User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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


Priscilla Dean-Wheeler Oakman in The Virgin of Stamboul.jpg


yet more past topics...



Contents

Co-Dependents Anonymous[edit]

Please help me get the correct information about Codependents Anonymous to remain on Wikipedia. I don't know your protocols. JBR1970Jbr1970 (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering in ordinary English. I do not expect to be able to learn wikipediaeze enough to correct the article. The article you are reverting to simply doesn't make sense. Could you at least remove the explanations of codependence from it. I will return in a week. We are leaving home this minute so I am unable to go beyond this at this time. Thank you. JBR1970Jbr1970 (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but probably won't be able to get to it until next week. Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Jane Joseph[edit]

A year or two back, you were instrumental in preventing the demotion of the Rebecca Clarke article at FAR (I had a small hand in the rescue, too). I have been working on the biography of Jane Joseph, an approximate contemporary of Clarke, although she died young. If you have time, I'd be very pleased if you could read the article and possibly let me know on the talkpage what you think. Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ashot Chilingarian[edit]

Something for you? A fair amount of copy-pasting form e.g. here, the numbered part of section "Publications 2007-2013" is directly copied from here &c. &c. Hripsime is an Armenian girl name, could be a student of subject.[2] Best, Sam Sailor Sing 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sam Sailor! Ah yes. A very notable scientist but a very copyvio article. I've whacked out the copy paste, left a message on the article's talk page, and messages on the talks pages of the two "miscreants". I'll keep it on watch in case they try to restore it. I suggest you do too. The publications list is OK and can stay. Many scientists' articles have them, and this one isn't too long. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
So fast you are. Yes, his notability is not questioned. Thanks for info regarding publication lists for scientists, I will keep that in mind. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 14:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar archived here. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hell In A Bucket. That's very kind of you! Voceditenore (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Cristina etc.[edit]

Thanks for the note. I'm just working my way back into WP after a) trips to Pompeii, Ercolano and surrounding sites, then b) boat trip from Split to Dubrovnik including various Dalmatian islands, then c) Bayreuth, then d) Wexford (missed Thérèse because of catamaran cancellations). Cristina was excellent except for the dénouement; the music was reminiscent of early Verdi, and the ensembles and choruses were thrilling.

I did look over the Medcalf stuff in Opera but other things cropped up. I'm now planning to write articles on David Agler and the extremely hilarious Il cappello di paglia di Firenze, but am off to see Vêpres tomorrow at the ROH and the WNO Tudor Queens next week, so don't hold your breath! Best --GuillaumeTell 17:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the email, GT, replied yesterday. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alan M. Meckler[edit]

Hi Voce

I communicate with you by posting something on your talk page and you do the same with mine? what is the theory behind this--that all communications between us must be visible to the entire wiki community? in any case, i need some help with the article on "alan meckler." you indicated that you left some suggestions--how do i implement them? Is there any way some other wiki editors can help with this as i am somewhat of a novice. this person really does deserve inclusion. thanks Mikesiris (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved from my user page. Replied at User talk:Mikesiris. Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Voce

the title of the article is "alan m. meckler" but i dont think anyone would search for him with his middle intitial (and google doesnt pull it up if you dont put in the middle initial "m." i tried to take out the middle initial in the title but couldnt figure out how to do it. could you help out pls

thanks

mike Mikesiris (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Mike, I've moved this here on my talk page where messages belong. Please stop putting messages on my user page. I'll see if I can move the article. Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Larmore[edit]

... because no-one cuts the crap better than you! Face-wink.svg Best, Sam Sailor Sing 21:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar archived here. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you, Sam, that's very kind of you! Hopefully the message will sink in and the edits will stick. Situations like Ms Larmore simply confirm why I overwhelmingly write on 19th century divas and avoid the living ones like the plague. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tim Jerome (and inline cites)[edit]

With the recent discussions about inline vs general citations, can I get a second opinion on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Jerome (actor)? I've declined it as it is a biography of a living person with zero inline cites, though I've stressed that the subject does look notable (he's been nominated for a Tony Award) and that it would likely pass at some point. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. In the state it was in when you reviewed, I would have definitely rejected it too, especially since he's a BLP. I've added some references for his DoB, education, stage debut and the award nominations. It's up to you, but I'd pass it now and then tag it for clean up. Best Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there's enough there now to pass. It's now at Tim Jerome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Barnstar archived here. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the nicest barnstar I've ever had.:) Thank you, Sitush! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture Motion[edit]

You might be interested to know that I have nominated Picture Motion, a page to which you have been the only contributor other than the author, for speedy deletion. Grandpallama (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg after all the hard work cleaning up Guttman Community College. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Victor Bruns[edit]

Can we please try to keep personal remarks off article talk? Victor Bruns: You inform Moxy about something I said in June, - how does it help the article? What will readers think who come across an out of context link? - As explained on Nikkimaria's talk: I made a mistake late at night, remembering only my work on the article on the bassoonist and composer and not looking up the history. I would not have added an infobox if I had looked. - What do you try to tell Moxy? - I didn't expect conflict where I had done the work - and as we see, Dr. Blofeld, the creator, agreed. - I had hoped for no revert without discussion, in June already, and would still appreciate it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you click on the link in his comment? He was accusing NikkiMaria of hounding you, which I consider a very unhelpful comment to add to the discussion. It was also contrary to statements you have made several times that you invite her to follow your edits. I was simply pointing the latter fact out to him. If you "want to keep personal remarks off article talk", I suggest you tell him that, not me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I told Moxy also to keep personal remarks off article talk. - I have no problem with Nikkimaria following me (which is known, how else would she have arrived at Bruns, or Revich, you name it), I even suggested that in my "easy" dream of arbitration. - Thank you for the "translation" templates, - I normally add them but sometimes forget, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
So I see. Better late than never. Voceditenore (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Italian translation question[edit]

Hi: A question has come up about translation of the Italian imperfect tense in E lucevan le stelle -- I was hoping you might be able to provide an answer. The question is whether the use of 'the gate was creaking' for 'stridea l'uscio' is more correct than 'the gate creaked', or whether both are wrong and we should be using 'the gate used to creak', or something else (See Talk:E lucevan le stelle). We are comparing the literal translation of the aria here with the current version. I've also asked user: al pereira. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. David.thompson.esq (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:E lucevan le stelle. – Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Berlin Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra[edit]

I've just declined a CSD-Advert on this. (The NPPer seems very unsure of their tagging). If you have time, you may like to do some of your musical magic on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Well, I found a ref, fixed it so it made a bit more sense, and tagged for further copy-editing. It's a rather bad translation (by a pretty obvious COI editor) from the German WP article. Hopefully someone else who knows German will improve it more. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I tried a bit, tending to trim the long lists of names, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda. Name-dropping is an awful but all too common feature of classical music articles. Has worked with such renowned artists as..., Has sung under the baton of such renowned conductors as... Blah blah. Who cares? SMirC-tongue.svg. Zap it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I established two redirects from the German names, one of them was a red link. Who uses this English name at all? Move? - Names: in our concert programs, we have no bios, not even of Andreas Scholl, because if they don't sing well the bio doesn't help, if they sing well, it's not needed. - I hope I understand zap right and will get rid of a few, - names help only if they are known, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
done - amazing how many names I never heard of have articles. - I didn't check if they were also added like this one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I was tempted to move it to its current German name myself. As long as there are sufficient re-directs, it probably doesn't matter. By the way, it appears that there was an earlier chamber orchestra also called Philharmonisches Kammerorchester Berlin, just to make things more complicated. See this 1968 article in Der Spiegel. Re the spam links by this editor, they've all been reverted (the last one by me). - Voceditenore (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriele Schnaut[edit]

An IP added "future engagements" to Gabriele Schnaut, - revert as not encyclopedic, ask for source, format? What would you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I formatted a bit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed the totally unencyclopedic "upcoming performances" (UGH!) to the talk page and left a note there as to why. The only time a future performance should be mentioned is if it has received significant coverage in independent sources. That's another big problem with opera singer articles. The subjects, their agents, and their fans treat them like the singer's homepage. Lorenzo Regazzo was once "owned" by a user who insisted on this appalling section and reverted any attempts to remove it. I gave up in 2009. But I see another editor finally took the scissors to it a year ago and so far hasn't been reverted. Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! (was my first choice) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year![edit]

Thank you of thinking of me. It was so wonderful to get your message. I hope you and your family are enjoying this holiday season in London. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear from you, 4meter4! We go back a long way on the Opera Project. I often think of you and glad to see you're still editing once in a while. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence[edit]

- I just came across this Richard Cowan (bass-baritone) by accident and it turns out to one of 4meter4's barely notable, but reasonable articles. I'm sure the subject is notable but my searches have turned up nothing more than his singing schedule for next year. Can you sprinkle some of your magic opera dust on it? Oh, and HNY and all that  :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung! I'm in deepest, darkest Tuscany with not very fab internet access. Will sprinkle the opera dust when I get back to London on the 9th. Happy New Year to you too. Or I guess I should say Felice Anno Nuovo. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, Toscana - pangs of nostalgia! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Kudpung, somehow I doubt this was a "coincidence" since you and I had words over what was then a brief stub of an article more than 3 years ago. You were just as rude and uncivil then as you are now. How you can seriously add a notability tag (again I might add after it was removed in 2010) is beyond me given the plethora of online sources revealed in a quick google search. I wonder exactly how you are doing these supposed "searches" that yield nothing. I agree the article needs better sourcing in its current state given that other editors have added lots of unsourced content since the article was created by me in 2010. The notability tag is woefully inappropriate since the info in the Chicago Sun article alone is enough to satisfy the criteria at WP:N. That said, thank you voceditenore for agreeing to help the article improve. I would work on it myself if I wasn't busy moving into the new house I bought and gearing up to sing in a concert with my local symphony this weekend. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Both, someone with a pretty probable COI added the copyvio removed a while back, plus more material which had not been in the original article. I've cleaned up some of the remaining problematic material and added 2 more references, but there are numerous more out there. I'll add them when I get back. However, I've removed the notability tag. He clearly passes, and have left a note to this effect on the talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

From (Oliveira46 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC))[edit]

Hello, I noticed you deleted most of my work on the Stella and Charles Guttman Community College page, and I would like to know why? Me and my group worked hard on this article, this was made in order to increase the amount of information that already existed on that page. WE DID NOT create the page, thus we aren't creating a brochure!!! The information we found is important, it's the first community college to be created in over 40 years. It's extremely interesting and important to add all this info, understanding the entire process CUNY went through in order to provide better education for students. (Oliveira46 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC))

If Voceditenore hadn't done it, I would have. Please see the discussion on the article talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 5 December 2013
  • Hi Oliveira46, I hope to see you at the discussion on Talk:Guttman Community College, where I have suggested some important guidelines for you and your class to look at as well as some advice on how to take the article forward. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hellotalk Thanks for the feedback. I'm trying to understand how to improve on this article but it seems nearly impossible if most of my sources are from the College itself. Thanks again. (Oliveira46 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

Guttman Community College[edit]

I just wanted to reassure you that it was not me who was threatening to delete the article. One user who goes on a yearly spree at around this time to send dozens of school articles to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, Kudpung—I stalk your talk page SMirC-smile.svg. That's what prompted me to go clean it up. Hopefully, the students and the instructor (who appears not to have edited a single thing on Wikipedia apart from the course page) will take the advice at Talk:Guttman Community College and the links to the guidelines on board. I've also pinged the online ambassadors for the course. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A special thank ...[edit]

Dear Voceditenore, a special thank for the very (!) elegant review on this article. Sorry, that I included the "instruments": I thought, it was a required field in the textbox and so filled in the positions. Frankly: I also saw this versions in other articles, among those Diana Krall, Olga Scheps, only in mentioning a fiew. Perhaps we could discuss about. Of course: your version with the "plain text" is much more elegant. Of course, for the Distinguished Professor I could have assert many citations, but however: It's now very fine! Best wishes, BachChopinFavorite — Preceding unsigned comment added by BachChopinFavorite (talkcontribs) 13:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi BachChopinFavorite and welcome to Wikipedia. About the infobox... not every field needs to be filled in. If they result in completely redundant information to another field, they should be left blank. Neither Diana Krall nor Olga Scheps, are particularly good examples to follow. Template: Infobox Musical artist is used on a few biographies of classical musicians, but they're not ideal, as they were basically designed for pop musicians and have both inappropriate fields and terminology for classical musicians. I personally prefer Template:Infobox person (if an infobox must be used). See Peter Planyavsky for an example. Re Distinguished Professor, this title has a very specific meaning in English, which doesn't apply unless the person has a full tenured position in a university. If Burkard Schliessmann is on the teaching staff of a conservatory or university, then before you add that to the article you need to provide a reference that verifies it and if there is no indication in the reference that he holds the specific title "Distinguished Professor", then simply list "Music professor" as one of his occupations. Incidentally, there should be nothing in the infobox that isn't in the article (and referenced there). Hope that helps. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your notes under my <Talk> and your kind answer. Of course, I will work on your proposals and will come up to you in time! Thanks a lot, kind regards, BachChopinFavorite--BachChopinFavorite (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Voceditenore, here I'm. Sorry for beeing late, but I had to do some corrections in other articles, however (and of course involved with my main occupation...)... In view, the artist also is author of articles and essays about music, musicological and music aesthetic topics and has a number of publications which are released in magazines, books (like Baerenreiter) and newspapers, would it be ok for you, if I would include them? Of course I would mention the date(s) of release and all necessary citations/details. Thank's for collaboration and your professionality, best wishes, yours sincerestly, BachChopinFavorite--BachChopinFavorite (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello BachChopinFavorite. I think such a list is inappropriate and promotional. That is the kind of material that belongs on his official website, not here. Burkard Schliessmann is an encyclopedia article, not an alternative website for him. Have any of his writings had sufficient impact that they have been reviewed and discussed in independent sources? Are any of them held in libraries or published in peer-reviewed journals? Newspaper and magazine articles are trivial, especially in the context of someone who is not known for his writings. Take a look at Joseph Kerman (a very distinguished musicologist)—only his most important works are listed and all of them have received independent commentary and reviews. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, dear Voceditenore, first: THANK you so much for your endeavours with 'Authority control' and copyediting. I now think it's very fine. With the topic you may be right, you are very experienced! Therefore I wanted to ask. If however one could add to this article any new topic etc., please let me know, so we could collaborate on it. Again many thanks, sincerestly, BachChopinFavorite--BachChopinFavorite (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Many thanks, dear Voceditenore, I do hope, you like it ...

BachChopinFavorite (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolution of infobox war composers...[edit]

Was there a final resolution? I don't have time to read all the discussions, so if you could point me to a (semi-) final outcome or guideline - I would really appreciate it.

For the record: I copy edit. I asked about infoboxes because they are a standard convenience on biographies by now, and articles without them look 'unfinished' (even 'unprofessional,' if one may use that term for such an 'amateur' undertaking as Wikipedia ;).

Cheers! Shir-El too 07:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find that if I don't have the time or inclination to acquaint myself with a subject, the most prudent approach is to stay away from it. But if something still raises an itch, I would first discuss any changes possibly regarded as contentious on an article's talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (another stalker) There is no "final resolution" (and never will be, if you ask me). Some love infoboxes, some hate them, I simply find them useful. There are composers with and (more) without. The best discussion was on Robert Stoepel, the worst Richard Wagner. My personal advice: for any given composer, look for the main contributors and former discussions, to avoid conflict ;) - Look at today's featured article, to get a feeling for the "reasoning", - I will certainly stay away, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Shir-El too. The most recent guidance on infoboxes (and its rationale) at WikiProject Composers is here. I'm not a member there, but I am a member of WikiProject Opera. While I think there are some members of the classical music projects and others who regularly work on content in that area who do not object to using {{Infobox person}} in articles, I think virtually all of them oppose the use of {{Infobox Musical artist}} which was designed for pop artists and is inappropriate in a number of ways for those articles. I personally do not add infoboxes to classical music-related biographies nor do I remove them. However, if I find that {{Infobox Musical artist}} has been added, I convert it to {{Infobox person}}, which while not ideal, is much more suited to classical artists and composers, and especially historic ones. For example, I changed this one to this one and this one to this one. It's also much cleaner and uncluttered and does not detract from the image with garish space-consuming horizontal bars, whose "colour-coding" is utterly meaningless to readers. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style:

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.

And indeed, there are quite a few Featured articles that do not have them. Hope that answers your question. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Voice of Reason[edit]

Sommerblumen01.JPG For a reasoned, considered and even-handed opinion!
Thank you! Shir-El too 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Shir-El too, that's very kind of you. SMirC-smile.svg Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the title, see? Still standing ovation. See also the tale of the ironing lady on my talk. Anybody who wants to help with infoboxes (without disputes) can look at the cat mentioned there: Category:Biography articles without infoboxes (which - to my understanding - contains only those where an infobox is wanted, right now 27,677 general entries, and another 5-digit number in special categories), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

163.247.53.2[edit]

I have no opinion on the matter. Doing RCP and noticed that the anon was changing text, leaving no ES and I couldn't make sense out of it. Seems to have other problems such as this midges -> midgets that so many midgets bother the public with their tenacious buzzing... here as 'gnats' Would you be willing to go through his edits? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jim1138. I've had a look at their edits back to October, and they all appear to be in good faith, and most are useful corrections. The "midget" one is an anomaly, but I see it as good faith mistake. The editor is hampered by an imperfect command of English as can be seen from this edit. I'm going to leave them a note about edit summaries and referencing, though. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for looking into that and the feedback. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Cowhen1966[edit]

Thank you! Did not know that a discussion was going on ? Thank you very much there are still good people here on WikipediaCowhen1966 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say you didn't know that an AfD discussion was going on (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts). You contributed there several times yesterday. Anyway, I'm glad you found it helpful. Voceditenore (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar from FoCuSandLeArN archived here

Thank you FoCuS! That's very kind of you and I'm always happy to help. I've been doing a bit of archiving today, so if you have any more you want an opinion on just start a new section here. I've archived my past AfC draft advice on a dedicated AfC page. Best. Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Domingo Marcos Durán[edit]

Dear Voceditenore:

Thank you so much for approving my article on Domingo Marcos Durán. From time to time I'll continue to work on it and make it better. My dissertation was a translation and commentary of this historic Spanish music theorist, and I was surprised to see that there wasn't an article about him on Wikipedia.

I must confess that I had difficulty working on the article since I hadn't worked with an html-type format for a long time, and there are specific quirks in the wikipedia format for sending requests, so there was a learning curve for me. Consequently, I did send the article for review before I had gotten it to a state that I was satisfied with it.

Don't be too hard on The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80. Although I didn't understand why he rejected it twice, I do think that in attempting to address the objections my article was improved.

Thank you again,

Sincerely,

Rogcraigvogel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogcraigvogel (talkcontribs) 20:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting such a good article! Yes, the Wikipedia markup is a bit different from HTML and can be a bit daunting; Here's something you might find useful. The AfC process can prove particularly difficult for new editors, and that's something we're working on improving.
You have a point there, however I prefer to contact people knowledgeable on the subject before I decline a submission such as this. We all make mistakes.
Thank you both once again for your contributions! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

With regards to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bronco_Wine_Company&diff=596455712&oldid=596442217

I agree with the removal, but how does WP:BLP apply? It's not a biography, and the indevidual is not living. Taco Viva (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taco Viva. BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia where a living or recently deceased person is mentioned. In the latter case, primarily as a protection/courtesy for the deceased person's relatives, particularly with respect to the policy at Wikipedia:BLPNAME. Having said that, I now realise that the incident happened in 2008. So no, BLP doesn't strictly apply. Nevertheless, I think it's appropriate to leave the name out, as it has no real bearing on the issue. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alessandra Marianelli[edit]

Hi, Voceditenore, I have reviewed your DYK nomination of Alessandra Marianelli. Could you please return to the page and see my comments there? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverted ANI edit[edit]

Regarding this edit [4], it was a slip of the finger by me that I didn't even realize I'd done. Thanks for reverting my fat-fingered mistake. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Joe :). I had a feeling that's what happened. I've done it myself several times. I used to have a super-sensitive mouse. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tosca image[edit]

I looked at it. It's not a copyvio, apparently. I wouldn't mind seeing it discussed, but I have no strong view on it as of now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not a bad picture. I also checked to see if it was already on the web somewhere and it isn't. Who knows? Maybe it's a good idea to leave it. I'm not fussed either way. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
That was my conclusion after thinking about it. We could possibly use more of those if he is minded to do more.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Alessandra Marianelli[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Yes, it's been mad. I was just sick at staring at the red links on this page for years. Writing the Dauvergne pages convinced me it was possible to "blue" them and I happened to have the time this week. I'm now trying to push the coverage of the "tragic" operas as far as the outbreak of the French Revolution, then I'm going to have a bit of a rest. I have about a dozen pages left to do. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Query[edit]

I wanted to thank you for your assistance in creating Mr. Strantz's article I spearheaded awhile back. What great insight when you commented that since Wiki is global state abbreviations were unnecessary. I also wanted to ask.. a facebook page was created using the article as a basis.. is this done automatically and how would I find it's creator? Kindest ccard12Ccard12 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'd forgotten all about that article. It's looking great now. Just one thing, I thought it better to have an image of Strantz in the infobox instead of the golf course and uploaded one with a fair use rationale. I then moved the golf course image to lower down in the article where it lists the courses he designed. Hope that's OK.
Now about Facebook... Facebook automatically creates pages from Wikipedia articles about people. (They copy the latest version and periodically update the page automatically as the article changes.) Since our license permits anyone to freely re-use the articles here, we have no control over it. I have heard of some living people who have objected to these Facebook copies of their articles, but they had to take it up with Facebook if they wanted them removed, and I'm not sure how successful they've been. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but suppose initially what came to mind was a course image. Thank you for that, I am in total agreeance. I think the page is done at this point, so thank you once again. I may create future articles on the courses he designed so perhaps I will call on you once again for your expertise if thats alright. Ccard12 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Phoenicia International Festival of The Voice[edit]

Dear Voceditenore, just a quick note to thank you for your guidance re Phoenicia International Festival of The VOice.. I am discovering teh do's and don'ts and understand what you share about neutrality and conflict of interest. your Editing is perfect. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voicefestfoundation (talkcontribs) 18:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to get the article Juuso Walden created![edit]

I dont' understand why it was so difficult to get such a substantial and well sourced biographic article created. Obviously many people active on wiki do not read English well... Thank you for backing up and helping with the citation reference list technicalities or what ever was the problem before. Thank you!--62.78.209.179 (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. The reviewing at Articles for Creation can often be arbitrary, poorly judged, and carried out by very inexperienced editors. I strongly suggest that the article's creator, User:Spespatriae, create any future articles of the same quality directly in article space and avoid AfC completely. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

COI at Frédéric Bednarz[edit]

I recently discovered this article which needs some help. I believe it has some obvious COI issues.4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi 4meter4. It wasn't too bad, considering the main editor. I've done a bit to it. It's basically OK now. Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Violinist[edit]

Hello there! Hope you had a nice rest! Here's a new one for you. Enjoy, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi FoCuSandLeArN. Yes, I had a delightful time. Re the submission, I recommend accepting it. The Yahoo reference isn't ideal, but the others are fine and there are reviews of his performances in the New York Times as well which could be added, e.g. [5]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?[edit]

Dear Voceditenore, I have just found an article about Opera Lyrica (a company that I'm involved in) on Wikipedia (which was a very nice Christmas surprise!) and I notice you've done most of the editing. Thank you! I thought I would ask you if it was against the rules for me to do any editing at all on the page because of a conflict of interest. There are just a couple of errors that I would like correcting if possible, as well as some more information about previous productions, the fact that we're a charity and also to add a few more secondary sources. I think I'm fairly capable of writing neutrally, but is this something I can do and you can look over and check, or should I give everything to you to write up if/when you have a chance? Thanks so much for your help, Nick PS: I'm really sorry if I've got any formatting wrong. I'm completely new to this. 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I did do a fair amount of editing to it but only to bring the article up to a reasonable standard, remove the fluff and waffle that had originally been there, and add some references. I'm not convinced that it passes our notability criteria at the moment, see Talk:Opera Lyrica. So if you have more secondary sources to add, that would be helpful. Re the COI, as long as you stick to simple factual additions, it should be OK. Just make sure that your additions are referenced, and that you don't add future performances, only ones which have already taken place. A useful writing guide is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. I've got the article on my watchlist and can always copy-edit your additions if they need tidying up, so don't be afraid of making mistakes. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Voceditenore. Thanks, I'll have a go at it now! I've left a message for you on the Opera Lyrica talk page. All the best, Nick 14:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bayreuth Festival[edit]

User:Threefoursixninefour had added the info below and now asks me to reconsider my revert with a note on the Festival's Talk page I wonder if you'd mind taking a look there and responding to him/her in your usual diplomatic way? I think that it would be better not coming from me.... All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ticket prices

− Retail ticket prices for the general public and the Society of Friends, for the 2014 festival season, range from €320 for a front row stalls seat, down to €45 for a gallery (third level) back row seat. In the past some tickets were available for seating with no or a limited view of the stage for as little as €10, but these are not currently available. Prices do not vary between productions, the same price being charged for the shorter Rheingold or Der fliegende Holländer as for the longer Götterdämmerung or Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. Neither does the price vary with the timing of the performance within the Festival calendar, although the first performances of any opera are the more prestigious. Tickets for Der Ring des Nibelungen can only be purchased as a set of four for the complete cycle.[1]

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion on the article's Talk page. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Amber Witch[edit]

I am nonplussed by your revert of my edit of The Amber Witch and intend to revert it. Nowhere in WP:MOS does it state that the lead section of an article must be crammed into a single graf in the off-putting "block of text" style (this is a common misconception among Wikipedia editors). Furthermore, your version does not read smoothly and is in no way more "coherent" than mine. In addition, I have added information about the hoax that belongs in the lead. Wahrmund (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wahrmund, apart from adding a bit more about the hoax (marginally useful), I disagree with you that the chopped up 1-sentence "paragraphs" are an improvement. Likewise the gigantic image size you have forced. You might want to read WP:IMGSIZE. But if you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and restore your version. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have reduced the picture size. I had originally planned to do more with the article, and will probably do so in a day or two. Wahrmund (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Juliette Pochin[edit]

Hi Voceditenore. I am not sure if I am going about this message the correct way?. You kindly assisted me some time ago with the construction of he page for Opera singer Juliette Pochin. On that page is a subsection....Morgan Pochin. Juliette has suggested that the main page should now be Morgan Pochin , with a sub section for Juliette Pochin as she is doing less individual work and more as part of Morgan Pochin. I have no idea how to implement such a complex change and wonder if it is possible to enlist your assistance please. There should also be a "link" so that if a search on the name James Morgan is made it refers to Morgan Pochin. I realise it is a big request but I am nowhere near skilled enough! Regards David Church- <email address redacted>. Pochinfan (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pochinfan. Sorry for the delay. It would need an administrator to move it back over the re-direct Morgan Pochin. There's a procedure for requesting this. There is more about the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. However, I would strongly advise against it at this point, for two reasons:
1. In terms of significant coverage/notability, Juliet Pochin is still the primary subject. The notability of the partnership Morgan Pochin is far less well established (in the Wikipedia sense).
2. The article would need a complete re-write and restructuring from top to bottom if it were to be moved to the new title. Leaving it as it is and simply changing the title leads to a nonsensical presentation of the information in relationship to the primary title.
I've taken the opportunity to do a fair amount of copy-editing and reference improvement to that article today. You really have watch treating it as an alternative website for her and for Morgan Pochin, rather than an encyclopedia article. Especially watch the used of time-sensitive wording like "latest", and the announcement of "future plans" unless they have received coverage in a completely independent source.
What I will do for now is create a re-direct page for James Morgan that redirects to the article. By the way, I have redacted your email address above. It's not a good idea to place your address where it is publicly viewable (including by potential spammers). I see that you have email enabled. If Wikipedia editors want to get hold of you via email, they can do so by clicking on the "Email this user" link in the sidebar at your user page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your advice and rewriting...I will take your advice. Little by little I am (hopefully) learning ! Pochinfan (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich-Wilhelm Tebbe[edit]

Dear Voceditenore: Note the article (stub) about Friedrich-Wilhelm Tebbe (German conductor) is re-expandet now with "idiomatic English" 28th May 2014. Hope it´s okay now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:56:C947:6F8C:20FE:7988:2F21:35B (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Responded 29 May 2014 at Talk:Friedrich-Wilhelm Tebbe. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright issues[edit]

Can you please check edit? I think there could be the same problem as the one pointed out at User_talk:Maghasito#Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867. Avpop (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a messed up edit to me, finally managed though. OccultZone (Talk) 06:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Managed by whom? Avpop (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Other editors, who restored the templates and content. OccultZone (Talk) 06:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Avpop. The diff you linked to in Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 was back in 2003. Was that a mistake? Anyhow, I had a look at the article and once again removed two massive chunks of quoted copyright material. I also left yet another warning on the talk page . Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Talking about User:Maghasito, please intervene in the edit war that he has with Dosemark aka Diversitirif aka Deklareson at Hungarian Turanism (for an unknown reason, the opponent is periodically abandoning his account an creating a new one). Avpop (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Link me to the preferred version. I will ask for protection, but there was no edit in last 4 days. OccultZone (Talk) 06:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
User:OccultZone I am not an expert in that topic, so I can't say who is right. However I think that some edit warring warnings are welcome. Also, a request for Dosemark/Diversitirif/Deklareson to use a single account. Avpop (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Please open a complaint on WP:SPI if you think that they are 1 person. OccultZone (Talk) 07:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Avpop, I'm not an administrator, so can't do anything myself about their behaviour, although it clearly looks like sockpuppetry from Dosemark/Diversitirif/Deklareson (same edit summaries, for one thing). Per OccultZone. I suggest you open an investigation at WP:SPI. Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I don't care if those are sockpuppets. so I won't open a SPI. I just would like him to use only a single account (sock or not) Avpop (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Why you brought it up? You know it is certainly some sort of what we call, 'Mission impossible', he will continue using multiple accounts. If you do nothing about it. OccultZone (Talk) 07:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Avpop, I've left a warning about using multiple accounts at User talk:Dosemark. I'll keep a eye on it, and if it continues, I'll file the SPI myself. It might also be useful re Maghasito's edits (which appear to be highly problematic) to contact Dougweller, an administrator who has previously intervened in that article and on the talk page. He may have some advice for you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

About the number and size of quotations in the Austro-Hungarian Compromise article[edit]

Dear Madam,

I put one new quotation of three sentences and an English translation of it into the article. You have deemed it too long, and have removed it. As you could see, I have not put back the quotations you removed.

The quotation about Franz Ferdinand was put into the article by somebody else at an earlier date.

Thank you for your understanding,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Maghasito, regardless of who added the Franz Ferdinand quotation, it doesn't belong there. However, you did re-add the other 78 word quote from Csohány. If a quote has been requested, you only need to quote the very brief sentence which actually supports the disputed assertion, not whole passages. As far as I could see, no quote was requested in Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and there is certainly no reason whatsoever to quote extensively from Csohány. His Leo Thun egyházpolitikája is available online in its entirety. Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A linguistic article lacking linguistics[edit]

I am more years removed from my latin than I care to recall. Manus being 4th declension is a thing I missed completely. Mea culpa. I fear this article is total bollocks. My withdrawing the nomination was still technically important, but I suspect it may still be closed as deletion. If it is kept I suspect you may beat me to the draw with a new nomination. It's almost a hoax! Fiddle Faddle 09:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Fiddle, it's not a hoax exactly, but it's a prime example of what happens when you start out with a hypothesis and a "worthy cause" and then try to find any and all evidence that supports it (no matter how far-fetched or in the case of the current draft blatantly wrong), instead of the other way 'round. The problem is, while there are examples of androcentricity in language (although its effect on cognitive and social processes is debatable), the examples she cites are not, and she makes the rather fatal mistake of conflating grammatical gender with "natural" gender and the diachronic with the synchronic analysis of language. She also seems to accept an extreme version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis completely uncritically, although the hypothesis is never even mentioned explicitly in the draft. It's pretty clear the author has not had any formal training in linguistics (or in the languages she has attempted to analyze), and appears not to have consulted the rather vast body of academic literature on androcentric language. Or perhaps she had, but decided ignore the inconvenient conclusions? In any case, it's fairly obvious why the original version of the book was not published by an academic press, and why the revised second version is self-published. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Sounds interesting, link me to the page? Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 09:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi OccultZone. It's Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Patriarchal Code. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I can handle it. Fiddle maybe correct, the article at its present form can drive anyone crazy. But editing shall take place, once I get consensus. OccultZone (Talk) 10:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone, you do realize this is not a Wikipedia article? It is only a draft. If you want to do something related to its topic, simply create a completely new article on Androcentric language directly in main space—because, a completely new article is what you'll have to write. In the current draft there is not a single usable sentence, including the first one. And the 55,000 KB earlier version from which it was extracted is no better. What exactly are you trying to save? Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I liked some of the lead, yes it is not the wikipedia article but Afc. I've stated it clear that I would like to remove the listing. What if someone had worked hard on them and don't want them to be removed? I think I will really do something under a few hours. Right now checking the abuse of external links around. You know that I have this talk page on watchlist? I had, after your page attracted a few COI editors of Suzannah Lipscomb. Feel free to pass any other suggestions if you have. In fact I was talking to Anne Delong that the backlog of AfCs have to be cleared urgently. I find it easy to say that it scares other users out. OccultZone (Talk) 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone I understand your distaste for an MfD on an active AfC contribution. I share it despite making the nomination. The decision to nominate for discussion was based upon trying to stop our torturing the author by holding out a false hope of acceptance. There are times when a single, sold disappointment is better than an awful series of half disappointments, and I view this as one such.
The topic has an aggravating feel of notability despite being something quite different, and the content at present requires a firehose to be turned upon it. It seems you could be that firehose wielding editor Face-smile.svg. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OccultZone, what parts of the lede did you like? The first sentence: "The Patriarchal Code is the name given to the thousands of names and symbols that embed male bias" is untrue. It is the name invented by the author of the self-published book of the same name and used solely by her. The second sentence: "It is a 'code' in that over 20,000 names gleaned from old and new dictionaries in London, Oxford, Paris and Toronto communicate the male to be the preeminent mind of the species, superior and entitled to rule" is not only soapboxing, but also refers solely to the specific methodology of her deeply flawed research. The quote which follows it is the book's publicity blurb, not from a peer-reviewed journal. And... er... that's it. I note that as I was writing this, the title has been changed to the even more loaded and deeply inappropriate Language Fraud. So good luck with it. :).

On another note, what do you mean by AfC "scares other users out"? Scaring out the people who submit drafts or the ones that could potentially review them? I ignore AfC rigamarole. If I see a draft that should obviously be accepted I simply move it to article space and tag for clean up if necessary. If I see one waiting for review but should be rejected, I leave a note to that effect on the draft for the actual reviewer. I often advise other reviewers on specialist subjects, and I also give advice at AfC help desk on how the editors can improve their drafts enough so that they can be accepted or why there is no hope that their article will ever be accepted. The help desk is flooded with COI editors writing the most appallingly inappropriate submissions to publicize themselves and their companies. It does no good to give them false hope and wastes the time of everyone else. As a rough estimate, I'd say that well over half of the AfC submissions are from non-notable people and companies trying to use Wikipedia as free PR. Drives me nuts. I'm not saying this was the prime motivation for "Patriarchal Code" draft, nor is it a reason to delete it if it were otherwise acceptable, but observe the original opening sentence. Voceditenore (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor may avoid creating new article due to the backlog. That is what I meant when I used the term "scares out".
Androcentric language
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Androcentric language is understood as generic standard language that presents women invisible by subsuming under linguistic masculine terms.[2] The issues of the utilization of Androcentric language to speak of people in general have been accordingly examined and assessed.[3]

In spite of ridicule and charges of response when some women present opposition to, for instance, the use of the word "man" to mean all humans, female or male, androcentric language is a crucial force within the study of sex roles and sex variations in the least levels, conceptual, empirical and speculative.[4]

Generally, it is accepted that many scientists, both male and female have taken an androcentric view of the world, and believed that females are biologically, behaviorally and intellectually inferior to males. With the use of androcentric language, they have implied the inferiority of females in their scientific descriptions of their subject matter.[5]

The historians and theologians of early Christianity represent a kind of androcentric language in a very twofold way; generic and gender specific language. [6]

When it involves persons representative of the interests of patriarchal domination, andocentric language is taken literally. Aristotle's androcentric language isn't recited within the service of worship.[7]

Apart from Bible, androcentric language is read in Quran.[8]

  1. ^ Bayreuther Festspiele: "Spielfolge/Programme 2014" leaflet, issued September 2013
  2. ^ Russell, Letty M. (1985). Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 133. 
  3. ^ Elizabeth Stuart; Adrian Thatcher (1996). Christian Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender. Gracewing. p. 385. 
  4. ^ Fedigan, Linda Marie (1982). Primate Paradigms: Sex Roles and Social Bonds. University of Chicago Press. p. 22. 
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Psychology was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Loades, Ann (1990). Feminist Theology: A Reader. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 60. 
  7. ^ Schottroff, Luise (1995). Lydia's Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 35. 
  8. ^ Kari Vogt; Lena Larsen; Christian Moe (2009). New directions in Islamic thought: exploring reform and Muslim tradition. I.B. Tauris. p. 90. 
Although, subject is distinctive, it has been covered in Androcentrism? If not so much, a lot of undue will have to be removed from the article, and rest of the sections should be expanded to separate article. I would just say that I've found another subject to write about as well as learn.. OccultZone (Talk) 18:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
psst: "No. While "us" generally denotes masculine grammatical gender in 1st declension Latin nouns" is a thing you may kick yourself for, so I'm whispering. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, Fiddle, never thought of that :). Whatever will become of us? (so to speak) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Okays, how far we have gone? OccultZone (Talk) 11:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Maghasito[edit]

That boy was banned with an other name from Hungarian wiki, due to spread fringe theories. In Hungarian turanism article he spread pseudo-history, which is not supported by academic linguistics historians and geneticists. I suggest to ban him again.--Dosemark (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Voceditenore - thanks for taking action on this car-wreck. @ Dosemark - your views would gain a more sympathetic ear from uninvolved editors if you didn't edit war and use deliberately provocative edit summaries. Thanks for discussing but please make your case on the article's Talk Page. No more knee-jerk reverts. It will get you blocked. RashersTierney (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi RashersTierney, I didn't really take any action apart from reporting this to ANI for administrators to deal with. You're right about that article being a car wreck—in both of the versions being warred over. It's an incoherent mess, which is obvious even to someone like me who knows nothing about the subject. Dosemark, RashersTierney has given you some good advice. Please take it. Voceditenore (talk)

Vasile Moldoveanu[edit]

I don't know what to think of the recent changes to Vasile Moldoveanu, a strange article anyway, with its frequent use of present tense. The unlinked list of partly misspelled names that was removed didn't help too much. - Different topic: I hope to expand Baroque instruments, please watch, check and help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. The change seems OK to me, in fact a benefit. Those "X sang with..." "X sang under..." paragraphs are pointless name-dropping and detract from articles. I also have feeling that the image they uploaded will eventually get deleted from Commons, but who knows? I'm going to tag the article for copyediting, though. I think the problem is that the creator and main editor is not a native speaker of English. Good luck with Baroque instruments—a mammoth job. I'll put it on my watchlist, but probably won't be able to make any input for a while. I'm trying to catch up on my various unfinished projects. Never enough time. Best Voceditenore (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting, I felt the same. The instruments will never be "finished" but deserve improvement for the Pentecostal appearance, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

Read the full newsletter

Hungarian Turanism[edit]

USer:Maghasito try to spread of pseudo science, the so-called Hungarian Turanism , which is now a politically motivated chauvinist pseudo-science from the 19th century and a core agenda of far right Jobbik party and ww2 nazi Arrow Cross Party . There are not a single contemporary scholar (academics university professors) linguistics, historian, population geneticist on this planet, who support that fantasy theory. Wikikpedia is a free encyclopedia, however it is not the place of the popularization of pseudo-scientific politically-motivated fantastic nonsenses. The best option would be the permanent ban of Maghasito. Thank you!

<redacted>--Dosemark (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dosemark, I have removed your personal attack on and speculation about another editor's identity. Please stop this immediately. I have already explained to you why your way of approaching this is wrong and counterproductive. I would appreciate it if you made your points about the article's problems on Talk:Hungarian Turanism, not here. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The above text labeled by you as a personal attack has also been posted at Talk:Hungarian_Turanism#Permanent_ban_for_Maghasito.21. Checking Dosemark's edit history, I realized that another (less aggressive, however) message was posted at WP:AN#Hungarian_Turanism_and_User:Maghasito and on the talk pages of different admins. Avpop (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It might be surprising that article has 75 sources, yet the issues remain unsolved. Something should be done about those tags, even if it requires protection. OccultZone (Talk) 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible error in your contribution to Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb[edit]

Dear Voceditornore,

With respect to one of your recent contributiuons to the rather strange developments on the S Lipscomb page. You say

Ditto the edit-warring and battle-ground mentality exhibited by the article's creator on their behalf.

I, much to my regret in the light of the current mess and upset, made the page. But I don't think I have done what could be described as edit warring or exhibited a battle-ground mentality. I think you might be mixing up the page's creator, me - with a major contributor. I assure you I have no connection with the subject of the article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC))

Hi Msrasnw. My sincere apologies! I had wrongly assumed that another editor (the one to which I was referring) was also the creator. I've corrected my comment at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. Your behaviour has been exemplary, and your experience reminds me why I stick to writing articles about long-dead opera singers. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No worries - and thanks for the note and the comment. I do think we have been unkind to the other editor and am planning to drop her a note apologising for all the upset when things have quietened down. Wrt to choice of topics opera singers who are no longer with us is certainly a good one which reminds me I started a stub on an old singer once (Nadka Karadjova)– but didn’t get far. Perhaps I should go back to that instead of looking at talk pages. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC))
@Msrasnw: Only if I could take the responsibility, all I would say is you are allowed to use talk page whenever you want to raise your concern. OccultZone (Talk) 15:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore I was very surprised to read your rather rude reference to me and another editor on the Suzannah Lipscomb page "increasingly disruptive attempts by her family and acquaintances to micro-manage this article". You talk about a Jimmy Wales, somebody I have never even heard of. Sorry, I think you are attacking the wrong person. I have never mentioned identity theft, just the fact that one uses ones date of birth increasingly for security. Is that too difficult for you to understand? I have to say that professionally I have rarely come across such a rude, self-important bunch of nobodies. I have no idea who the other editor you are insulting is, but seeing as you have made it perfectly clear that even asking for something on the talk page by a COI results in insults, I won't bother mentioning anything again. What is more I will treat all the negative things I read on other people's Wiki sites with the contempt they deserve, because you lot don't have a clue what you are doing and for some reason or other only like to write negative things about people.MdeBohun (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

MdeBohun, I'm sorry you feel that way, but in my view, the collective attempts by the subject's acquaintances, relatives and those acting on their behalf to micro-manage that article were becoming increasingly disruptive. This was posted on the talk page of Jimmy Wales (one of the founders of Wikipedia), by one of the other editors I was referring to at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. I have never written anything remotely negative about the subject in that article, and in fact was the one who added the independent references which allowed the article to be kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb. I also added the Nancy Lyman Roelker Prize and a reference for it, as well as the article for which it was awarded [6]. Someone else removed it—wrongly in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Voceditenore, it may have been his last edit but there is a hope that article can be made better. OccultZone (Talk) 18:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting static IP talk pages to user talk pages[edit]

You wrote ‘You cannot redirect an IP talk or user page to that of a registered user’.[7] Pourquoi pas? I've not had anyone tell me that before:

All of those contributions are my own.

And my current v4:

This is so that if I can't be bothered to log in/forget to log in/forget my password people can still get hold of me. — Nicholas (reply) @ 07:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nicholas. Even though they are static now, they could be re-assigned at some point in the future which creates complications. If you don't want to miss messages to those IPs, simply put their talk pages on watch. If you want to keep a record of the IPs you've edited from, then simply state which IPs you've used on your current talk page. You can leave notes on the talk pages of each IP to the effect that you edited from that IP with a link to your talk page. There's no need for redirects. Voceditenore (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb[edit]

Thank you for the addition you made to this page regarding education etc.

In fact she did go to Epsom College for sixth form, after Nonsuch from 11-16, and she is now a Governor at Epsom College. She is not just on the faculty of NCH but is Convenor for History as well as Senior Lecturer.

As you have felt able to add to this page (I didn't dare as another User deletes everything I put), and in view of the fact that it is being considered for deletion, I wonder if you would also be prepared to add more information as detailed by me and others on the deletion discussion page, e.g. her lecture tour of America in 2009, he award for All The King's Fools "All The King's Fools". , her BBC History magazine talks both last year and this year at Malmesbury, her Chalke Valley History Festival talk in June this year.

Thank you.MdeBohun (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Is anything to be done about the ad-nauseam edit warring on the Lipscomb page? This is to the point of sanctions? It is daily or even hourly changes now. This comes after 'keep' consensus and a admin 'clean-up' This is baffling. Thewho515 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thewho515, I'm sorry, but I find the attempts by both you and MdeBohun to micro-manage this article and canvass all and sundry, including Jimmy Wales, increasingly disruptive. This not the subject's web page or her PR site. It is an encyclopedia article, and it will be written as such. There are now plenty of experienced editors and administrators with their eyes on the page. I have expressed my opinion at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb today, and that will be the end of my involvement there. Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about or what Jimmy Wales has to do with anything. I'll go look at talk and see if I can make heads or tails of this Thewho515 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing there. But obviously whatever happened, it was a consensus based on the civil discussion started last evening. PR? I don't get that reference. Looks like a normal Wiki page to me. I wish you good luck. Thewho515 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Thewho515: Press Control+F, type "Jimbo Wales", that is what Voceditenore meant from "Jimmy Wales", you can check the profile of Jimbo Wales for more information, one of the founders of Wikipedia. OccultZone (Talk) 04:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know who he is... good job too Thewho515 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

self sourced and self coverage[edit]

re [8] if the award or the organization were notable then their own page would be acceptable. but neither the award nor the group has any reputation and so the fact that they have verified they gave an "award" doesnt matter. i can put up a website and give my dog the best dog of the year award, and it can be verified. but so what. no evidence of encyclopedic value, mere resume padding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well then, TheRedPenOfDoom, I imagine you will soon be nominating Sixteenth Century Society and Conference (who give the prize) for nomination. It is a reasonably notable prize in historian circles [9], [10]. It is also standard practice and in fact preferable to reference awards to the official body that gives the award. You have a rather unique interpretation of "self-sourced" in terms of WP:RELY. Self-sourced would be referencing it to her website or official biography. And no, it's not "padding" to list this, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it. However, I will list the article as one of her publications without mentioning the prize, apart from the reference of course. I'll be frank with you, I too dislike it intensely when people with a COI start meddling in articles and disrupting AfDs, but I think you are going a little overboard in your reaction to what had happened in the article—to the detriment of readers and the encyclopedia. Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Sixteenth Century Society and Conference may perhaps be next on the list as the article currently does not show that they have been noted by anyone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
SOFIXIT. :) And while I have your attention, TheRedPenOfDoom... Any idea why this user is repeatedly removing the properly referenced title of the D.Phil. dissertation, which is standard material to include in an article about an academic—even has parameters in the infobox? Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard[edit]

When the user has violated 3/4 rr, they should be brought to the noticeboard of Edit Warring, not administrator's noticeboard. OccultZone (Talk) 14:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi OccultZone. The only reason I haven't yet, is that they were on the 4th revert before I could warn them. Normally, 3RRN won't do anything until the person has been warned. Of course, now that they've been warned, they're still reverting, but doing it logged out, so it's a sockish issue as well. Sigh! What a madhouse that article has become. I suspect there's more than one agenda going on hehind behind it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
hehind? Yes that's probably a typo. If there's edit warring by more than 3 people, page will be protected. OccultZone (Talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Ooops! Fixed that. Conjures up all sorts of weird images. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Any further changes to the article shall be discussed on the talk page first, or you can simply notify whatever you have edited. There are many new users editing the article, they should know what has been changed. OccultZone (Talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I've checked your profile. It was very nice to meet you. OccultZone (Talk) 15:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi OccultZone. Nice to meet you too :). I'm about to be travelling for a week. So I'll just let things calm down and see what happens when I get back but I don't really care that much one way or another. When you get an article edited by people with clear agendas, it simply isn't worth the time and aggravation trying to improve it significantly. I won't be making any further edits to it. It will probably always be a lousy and unstable article. C'est la vie, tant pis, etc.. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That is probably true, although I've seen that those who try to push their agenda, they succeed for few days or even weeks, but very soon they are conquered by a number of editors. Soon they would start receiving block, sanction, etc. Just saying that it is rare to have people like you :) High edit count, but no block or sanction. OccultZone (Talk) 16:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir Trevor Corry[edit]

Dear Voceditenore

I hope I have finally found a way of corresponding. I have found negotiating the Wikipedia site something of a nightmare. Firstly thank you so much for rescuing my article about Sir Trevor Corry. Also for the additional research you did which I found interesting. When you put it all together it seems there was quite a bit of information out there already, albeit only small amounts. In spite of several attempts I have not been able to find the more detailed message you told me you have left on my talk page. I put a photograph of St Mary's Church in Wikipedia Commons but cannot work out how to include it. As Corry made a large contribution towards the cost of building it I think it should be included. I took the photograph myself. Would you be prepared to add it for me please? Is there anything you would like my to do to improve the article? Again thank you for your very kind assistance.

Best Wishes, West Marshall

P.S. Should you be kind enough to reply, where do I go to find it? You can see how confused I find this site!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Marshall (talkcontribs) 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi West Marshall. Yes, Wikipedia takes a lot of getting used to, but you're doing fine. I've already added your picture of the church to Trevor Corry, scroll down to near the end of the Corry's estate section and you'll find it. My apologies for not contacting you on your talk page yesterday. I got horribly sidetracked SMirC-sad.svg. I hope you'll write some more articles for Wikipedia. Perhaps one on Trevor's brother, the erstwhile MP Edward Corry? Though, he's probably not as interesting a fellow as Trevor. Trevor's nephew (Edward's son) already has one—see Isaac Corry. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to get in touch here, now that you know where to find me. Best wishes and thank you so much for the Trevor Corry article, Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Trevor Corry[edit]

Hi Voceditenore

Thank you for adding the photograph and for your very much appreciated encouragement.

You probably thought that my question about how to find a reply to my last query was a joke. I am embarrassed to say it was not although everyone I have told about it finds it very funny - actually I do too.

I am feeling pleased with myself for having edited the article to include the information you found from Bajer and Unger. I also managed to reference the changes.

I cannot however work out how to edit existing references. These are the changes that need to be made and I would be, once again, very grateful if you could do them for me:

To replace Ref 24 - History Today, volume:59, issue 7, 2009 by Richard Cavendish.

Ref 41 - add page number 325

Ref 43 add page number 30.

I have copies of the other newspapers quoted but unfortunately the page numbers are not shown.

With my best wishes,

West — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Marshall (talkcontribs) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If a newspaper didn't have a printed page number, we could either count the pages manually or add a note saying something like "Original publication did not use page numbers"). Or both. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

Oops! Sorry but I do not know the page number for Ref 43. It is not page 30.

Sorry, West — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Marshall (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)