User talk:Gretab

Welcome!

Hello, Gretab, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hi Gretab, thanks for your participation on Wikipedia.  :) Just as a gentle suggestion, I'd recommend creating a userpage when you have a moment. You don't need to go into great detail, but even a small amount of info about who you are, which country you're in, or what your interests are, would be very helpful to other editors. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your concerns, and do not wish for you to divulge any personal information. However, it would still be useful if you were to state something like, "Hi, I'm interested in Wikipedia articles about music theory and composers." This wouldn't be giving anything away (the information is still publicly available in your

Wikipedia:Userpage --Elonka 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hi Gretab, we respect your right to privacy 100%. If you prefer, you could use your userpage to list a few articles you have helped with, or to list some links you find useful. You don't need to give out any information about your life outside of Wikipedia. Force10 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Force10. And if you'd like to get rid of your current userpage (so that it doesn't even reveal your gender), we'll be happy to delete it for you immediately. Simply ask here, or add {{
    db-owner}} to the top of your userpage, and an admin will delete it for you. --Elonka 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks Gretab for your comment on my page. You are very welcome. On my own userpage, for instance, I just list a few links that I find to be helpful when I am on Wikipedia. Force10 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had problems with stalking before, I recommend Wikipedia:Changing username to avoid being identified. ~ trialsanderrors 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, and no, you haven't done anything wrong at all.  :) It's simply that there's something akin to a "voter verification drive" going on at the Danny RfA, and all accounts are being checked to ensure that they are, in fact, real accounts.  :) The fact that your name showed up in red was a minor datapoint that invited closer scrutiny, which is why I was recommending that you create a minimal userpage. But the rest of your history looks good.  :) By all appearances you have been an excellent "wiki-citizen" since January, participating in a civil and constructive way on several different articles. In other words, we need more editors like you!  :) Please accept my apologies for any confusion, and if you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.  :) --Elonka 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My stalking occured on another site. I have not had problems on Wikipedia since I have not given out any personal information here. My username is not my real name. I was quite comfortable with this up to this point and really don't see why I should have to make any sort of userpage, since I'm not interested in social interactions here, only editing articles. Howeer, it seems that I haven't understood everything here yet.Gretab 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't have a userpage either for the longest time, but as someone put it, it creates the impressions as if "you're not even sticking around long enough to take your coat off". On the user name, perfectly fine to keep it but if stalking is a concern then changing it to a gender-neutral made-up name would be a good call. ~ trialsanderrors 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with a gender neutral name is my experience that if people don't know that you're a woman on the internet, they treat you like a man and sometimes that's even worse. I chose my name because 1.) no one knows why I chose it but me, so it's not giving away my identity and 2.) it's obvious that I'm a woman and people will take that into account in dealing with me. I thought about this a long time before I chose it and to be quite frank, I'm rather attached to this name. I do not want to change it. I hope that this is not a problem. Gretab 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. Even though this place teems with rules, making you change your user name isn't among them. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this comment, as I thought that needed clarifying. As regards the other points you raised, please feel free to write anything and everything you can opera/composer related. If you feel uncertain and want someone with a bit more experience to check your stuff for you, feel free to leave a note or two on my talk page. I'd be quite happy to oblige. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. I expanded and clarified a bit, but it's a fine article. Good work. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning (it is morning in Hokkaido!). I was delighted to see the fine job you did on La bonne d'enfant. I'd also like to say that my characterization of you as a 'guest' on the Composers Project was clearly inappropriate and unfriendly and I'd like to withdraw it. Please join the Opera Project. Your contributions will be valued! --Kleinzach 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Regarding the word interlopers I didn't use it. You must ask GuillaumeTell directly what he meant by it. However the general feeling here is that we want to get on with writing articles without un-necessary distractions. Judging by La bonne d'enfant you are also interested in writing hence my suggestion you join us. It's a pity you found us in the eye of the storm, as it were, as the Opera Project is a remarkable friendly and cooperative group. Given the huge area we cover there is a niche for everybody. What is your interest? French music? Best. --Kleinzach 08:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "interlopers"? At a guess, I would say that GT was referring to operas being added to inappropriate categories (hence "interlopers" in those categories"). Not people. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine - I did some linking - though is there a known reason why he stopped composing? You've sort of implied that it was Poulenc's death that was the cause, but if that's the case it isn't spelled out in the article.

Re the template, some have been created for Handel and for Mr Bizet and for some other composers, but I don't think anyone's yet done one for Chabrier, though. If you want to create one, feel free to go ahead. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on wikipedia. However, I do not understand why you have removed some of the information given about the opera La Juive. I am refering to the history of the representations over the least decade. You are saying it is a commercial link, but I do not remember having seen any sale offer on this page, which only gave the information about the representations. I found it useful and relevant info. Would you mind putting the link back please? 00:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The link was attached to a publisher who was promoting a revised version of this opera, not the opera as it was originally published in the 19th century. The information refering to this version (not the original version, but the particular publisher's version) was commercial, not encyclopaedic. The account that posted this inforamtion only posted other links to this particular publisher's site (see here ), and it appeared to me to be a clear case of

WP:COI. In light of this, I'm sure that you will agree that it is preferable to link to sites which do not have commerical interest in the works being discussed. Gretab 08:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your note. I was actually more puzzled by the disappearing synopsis. Re the link to the website, we often have links to commercial sites (recording companies, music publishers, artists' agents etc.) I don't see any great problem in that if they are accurately described for what they are. We also do try to include information about recent performances. Anyway I don't know the detail in this case. Perhaps you can work out a compromise? --Kleinzach 10:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your follow-up. This seems quite complicated - not like the usual self-promotion by an unknown singer or whatever. Why not raise it on the Opera Project? Maybe someone familiar with this opera will have an opinion? --Kleinzach 10:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for the late reply, playing whack-the-vandal with a sysop bit is supremely satisfying, you get distracted easily.

There are pretty stringent regulations on external links, actually:

So-called Unexperienced user has written about the link you removed on the La Juive talk page. Perhaps you would like to respond to sort this out? He/she says there is only one version of La Juive which implies it was not a partial list. -- Kleinzach 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - subject to Unexperienced user replying of course. . . . -- Kleinzach 11:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "I've replied again to "inexperience user", saying that if the information is so important, then perhaps it might be better simply to add it to the article? " - Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking too. -- Kleinzach 23:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a general point, I've been encouraging people to do detailed performance histories - including recent ones (ideally in the Performance History sections) because this is one way we can offer information that goes beyond Grove. It's much better having this in the article than in links which may be here today, gone tomorrow anyway. (Same with recordings.) In the case of rarely-performed operas this information is important. -- Kleinzach 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bssic edit, added a source and removed the unreferenced tag. Why not add your material and we can look at it. Maybe lack of sources is not a problem? After all we are not writing a legal textbook. -- Kleinzach 00:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done some links on it. You could add a bit more detail if you like . . . . This kind of thing is easily verifiable so you don't need sources/citations. -- Kleinzach 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. We've done all we can, but there comes a limit to which we can compromise. I still don't see why this link matters so much, but I don't suppose we'll ever know that. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a new frustrated user, I think. -- Kleinzach 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look but it needs to be divided into acts. Also are you using a spell checker? Also please watch capitalization! The basic synopsis should be OK. It reads well, uh, unedited. -- Kleinzach 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently spoke, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, against the blanket removal of infoboxes from articles about composers, or in an attempt to reach a compromise solution. Despite around a dozen people doing so, there are claims that consensus for their blanket removal was reached. You may be interested in the ongoing debate on the former talk page. Andy Mabbett 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have participated in Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE, for possible enforcement of arbitration remedies. Thatcher 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of Christopher Marshall (composer)

The article Christopher Marshall (composer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN composer

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]