User talk:SemiramideSutherland

October, 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mariah Carey, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Celine Dion "Voice" Section

I've always had qualms with the short nature of the Celine Dion "Voice" section. I commend you for taking the time to research and expand the section. It assists with the encyclopedic nature of her long career, and showcases different facets of her talents from a plethora of music critics and figures. Again, thank you. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on wikipedia

Many of the so-called sources you attach to your edits don't support your edits at all. This is outright vandalism. People actually check the sources, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorwari20 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi there. Thanks for your work on Mariah Carey pages in general. Just wondering if you would like to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mariah Carey? Thanks! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more :). I added your name. Your now part of it :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Out? In?

In the article on Joan Sutherland, could you please make up your mind whether you want a specific paragraph out or in? As the article is already overloaded with hagiographic quotes, I followed your original instinct and removed the paragraph again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Michael Bednarek)

I have rv the "Technique" paragraph because the Voice section is full of hagiographic quote, but she was renowed for her flawless technique--except her diction and sometimes her intonation, it was perfect. So, I want to reintroduce this paragraph. SemiramideSutherland (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine; I agree that the few slightly critical quotes should be preserved. I was just confused by your contradictory edits. If you visit the Sutherland article again, it would be useful if the plethora of hagiographic terms and quotes could be streamlined. Quotes of more than 200 words like the one from a 1971 Times article create an undue weight. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)