it on Wikipedia".
 * And...
 * " Mr. Bazinet and I are embarrassed to have the images of him representing such a collection of inferior, inaccurate, text"
 * Most recently you wrote:
 * "I know and have been associated with Mr. Bazinet, starting in 2002, which the photos I supplied - to supplement my initial article, on him, and one of which still adorns his page - prove. Therefore, I can personally confirm his date of birth."
 * It does not prove a thing about his date of birth nor the veracity of your claims to an ongoing relationship since 2002, nor your claim that you are relaying his express wishes in your comments about the article. More importantly, it has no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia's policies which are the only ones which will inform article content. All of this has been explained to you numerous times. Nor do I care about whatever relationship Parenchyma18 may have with him, let alone who he or she "really is". That is why I closed the discussion at Talk:René Bazinet before you say something you'll regret. Both of you should now drop the stick. The only person who matters is René Bazinet himself. As I pointed out at Talk:René Bazinet, he has avenues where he can express concerns about both the article and the talk page comments by you and others, if he has any. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Voceditenore, my apologies. Thank you for your input and advice, this subject is of no further interest to me, and I shall refrain from any further discussion concerning this matter. Parenchyma18 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Oh, BTW, I meant "Cheshire Cat"... autocorrect substituted the wrong word... technology trying to out-think one!Parenchyma18 (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha Parenchyma18, that's nothing compared to a student I had who submitted an essay on Jean Piaget and allowed her autocorrect to change his name repeatedly to "Jean Piglet". SMirC-crazy.svg But it got worse—she also let the autocorrect change her own name at the top of the paper. Anyhow, if you ever decide to turn your hand to article writing and need some help, just give me shout. Despite the occasional kerfuffles and shenanigans, it's actually a lot of fun especially if you stick to long-dead people, like this lady and this chap, and recherché 19th century shows like this one. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore, I may explore the options I have before me to contribute something worthwhile in the future! I am a "Babe in the Woods" here, so to speak, but quite a few subjects interest me (The Civil War, French literature and History..), so I will definitely seek your guidance and assistance in the future! Most gracious offer, thank you again!Parenchyma18 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All the passages you quoted are true, Voceditenore. Although I may not have been in direct contact, with René for quite some time, that doesn't mean I didn't have help from others, who conveyed his thoughts to me.  During the 'Deletion Request' process adding all that would have been too convoluted and I didn't see the need to.  Additionally, my five (5) hours of taped interview, with René, in 2002 when the photo shoot took place, include his date of birth.  You are of course free to believe whatever you like.  People generally do.  I know the truth and that's all that matters.  I still believe that you and Parenchyma18 are missing the most pertinent point, here.  If Parenchyma18 actually knows him and wants to do something significant for René, instead of just spreading rumors and putting me down, why doesn't she persuade him to change his FB birthday info to make it accessible to the Public rather than Friends of Friends? It's something I haven't been able to successfully do through proxy. Blythe Spirit (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Better yet, Voceditenore, since both of you apparently have no respect for me, whatsoever, and Parenchyma18 claims to have known René “personally” for “decades” she must have some very nice pictures of him that could be uploaded to Wikimedia to take the place of mine. That would solve my whole objection to the incomplete, unprofessional looking -year of birth- caption, beneath my current image that I've been so persistent about.  I really would like nothing better than to delete that image, along with my other two, from Wikimedia and not be concerned with how they're used, any longer.  If you’d just do me that courtesy, Voceditenore, I guarantee everyone would be much happier, including René, himself.  Unfortunately, Parenchyma18 is ignoring both valid suggestions, which I've also added to her talk page, about persuading René to change his FB birthday info to make it accessible to the Public and/or uploading a pic or two, to display on his page.  If Parenchyma18 actually has at least one good picture of René that she’s collected over the decades and I can’t see why she wouldn’t, it would be the perfect solution don't you think?  My pics are nearly 13 years old so she should have some more current ones, in fact. Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Blythe Spirit, you have repeated your views and unpleasant, personalised commentary multiple times, in multiple places, to multiple editors who have all told you the same thing, , , , . For the last time, please drop the stick. It's not going to happen. Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Any so-called "unpleasant, personalized" commentary you are referring to was in direct response to those who were downright insulting to me, as I endeavored to stand up for myself. In every instance I simply told it like it was and always comported myself in a civilized manner, which is more than I can say for some of the members, such as this perfect example - of the following, from the 'Deletion Request' page. "No valid rationale for deletion, nothing particularly inappropriate about the images and the insistence on removal is apparently the result of spite over control of the contents of the en.wp article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC) ---  (my response) Now, FreerangeFrog your statement is just plain false and offensive. It's rather mean-spirited and petty, too. Don't any of you realize how you've all ganged up on me and this discussion has degenerated into a bullying session? Please reconsider your premises, here, and treat me with some respect.  ---  FreeRangeFrog didn't even understand that the issue had nothing to do with images being inappropriate.  He like many of the members, who commented, didn't read through the posts or comprehend the issue. Blythe Spirit (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

All I'm After is Truth and Justice
I guess you may never 'get it' Voceditenore. Well, if that doesn’t beat all, both of you have conveniently chosen to shine me on when I come up with perfectly viable solutions that would also provide Parenchyma18 with a chance to prove that she actually knows René personally and for decades no less. That says it all, as far as I’m concerned and anyone else who wants to see the truth will agree. All Parenchyma18 was interested in doing is dressing me down and showing me up as some sort of charlatan, when it is she who is the poser and thinks she has cleverly hoodwinked, you, Voceditenore. Where is the justice in that? In all fairness, I've always suspected, you’ve had a personal vendetta against me ever since the ‘Deletion Request’ process where you first unkindly challenged my reading impediment and took umbrage at my reference to your ego. So, it wasn’t difficult for someone who spouted depreciating reproaches, about me, to get you to believe them.

The trouble is Parenchyma18 isn’t very clever, at all, and anyone who wants to can clearly see through her subterfuges. By simply being content with the mudslinging she aimed at me and ignoring my constructive suggestions, she has proven everything she claims about herself is untrue. No one who actually knows René personally, for decades, and obviously loathes me would want my picture representing him if they had a nice one, of their own, to display on his page. And if they did know him well, for that long a period, why wouldn’t they have such a picture or more than one, in fact? At the very least they would want to see his accurate and correct birthday listed and would make a concerted effort to see it recorded in the info box, too.

It’s a clear-cut case of someone who got her kicks by lambasting me. By twisting the facts, accusing me of rudeness, and of not knowing someone I spent a significant amount of time with, Parenchyma18 was the one who was rude, not I. By asserting that I’ve been deceptive, while she hid and gossiped, where I could only find her due to a hunch that she’d be bending your ear, Voceditenore, with her disparaging rhetoric, is a typical ruse. I put it to you that if Parenchyma18 cannot produce one single picture of René worthy of exemplifying him on his page, here, or is not interested in seeing his complete birth date listed, she is not a good friend of his, but only a fan and superficial acquaintance, who stooped to common muckraking in order to get some undeserved attention. I’ve effectively explained my standpoints and reasoning, for anyone who cares enough to read and grasp the logic behind them. On the other hand, Parenchyma18 cannot hide from the truth behind any more artifices……… Blythe Spirit (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want truth and justice, you're definitely in the wrong place. The priority of Wikipedia is verifiabilty, not truth, and that's not going to change. So continue to rail against the inequities of this site. I won't make any difference, but if it makes you feel good... Oh, it'll probably get you blocked eventually. So, you know, good luck and stuff. Cheers. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and btw, if you want to change the article, you should continue the discussion on the article subject's talk page, not here. It would be more productive. Marginally. Thanks. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 19:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for what I take as your vote of confidence, Ebyabe. I'll take it back to the René Bazinet page, if you think that's what I should do. This has been a very frustrating and unpleasant experience, for me. Blythe Spirit (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar
Barnstar re this archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words, Fdssdf. It appears that all's well that ends well there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you
Barnstar re this archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Woodlot. That's very kind of you! I quite enjoyed writing it, an activity infinitely more pleasant than "listening" to the verbal onslaught over there which had reached truly operatic proportions. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Query on Gordon Music Learning Theory
Hello! I left a question on Talk:Gordon_Music_Learning_Theory regarding the name change (regarding omitting the word 'Gordon' if you could throw in your thoughts. Thanks! FreelanceLlamaHerder (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks very much for assisting / editing the page for John Matisonn.

I would be grateful if I could work with you for future additions I make to the page to ensure it is of the quality Wikipedia requires. Kind regards, Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugar Activism (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Sugar Activism. Voceditenore (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Opera portal
A thought: We currently have 19 featured articles on operas and theatres/companies in our project's remit (plus another 13 on composers). I believe that doesn't include the Gilbert and Sullivan and Wagner; Wagner gets us one general article and two biographies (Category:FA-Class_Richard_Wagner_articles) and - ignoring Creatures of Impulse, which isn't really an opera - Category:FA-Class Gilbert and Sullivan articles gives us three operas and a biography.

We could also use Category:FL-Class_Opera_articles and Category:FL-Class_Richard_Wagner_articles selectively

Should we just switch to fully featured? It'd mean losing some good articles, but it wouldn't be that big of a switch. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam. I see you've been busy with the FPs for the portal. Thanks! I'm not sure what you mean by "Should we just switch to fully featured?" Do you mean using only FA/FLs in the portal? I'm not in favour of that. I think it's important to present a wide variety of stuff, frankly. The goal is to interest people in the subject and show them what's out there. I think we should keep the GAs and the selected B class articles. There's no upper limit on the number of articles in rotation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Just an idea. I suppose that some day, when we have a good variety of FAs and FLs, then it'd be worth reconsidering, but, for the moment, we'd get a very biased sample. Speaking of which, Aida will be very well represented, but I'm trying my best to make sure each description takes a different tack. It comes down to one simple thing: Aida was such a mess image-wise that someone needed to fix it up, and I did - and I know where to find good images. If it gets too much, we could leave one or two out, or reduce the frequency they're shown (simple matter, basically, use Random portal component within, say, Portal:Opera/Selected picture/5. But I think we have enough other images that it doesn't matter that much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Lute Player (Orazio Gentileschi): attribution of Francesca Caccini as the lutenist?
For reasons I don't understand, the editor Haspajen nominated this picture for Featured Picture as a portrait of the Italian 17th lutenist and composer Francesca Caccini, editing in Wikipedia and Commons at several places as preparation. Two editors, the second myself, pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever for this attribution. Moreover, the attribution has never been suggested to my knowledge. The holding museum, the National Gallery of Art in Washington makes no mention of Caccini on their webpage and neither does any of several standard reference works I have consulted. Hafspajen's error appears to arise from the fact that CDs of Caccini's music, which is still performed today, are commonly illustrated by one of several paintings, among which Gentileschi's painting. But of course that doesn't imply she is the sitter. The attribution is, moreover, extremely implausible because the painting is an allegory in which the young lutenist is portrayed with the bodice of her kirtle loosed, the tassle dangling provocatively, suggesting matters amorous as well as musical, an ages-old alliance. Of course no sitter of the age would have allowed herself to be portrayed in this way.

For a period of some days Hafspajen declined to comment. It was only when an administrator intervened and commented that the attribution simply couldn't go forward in Wikipedia's voice as it stood, that Hafspajen made a revision. He now say the painting possibly depicts (his bolding) Caccini. The administrator is satisfied, but I demur. Hafspajen. I should be glad if you would clarify. Thank you. Ayesha23 (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Orazio Gentileschi - Il suonatore di liuto (National Gallery of Art).jpg. - Voceditenore (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Opera
I've done a few FP descriptions myself, but I'm not sure about some of them. Could you have a quick look? I also prepared the next couple, but don't put those live until they actually pass.

Note there will likely be five or six Aida FPs, so I'm trying to treat each one differently. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Gloria Davy
I have completely re-written the article on soprano Gloria Davy. Her obituaries didn't do her justice; completely leaving out her European career with major houses, and many of her achievements outside of the Met in her early career. Would you mind reading through just to make sure there aren't any typos, etc.? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 4meter4! I'll be happy to have a look. It might not be for a couple of days as I'm in the midst of expanding the ripping yarn that is the La magicienne synopsis and don't want my aged brain to lose its momentum. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! No rush. The article is not going anywhere.4meter4 (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera
Could you not archive this? I mean, I know and understand why you did, but I'm actually actively using it. The Stage 2 discussions are because it's running low on Verdi and need to replenish it, but they don't replace it. Although, if the images are getting too much, we could archive the "done" section or turn it into a link list. Feel free to archive the Stage 2 section in a week or so, though. If people don't respond by then, they're not going to. I'll make sure to move the results up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you had finished with that one. I would appreciate it, though, if you could turn it into a link list. As I've mentioned before, excessive numbers of files (and overly large individual ones) make the page long to load. Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Will sort that out later today. It's useful to have the To Do as images, as I've been using them to grab images, but we could easily lose the images in "Done", maybe just posting them as temporary additions to the page every five featured or so, or.... Hmm
 * You know what, why don't I just put the finished images onto a subpage? Then people can click through, and it won't slow loading if they don't. Done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You can archive the Aida images section. I offered people a chance to object to what I planned to  do Aida to get the images in line with good practices; and, at this point, it's nearly a month since I made the changes I proposed. At this point, if they don't like what I did, well, take it up at Talk:Aida; bit late to object to the proposal now. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I got it. Think that's got 27 images off the page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Review of new article
Hi, I've created a new article, except that this time I've achieved as much in four days as I did in six weeks. Also, I have chosen a subject for which it is much easier to prove notability. When I created the page it seemed to go immediately into article space, so I'm hoping to avoid the AfC route. Would you have time to review Northern Lights (song), please, and give me the benefit of your opinion on it? Hopefully, there aren't any silly mistakes like disambiguations this time. In particular, could you check the way I am loading the images, please? Do I need to do more to create a fair use rationale? Thankyou. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Opera/Selected picture
Hate to be a pain, but could you help with 69-72? Meant to get them all done, but it's been a bad week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, Adam. I'll try to get to it in the next two days. I'm in the process of tying up a lot of loose ends before my annual month-long sojourn in deepest, darkest, Tuscany where I pretty much take a vacation from the internet. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Caterino Mazzolà
Thanks for the extra stuff. I've been working through what Grove has to say, and there are things that I still need to deal with, hopefully tomorrow, but then I'm off to Grewelthorpe or thereabouts for a few days of folly from Tuesday, then back to York on Friday, then off to the ROH for King Roger and next (would you believe it) I've been summoned to spend a couple of weeks (11 May +) for jury service. Oh, well, it might (or might not) be interesting. Best (User talk:GuillaumeTell) 00:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:OotMProposed
Thanks for the tweak. I'm not as active on the opera project as I should be anymore, because I've moved into image work so much, so I don't know all the conventions of the page. By the way, you might be interested in User_talk:Crisco_1492 - there are quite possibly other illustrated vocal scores where those come from. By the way, if there's anything I can do to make the OotM stuff work better, let me know - I know a lot more about templating now than when I wrote it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In other news, my Verdi project in honour of Viva-Verdi will likely get us five new Verdi FPs, which should be a boon to the Opera portal - for his importance, Verdi is very underrepresented. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is brilliant,. Thanks so much! You're right about Verdi being seriously underrepresented on the portal. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bit of a snag in that the Rigoletto and I Lombardi images have four supports out of the five-vote quorum, and may thus fail to pass at this time, but I'll renominate them. My current work is on the Aida cover, which is gorgeous and difficult - I've done an initial mockup at File:Giuseppe Verdi, c. 1872 Aida vocal score cover - Restoration.jpg, and if that looks pretty damaged, don't worry: this is the original: Progress is actually quite good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Giuseppe Verdi, Lombardi alla prima crociata. Libretto, 1843 - Restoration.jpg
This is now a featured picture, and should probably get added to Portal:Opera. I'll try to do so soon if you don't. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam. Done! By the way, it's definitely the libretto for the premiere. "Carnevale 1843"=February 1843. Note also the cast list just before Act 1 in the libretto of which this is the title page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I know all of these are very early editions, but I want to be careful, as, for example, I have scores that I know full well aren't first editions that have cast lists for the originators of the various roles. I'll add that to the image description page. "Title page of an 1843 libretto of Giuseppe Verdi's I Lombardi alla prima crociata. Very early edition, possibly first edition, dating to the time of the opera's première." is good, right? There's sometimes multiple editions in the first run of something (Usually along the line of some typo fixes), so I don't want to say first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Giovanna d'Arco and the three Les Troyens images are all but certainties to pass in the next few days. Carl Nielsen should be fine as well, but there's a little controversy at the FA over documentation, I think partially because carte de visites are a little obscure nowadays, and that's how it was first published. Luckily, I spent some time fixing the images on Nielsen's works to the temporally-nearest good-quality photograph of Nielsen, which gave it a few extra usages. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, have you noticed that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera keeps getting major setbacks: I keep adding more images to the to-do list, vastly increasing the amount of time it will take to complete. ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. What's your opinion of this? File:Hector Berlioz, Béatrice et Bénédict score cover.jpg It's a first edition - I have a source for that - but it's not particularly illustrative of any scenes in the opera. That vignetting is fixable - don't worry about that, just give me your impression as to how valuable it is. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Giovanna d'Arco
File:Giuseppe_Verdi,_Giovanna_d'Arco,_Vocal_Score_-_Restoration.jpg is now a featured picture. Could you handle this one? I'm worried I'll focus too much on the thing I find most interesting - the looseness of the biographical telling - to the exclusion of things that should be included. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Les Troyens
Three images, all featured. How you want to handle this? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done :). Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks like the next two are Nielsen and La traviata, then probably Robinson Crusoé (because a user suggested I mix it up by, say, doing an illustration to Robinson Crusoe, and I'm evil), and then L'eclair which was almost done when my fiendish plan emerged. Rigoletto will be somewhere in there.
 * Any preference after that? Working on the Aida, but realised that such a good opera FP might prejudice people against the monochrome ones. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there'll probably be at least three or four Aidas. There's three images in the article I think could be featured besides the one I'm working on. Your call as to how you want to handle that at the portal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Nadine Koutcher
Thanks for tweaking the article start at Nadine Koutcher. I'm a little skeptical on your source's (De Telegraaf) placing her birth year as 1983. I looked long and hard for that, but couldn't find a source. De Telegraaf got the audience prize wrong, so it's not infallible. I suspect they just subtracted 32 from 2015, which right now only has an evens chance of being right.

Didn't know persondata has been deprecated. Thanks for that.

I'll let others expand for a while, but if I see no takers I'll expand it a bit myself. I watched the competition. Totally loved her. c1cada (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi c1cada. Re her year of birth, I'm sure the Telegraaf got it from the actual data from International Vocal Competition 's-Hertogenbosch. Voice competitions almost always list year of birth since they all have an age limit. Cardiff used to list the complete DoB, e.g., but seem to have changed to just giving age in years. See also her birth year here and on a Russian classical music radio station here. The Russian Wikipedia gives her full DoB, although I'm not comfortable with using that, primarily for privacy reasons. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah right. Much more familiar with the sources than I am (hugely more!) Thanks for that. Didn't think of checking with the Russian Wikipedia, though I can read it. Agree with you re privacy. Best. c1cada (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Les Paladins
Restored at original title. You are welcome to move it to ensemble if you prefer that, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Above is apropos this. Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Jim! I've also left a note on the talk page re the excessive quoting from the garbled English version of their website. So, all's well that ends well. It's got five incoming links too. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Museion
Hello. Thanks for your help about the copyright issues of the page I am trying to create about the Museion. Unfortunately, I don't understand how to move on. Should I use the rewritten paragraph in the original page and then submit it again? Thanks. --Lmelk (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Lmelk. Because that big template was put on the page and you've re-written the whole draft at User talk:Lmelk/Museion (Bozen)/Temp, it needs an administrator to sort out the "paperwork". I've asked Anne Delong to replace the old draft with your new version, and move the whole thing to Draft:Museion (Bozen). I've let her know that I approved the rewrite from a copyright point of view. For now, I suggest you wait until she completes the move before working on either page. It shouldn't take long. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WOW!! That was fast!! Thanks so much Anne! It's all fixed, Lmelk. You can go head and work on Draft:Museion (Bozen) now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Hello, Lmelk and Voceditenore. I have moved the new draft to Draft:Museion (Bozen) where you can continue to work on it.  I suggest adding more citations to independent sources (news reports, magazine article, books, etc.) before resubmitting, to show that this is a well-known museum.  Good luck. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help, I will improve the references --Lmelk (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

More Opera FPs

 * File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg is an FP (though Carl Nielsen is also an FA, so maybe we should just combine them?
 * File:Giuseppe Verdi, La traviata title page - Restoration.jpg is also an FP.

I'm not sure how you want to handle Nielsen. Here's my proposal: Portal:Opera/Selected article/37. I edited the article text to focus on opera more. I can get La traviata, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam, I agree the best way to handle the Nielsen picture is in the article blurb itself. However, I have removed Portal:Opera/Selected article/37 from the Portal:Opera/Selected article list. It was already on the portal as Portal:Opera/Selected biography/34. I have also removed the red links on the Selected article list. They are inappropriate. When we get another GA or FA which is an article as opposed to a biography, Selected article/37 can be recycled. Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and make a "Selected picture" page for the Traviata. Voceditenore (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. My fault. I didn't mean to double up the article, just wasn't paying enough attention to which section I was looking at. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, kind of thinking Portal:Opera/Selected picture/1 is about ready to be retired. It's the least interesting of the ones on the page. Perhaps we could switch it with something else? We have a few other G&S FPs.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps one or more of File:M. Browne - Herbert Railton - Sydney Grundy - Arthur Sullivan - Haddon Hall.jpg, File:Jules Massenet - Le Cid 3e Acte, 6e Tableau - L'Illustration.jpg, or File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 1.jpg? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Rigoletto as well, now. I really don' t have time to do the text now, but I've set them up (without increasing the count on the portal), and will finish them tonight if you don't. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, except for Rigoletto. Will do that later today. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I hadn't seen that you'd done Rigoletto. I've tightened up the wording and trimmed it slightly. Anyhow, all 4 are now added to the rotation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I kind of rushed it as I thought you had already added it to the rotation, so was doing it on a tablet, which are not very good for text editing, but I figured it better to make sure that, if it came up in rotation, it would look okay, then copyedit later.
 * In other news, L'éclair got promoted; I've set it up at Portal:Opera/Selected picture/64. Checked a libretto because I was worried about the plot summary; wasn't as bad as I thought, honestly: it's one of those relatively simple domestic comedies that centre around who marries whom. No particularly high stakes, but beautiful music and plenty of scope for the singers to charm and pull the audience in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also set up Portal:Opera/Selected picture/65. Fairly basic adaptation of the article's intro. I believe the next ones are Aida, Aida, Aida, Aida, and Aida, in roughly that order. I spent a lot of time getting really good images for Aida (the article was such a mess of images beforehand, so I tried to up it to far fewer, but better ones), and I think it's going to show at FPC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)