User talk:Voceditenore: Difference between revisions
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
::Hi Rozochka, the site you found, [[mirror (computing)|mirrors]] Wikipedia. It stores copies of all the articles here, all presented in the same [[Boston University]] frame, all saying that they incorporate material from Georgia Harkness, even when they don't. It's nothing to worry about. As you can see from the list on [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]], there are zillions of such sites. Also, Please remember to [[sign]] your comments. If you can't type 4 tildes (~), then use the bar at the top of the editing frame, explained [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures#Preferred_option here]. Best, [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore#top|talk]]) 05:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
::Hi Rozochka, the site you found, [[mirror (computing)|mirrors]] Wikipedia. It stores copies of all the articles here, all presented in the same [[Boston University]] frame, all saying that they incorporate material from Georgia Harkness, even when they don't. It's nothing to worry about. As you can see from the list on [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]], there are zillions of such sites. Also, Please remember to [[sign]] your comments. If you can't type 4 tildes (~), then use the bar at the top of the editing frame, explained [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures#Preferred_option here]. Best, [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore#top|talk]]) 05:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks a lot for your response, I understand now. As for my signs - I am sorry if it did not work out though I always tried to sign! Also, I am working now on some new facts from Azrikan's bio and will try to add them in a nearest future with the reference. Thanks for all your help, my bests - Rozochka 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC). |
::Thanks a lot for your response, I understand now. As for my signs - I am sorry if it did not work out though I always tried to sign! Also, I am working now on some new facts from Azrikan's bio and will try to add them in a nearest future with the reference. Thanks for all your help, my bests - Rozochka 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC).--Rozochka 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC). |
||
==Synopses== |
==Synopses== |
Revision as of 17:02, 7 September 2009
Be aware that the the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F001323-0008%2C_Bonn%2C_M%C3%BCnsterschule.jpg/200px-Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F001323-0008%2C_Bonn%2C_M%C3%BCnsterschule.jpg)
“ | If you leave a message here, I'll answer it here to avoid too much to-ing and fro-ing. So check back later. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I'll watch your page and reply as soon as I can. |
” |
ARCHIVES
Past topics I
Past topics II
Past topics III
Past topics IV
Past Topics V
Past Topics VI
DYKs etc.
Resolved notices
Good job on writing this! Sadly, it seems that neither student nor professor is taking any notice of what anyone on Wikipedia is telling them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, kudos. I'm mystified by the classes and professors lack of interaction too. --Bfigura (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Oi, you haven't put your email into your preferences!
Only reason I noticed is that I usually ask this privately, but anyway...fancy a shot at RFA? I would be happy to nominate you. Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oi, Moreschi, I've sent you an email so you'll have my address if you ever need it. Thanks for the offer and your confidence. But... admin-ing would take too much time away from what I really enjoy – writing articles, rescuing worthy kittens from being drowned at AfDs, and helping out on the Opera Project. The latter can provide quite enough wiki-drama as it is. ;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Plural of Azione teatrale?
Hi. I think we need a category for 'Azione teatrale'. What is the plural? I can't remember if both words have to agree . . . anyway your Italian is much better than mine. --Kleinzach 03:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. In Italian you need to pluralize both, i.e. azioni teatrali. Alternatively, you could call it something like "Azione teatrale compositions". I don't think the category should be created though, unless there is also an article explaining the term and its uses. And there are some anomalies. In the libretto of its original Vienna performance of Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice, and in the published score of 1763, it's called an azione teatrale, when it for all practical purposes it's an opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why I'm getting the Hmm, let alone a triple . . . The term seems legit., according to Oxford, for a form of opera. It appears on a number of articles. Likewise 'festa teatrale'. Sometimes these terms are explained differently in different books, but that's all the more reason to do an article and give examples. Most Anglo opera goers are completely ignorant about genres and we've made some good progress covering this on WP in a way which is more difficult in a traditional enclyclopedia. (By the way I am on record as saying there should be an explanatory article for each of the genre categories.) --Kleinzach 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "hmmm" was just me thinking aloud about pluralizing foreign terms. Somehow using the straight Italian plural doesn't sound quite right and it's not really a loan word like "adagio" which can take an English plural ending. Perhaps it would better not to pluralize it. I notice the opera seria and opera buffa categories aren't pluralized. The term is legit enough, in the sense that it appears on the original scores and libretti (librettos?) etc. The only possible problem is that some those original sources don't seem to use the term very consistently themselves. And the definition used in Orfeo ed Euridice doesn't hold up either. Not all works originally labelled "azione teatrale" have dancing in them, e.g. Il sogno di Scipione nor are all of them on mythological subjects, e.g. L'isola disabitata. Here's what Grove says:
- "Term coined by Metastasio to denote a species of Serenata that, unlike many works in this genre, contained a definite plot and envisaged some form of simple staging. The 12 works by Metastasio so described begin with Endimione (1721, Naples, set by Sarro) and end with La corona (1765, Vienna, set by Gluck); Mozart’s setting (1772) of his Il sogno di Scipione is one of the last examples of this short-lived subgenre. One of the most celebrated was L’isola disabitata (1752), first performed in Madrid with music by Bonno. Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice, to a libretto by Ranieri de’ Calzabigi (1762), was originally described as an azione teatrale."
- Then there's there's overlap (or whatever one calls it) with "festa teatrale". In the article on Le cinesi the distinction is made between them by saying that unlike "feste teatrali", "azioni teatrali" weren't meant for specific court occasions, marriages, etc. But, Il sogno di Scipione was meant for the enthronement of an Archbishop and Ascanio in Alba, was written for the marriage of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and Maria Beatrice d'Este. Yet both are described as "azione teatrali". For more on the headache, see the first page of this article [1] ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well I think this is all par for the course. I'll start the article and perhaps you'd like to add to it what you have put above. It's all interesting info. Incidentally the genre articles probably all need going over. --Kleinzach 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "hmmm" was just me thinking aloud about pluralizing foreign terms. Somehow using the straight Italian plural doesn't sound quite right and it's not really a loan word like "adagio" which can take an English plural ending. Perhaps it would better not to pluralize it. I notice the opera seria and opera buffa categories aren't pluralized. The term is legit enough, in the sense that it appears on the original scores and libretti (librettos?) etc. The only possible problem is that some those original sources don't seem to use the term very consistently themselves. And the definition used in Orfeo ed Euridice doesn't hold up either. Not all works originally labelled "azione teatrale" have dancing in them, e.g. Il sogno di Scipione nor are all of them on mythological subjects, e.g. L'isola disabitata. Here's what Grove says:
- Not sure why I'm getting the Hmm, let alone a triple . . . The term seems legit., according to Oxford, for a form of opera. It appears on a number of articles. Likewise 'festa teatrale'. Sometimes these terms are explained differently in different books, but that's all the more reason to do an article and give examples. Most Anglo opera goers are completely ignorant about genres and we've made some good progress covering this on WP in a way which is more difficult in a traditional enclyclopedia. (By the way I am on record as saying there should be an explanatory article for each of the genre categories.) --Kleinzach 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that is simply fantastic work. I've nominated it for DYK here, with a couple options, but, really, that's GA-quality work if you ask me =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks from Longy
Your reputation in Longy's 2008 Future of Classical Music class preceded you even before you made your debut yesterday. I appreciated your welcoming the new contributing students and pointing them in the right directions!Ijmusic (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks also from this Longy student. It was really exciting to see your improvements on the page I created (MLT) and witness the Wikipedia process in action! I'm now starting on my summer project which is editing the Dalcroze page. Incidentally, I recently read a fascinating article in JAMS (2002, vol.55, no.3) about Monteverdi and language for musical theater. The author, Mauro Calcagno, approaches the subject through linguistics. Seeing your interest in opera and linguistics, I wonder if you have ever come across this article.J. Schaeffer (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Assistance reviewing Italian source?
Hi. :) There is an article listed at the copyright problems board with which I am in need of assistance I'm hoping you can supply. Pauly & C. - Compagnia Venezia Murano has been tagged under suspicion of being a direct translation of the history section of this website. (See its listing here.) Direct translations are, of course, derivative works and unusable on Wikipedia. I can see enough similarities to suspect that concerns may be justified, but since I don't read Italian I can't really say how close a translation this is. If you have opportunity to weigh in on this, I'd be ever so grateful. :) If not, please let me know so I can track down another active contributor who is proficient in Italian. I also try to keep conversations in one location, so I'll be watching your talk page. Thanks for any assistance you may be able to offer, even if it's just letting me know that you don't have time atm to offer assistance. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, actually I didn't need to do too much examination, since I found the English version of the site.;-) The History section is here and the bit about the mosiacs (Abraham Lincoln etc.) is here. And yes, it's a pretty close copy. If these links don't work, go the home page and at the very bottom under Language selection click on International. By the way, this is a very famous glass company in Italy and internationally. See, for example [2]. Certainly deserving of an article, although obviously not a copy vio one. Note that article's creator is User:Habanerosrl. Habanero Srl. are the Public Relations company for Pauly & C.. Hope this helps. Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Genius! :D Thank you very much. Very helpful. I'll check the closeness of copying and address the issue with the creator. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It was a delight...
...to read this brilliant piece. And I wasn't even looking for it; I came here to thank you for backing me up on the GA issue on Egardus, since that's something that's been bugging me for a while and had to get off my chest. But your essay was spot-on. Oops, there I go again, pretending to be an adult! Need to get a bouncier, animated signature ... Antandrus (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll make you one if you promise to give me three barnstars. ;-) Seriously, though thanks for the kind review. I wrote that when WP was in the midst of an invasion by a particularly... er... time-consuming... bunch of 13 year olds. At one point there was even a WikiProject (now deleted) that was awarding them barnstars for every 1000 edits, every 50 AfD's "voted on", every 5 (hapless) editors they adopted, etc., etc.. For a while, I and a couple of other editors spent all our time running around cleaning up after them, until they lost interest and/or got blocked. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for your work in helping locate the actual source of the article, which will make it easier to clean up just the actual infringement and not the stuff that was mirrored later. This looks like it's going to be a big job. I hate the collateral damage that good articles are going to suffer during the process. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a Hercule Poirot barnstar? You deserve it x100. ;-) Actually, now that you've found the NYT obit, I see there was even more copyvio stuff until a later editor removed it (ironically) as POV. And quite naughty of the creator not to at least list the NYT article as a source. Hard to make an argument that it was inadvertant copyvio. I had a look at the long list of articles he/she created. Geesh! What a mess. Voceditenore (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- If I could utilize the accent, I'd be happy to be Poirot. :) If our new version of the ContributionSurveyor program is correct, clean-up on this is not going to be as challenging as it first seemed, since the vast majority of this editor's contributions seem to have been reverting. Keep your fingers crossed! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Amber Witch
Just wanted to tell you that I really like your work on The Amber Witch. It was my first wiki hence the problems you noted. I didn't think copy and paste from out of copyright sources are a problem since it was from an encyclopedia listed in the References. Wolf2191 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Since you're more experienced now, I probably don't need to say this, but just in case...;-) Even if the text is from a public domain source, it should still be attributed. Also, the text pasted from bellaonline was not public domain, and that's a real no-no. The last thing you want is to find yourself here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the work you did on the Peter Fraize article will wind up saving it from my AfD. Excellent work; you should be proud! — X S G 15:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. I see it has now been closed as keep. If at all possible I try to rescue articles about musicians (especially classical ones) from AfD. Having said that, I've argued for deletion in quite a few where they simply aren't "rescue-able", e.g. [3], [4], [5]. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I am dealing with inline citations right now and still struggling to understand how to make it right in order to get rid of the red question box in the middle of this article! My desperate question is: do I need to provide inline citations for every single source listed in my "bibliography/sources" listing, or it is enough to give just a few of them (two-three)? I will continue experimenting with it, and if I fail (almost sure!) I will wait for your return, so many thanks for all! User:Rozochka (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
- Dear Voceditenore, while you are away I continue writing to you as our attempts to learn inline citations are at the high point! I have done some of them and was so happy to see the red question out but I think that I have to take the cited references out of "sources". However, it is only my guess and I will wait for your return, and will follow all your instructions/advices/editing - so many thanks to you User:Rozochka (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
- Hi, I'm not leaving til tomorrow morning. ;-) Don't worry about the duplication for now, and don't take the sources out. When I get back, we can tackle making shortened footnotes. If you want to see what I'm talking about, look at how I did the referencing for Teresa Saporiti or Hjördis Schymberg. Also, if you want to use your real name, you still need to sign with your user name too so that people know how to contact you and there's a record of which user said what. That's why the robot added it. To do that just type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your message. You user name etc. will automatically appear when you click save. More about that here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, so great to hear from you, thanks. I won't take anything out and will wait for your return. I looked at both singers edited by you and recognized the format I read so much about (I printed tons of instructions how to do it, and this "shortened" was among them). Looks great, I would love to have it. Have a safe trip and we will continue upon your return. 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozochka (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am learning - thanks--14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozochka (talk • contribs)
- I have just realized what a horrible mistake I did with using my real name. I was so much involved in my article that did not pay enough attention to such an important issue. All my talk pages went public... Now I am dealing with tons of requests to several wiki bureacrats to help me to change my username AND signature. I have tried to follow instructions and requested my signature change in English wiki (I also contributed in Russian and Ukrainian) but I don't know if it works. Thanks! Rozochka
- Hello, I think I need your help! I have just found this very strange page with the reference to Wikipedia article about Arnold Azrikan - please, see http://sthweb.bu.edu/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Arnold_Azrikan&Itemid=170 My question is: what is the connection to Georgia Harkness/Wikipedia to an opera singer Azrikan?! Is this someone's mistake? (for sure, not Wiki editors!). I am looking forward to hear from you, many thanks! I have not been here for awhile but I plan to work more on Wiki starting in November - more free time. For now I am really shocked by this link...--Rozochka 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozochka (talk • contribs) --
- Hi Rozochka, the site you found, mirrors Wikipedia. It stores copies of all the articles here, all presented in the same Boston University frame, all saying that they incorporate material from Georgia Harkness, even when they don't. It's nothing to worry about. As you can see from the list on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, there are zillions of such sites. Also, Please remember to sign your comments. If you can't type 4 tildes (~), then use the bar at the top of the editing frame, explained here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your response, I understand now. As for my signs - I am sorry if it did not work out though I always tried to sign! Also, I am working now on some new facts from Azrikan's bio and will try to add them in a nearest future with the reference. Thanks for all your help, my bests - Rozochka 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC).--Rozochka 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC).
Synopses
GT referred me to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Macbeth_.28opera.29. I'm away at the moment, but I'd like to make it clear that I'm in favour of phasing out these Opera Japonica texts and replacing them with 'home-grown' ones. Putting them into the public domain never really worked. If necessary links can be provided to the Oj pages. --Kleinzach 02:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Bartered Bride uploads
Thanks for the two uploads – they are both delightful, especially the harvest festival scene. I would like to wait for the article to clear FAC before deciding where to put one or the other, or both. I am also considering whether to use the festival one on Bedrich Smetana also. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're very welcome! Scanning the programme brought back happy memories. I know it received a fair amount of criticism, but I thought the Zambello production was delightful – a lovely evening at the opera. Incidentally, the ROH synopsis explicitly mentioned that the opera opens during the harvest festival, although others don't seem to. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see you are a member of Opera Project. Without discussion a member of the project (Viva-Verdi) has unilaterally changed the section order of the Bartered Bride article because it does not conform exactly to Opera Project format guidelines. When I reverted to the order that applied when the article was nominated, he reimposed his edit with a highly aggressive, intemperate edit summary. He has now stated his case in a rather unpleasant manner on the talkpage; I have asked him to withdraw his edit as a preliminary to a proper discussion of the issue. At present he hasn't responded. In my last opera article, Agrippina, the question of article structure was raised in its peer review by Kleinzach, who agreed that each opera was different and "we don't need to be inflexible about it," which seems reasonable. I feel rather perplexed at present; if you have a moment, I would be grateful if you would visit the talkpage and perhaps leave a comment, if you feel this would be appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me to this. I had the FAC on watch, but not the article itself. I am appalled at the editor's actions and particularly appalled that they were falsely justified by reference to our guidelines. I've said so, in a somewhat more temperate way ;-), on the BB talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Sandy has promoted the article, so that's not an issue (though the blatant attempt to derail the nom, not to mention the "shouting", are somewhat disturbing). Other comments on the article's talkpage, and my own page, have reinforced my view that the chosen section order should be maintained. If Viva-Verdi can make reasoned arguments in favour of his viewpoint, I am still happy to listen. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the well-earned FA, Brian! I'm adding it to Portal:Opera later today. If it's any consolation, I don't think the editor in question was deliberately trying to derail the FAC. In fact I suspect they weren't even aware of the FAC. More of a case of shooting from the hip. Nevertheless the confrontational tone and edit-warring were inexcusable in my view. And not a very fab recruiting advert for the OP either. Sigh... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Sandy has promoted the article, so that's not an issue (though the blatant attempt to derail the nom, not to mention the "shouting", are somewhat disturbing). Other comments on the article's talkpage, and my own page, have reinforced my view that the chosen section order should be maintained. If Viva-Verdi can make reasoned arguments in favour of his viewpoint, I am still happy to listen. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me to this. I had the FAC on watch, but not the article itself. I am appalled at the editor's actions and particularly appalled that they were falsely justified by reference to our guidelines. I've said so, in a somewhat more temperate way ;-), on the BB talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see you are a member of Opera Project. Without discussion a member of the project (Viva-Verdi) has unilaterally changed the section order of the Bartered Bride article because it does not conform exactly to Opera Project format guidelines. When I reverted to the order that applied when the article was nominated, he reimposed his edit with a highly aggressive, intemperate edit summary. He has now stated his case in a rather unpleasant manner on the talkpage; I have asked him to withdraw his edit as a preliminary to a proper discussion of the issue. At present he hasn't responded. In my last opera article, Agrippina, the question of article structure was raised in its peer review by Kleinzach, who agreed that each opera was different and "we don't need to be inflexible about it," which seems reasonable. I feel rather perplexed at present; if you have a moment, I would be grateful if you would visit the talkpage and perhaps leave a comment, if you feel this would be appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for expanding this article! Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome! ;-). If you encounter any more opera film articles, I'll be happy to help. Just give a shout here or banner the talk page with {{WikiProject Opera}}, so they don't fall under our radar. Leave the class parameter blank. That will make them easier to find them via checking Category:Unassessed Opera articles. I normally check AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult daily. But I'm going to be away for all of August with extremely limited (and sloooow) internet access. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for weighing in. I had been preparing a Request for Editor Assistance as a way to break the gridlock, but your edits and comments beat me to it. I'll begin cleaning up the page per your suggestions. (How'd it come to your attention?) JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It came to my attention purely by accident. I had another editor's talk page on my watchlist, saw this, and became curious. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I love Wikipedia's randomness. Say, could keep an eye on it for a few days? The IP editor is very determined it seems, and has stopped paying my comments or edits any mind. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is a pain when you get a determined editor who is equally determined not to read, let alone take on board the contents of WP:VERIFY, WP:OR and WP:PEA. I'm afraid I'm about to go to Italy for a month, where I have a very poor and slow internet connection, so will be virtually inactive on Wikipedia until late August. It might be worth contacting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools if any further problems arise. Good luck. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Enjoy! JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is a pain when you get a determined editor who is equally determined not to read, let alone take on board the contents of WP:VERIFY, WP:OR and WP:PEA. I'm afraid I'm about to go to Italy for a month, where I have a very poor and slow internet connection, so will be virtually inactive on Wikipedia until late August. It might be worth contacting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools if any further problems arise. Good luck. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I love Wikipedia's randomness. Say, could keep an eye on it for a few days? The IP editor is very determined it seems, and has stopped paying my comments or edits any mind. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Margarethe Siems
Hello! Your submission of Margarethe Siems at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Responded here. Voceditenore (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've ticked it off. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Margarethe Siems
Wizardman 07:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Marie Wittich
BorgQueen (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this.... rather awful page - on a truly notable opera? If so, and should my Featured picture candidate for The Canterville Ghost passes, is it worth including it in the portal? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 192 FCs served 21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've never heard of it. Unfortunately, the article has no references that would support its notability, e.g. reviews, analysis etc. Doesn't mean there aren't any out there though. It seems to have had a London premiere. Also without a proper synopsis, it's hard to tell if the the FP actually illustrates a scene that also occurs in the opera. Perhaps wait to put it in the Portal until the artcle can be improved a bit and we at least know if the scene occurs in the opera as well as the play? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sure! I'm not really concerned - I'm sure the literature or books portals can always make use of it, if we don't. Just trying to dilute the G&S bias of the portal. Frankly, I've never heard of it either. (Also, I fixed the link above.) Shoemaker's Holiday Over 192 FCs served 09:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Transwiki links
Sure - I can do that. I can also add a couple of basic book references (Kobbe covers a couple of the Finnish ones I've stubbed, for instance) where possible. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Above comment was in reply to this Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I noticed over at WikiProject Intertranswiki that you need people to expand/translate articles to at least start class. WikiProject Intertranswiki is more likely to find them if the talk pages for each of the new stubs is bannered for one or two appropriate subject projects. Best wishes and good luck with the project. Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Hopefully I can make a start at a few other notable things in a few days. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello, thanks for blocking the person who has been pretending to be me when she makes nasty edits to Liz Caballero's page. I hope she won't be able to use that name again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadine Weissmann (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. It wasn't me who blocked the person. It was a Wikipedia administrator, although I did give them the final warning. I was pleased to see the block come so quickly. I was getting mighty tired of reverting their nonsense. As Nweissmann has been indefinitely blocked, they can't edit under that name anymore or create a new account from that address. But if you ever have worries that they are impersonating you again, don't hestiate to ask an adminstrator for advice. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)