User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 30

Hello, Thank you very much for updating the talk page of Draft:Íride Martínez. I would like to ask for advise on article review. Would you know where I could ask to have the article reviewed to see if it can be moved to the mainspace. Your help with this would be greatly appreciated.Besenok (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Besenok. I'm abroad at the moment with not terribly good internet access. But I'll try to review the draft when I get back in September, if I don't manage it before then. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear VdiT, Thank you for your kind season's greetings to my students and me. You were a great help to the Berklee students last fall, particularly through the grace that you demonstrated when you wrote to the deleting editors. We'll strive to bring this year's user pages more in line with Wikipedia policies.

Speaking of which, both Longy and Berklee will participate this spring. May I recommend you to them?

My daughter Caroline loved the connection that we three have made.

All best wishes in the New Year. Yours, Ijmusic (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page [1]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I'll take your advice on the FireKing stub-of-a-stub. I will expand it as I get time. Someone (you?) added a number of additional links to information which I'll attempt to incorporate. My primary intent for putting it up was to get opinions as to it's worthiness for inclusion. Thanks for the encouragement. This is my first non-minor edit to WP so I'll probably make some faux pas about which I will welcome advice and correction from you and other experienced editors. TBoaN (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TBoaN! Yes 'twas I who added the refs. I couldn't resist. Have fun with it, take your time, and if you need any help just give e shout. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, it's Adarrah here. I've had difficulty trying to figure out how to contact you, but this may work. You edited my submission on Helen and Frank Schreider a couple of days ago.....and I thank you ever so much for your helpful input. I am now working on the submission with the necessary revisions. Along with my revision I would now like to submit several photos to go with the article. I've had great difficulty trying to submit the photos. I would like to submit photos of Helen and Frank to be included with their bios. The photo of Helen was taken by her late husband Frank. It was never published anywhere...there is no copyright on it...it's just in her collection of photos. She gave them to me to be used in her article. How in the world do I submit the photo of Helen to be included in the article? and later the photo of Frank which Helen took. Both were taken the same day back in 1973.

I would be thankful for any assistance you could give me.

Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarrah (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voce. I've passed this article as OK, but it could probably do with a second set of eyes. Cheers, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung! He's definitely notable, although the article is er.... a bit rough around the edges. I'll see what I can do later in the week, including tackling the cherry-picked reviews. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour cet article. Pour info elle partageait sa vie avec Erica Marx, amie de Mariette Lydis. www.malydis.eu --Malydis (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Malydis. Thank you very much for that information. I have added it to the Anna Pollak article. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Bonjour, en complément voir sur YouTube beggar's opera à la BBC she is Mrs Peachum !--Malydis (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voce. Could you have a look at this please and pass it as patrolled if you think it's ok. Thanks. Chris Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I'll be a bit brief because I've got a rather nasty case of flu. Personally, I would take it to AfD. This is a non-notable music association of purely local "significance", if that, in a city of 45,000 people. At most, it should be redirected to the article on the city (Alcamo) where it already has a brief mention. I've tagged it for notability and lack of third party sources. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, dear VdiT, for your gracious and beautiful Christmas greeting. I hope that you and yours enjoyed good holidays.

We're off and running in the new semester, posting our pages earlier this time. If you were able to help us again, I'd be grateful. Happy New Year, with all best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2018! Yours, Ijmusic (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear VdiT, for your message, your lightning response to the student's post, and your good advice, which you've offered before, but which I hadn't conveyed in time this semester. I'm glad that you found favor with some of last semester's posts. Your help means the world to us. Hoping your 2018 is beginning well, Yours, Ijmusic (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Voceditenore. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chris! Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! Just returned from

Hi Winged Blades. I've left a comment and some links to reviews of his performances on the draft. Personally, I'd pass it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment on their t/p to improve the article per your valuable comment(s) and main-spaced the draft.Many thanks:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! Did you see this in all its various manifestations, I wonder? The co-incidences seem too many for pure chance, but the editor(s) have stuck to the one topic. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! Nope. This isn't him. Apart from a very different editing pattern, the person behind the Michele Catti articles is not a native speaker of Italian, unlike our "friend". Check out the conversation here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I just noticed the mention of "Natoli" amongst Catti's ancestors. An interesting coincidence, but frankly, I think this is just the creator trying to make a big meal out of the subject and may be fanciful. Ditto the description of his father as a "nobleman". The "references" for both of these assertions are extremely vague. According to the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani [2], Catti stayed with the writer Luigi Natoli, who is described in other literature as "a close friend", but that article does not state that he was his uncle, nor does it mention Catti's grandparents nor that Catti's father belonged to the nobility. All that stuff should probably be removed. By the way, notice the fluent English of the creator at Talk:Michele Catti. That was definitely not written by our "friend". Anyhow, I've put the article on my watchlist. Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, good research, thank you! I don't think I know anyone who speaks of "musea". I'd noticed this before, and discounted it, but when I happened to see the mention of Sperlinga, bells started ringing and it seemed like one co-incidence too many. Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretentious and now archaic, Justlettersandnumbers, but I imagine some people still use it, usually to demonstrate their "learning". In the UK, some people still use "stadia" instead of "stadiums" as well and are usually mocked for it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda :) Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why i'm missing in list of Suspected sockpuppets?K Mahn (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make any further comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eh Doh. Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voce. Could you do me a favour and check this out for me. It's not your genre, but I'm autopatrolled and I would value your opinion. Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung. Interesting person! You learn something every day. This seems OK to me in terms of notability, referencing etc. A couple of things would improve it, but this is just my opinion... I'd write it more explicitly like a biographical narrative rather than a chronology of her successes. I'd avoid phrases like "popularity has soared". Ditto "her playing has been noticed by bassist Wolfgang Van Halen." It kind of begs the questions "Noticed for what?" And "So what?". I'd leave that out frankly unless you have more detail on Van Halen's opinions and what he has actually said about her. Several of the references are virtually identical, i.e., those from March 2015 which is sort of citation overkill. I'd stick to just one of the those, and pick the highest quality one. I'd also avoid using the results from a Russian MP3 search engine as a reference. You don't need it simply to reference her teacher. It's covered in other better refs. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks enormously Voce. I'm not particularly attached to the article. I was looking for some Vivaldi to listen to on YouTube one night and when I saw this I was amazed although obviously Heavy Metal isn't quite my thing. That said, the kid is a genius but it was very hard work finding any sources at all. Fortunately, with it being in France I knew where to look. I'll get round to the changes you suggested, but I'm tied up fot the next few days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since

Thanks for your amazing exposition over at SPI. To be clear, I think the forces involved in the many Jesse Waugh Article disputes have to do exclusively with ego rather than UPE. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 104.163.147.121. Yes, you are correct about ego driving the AfD shenanigans. I'm pretty sure that this socking editor is... er... very closely connected to the article's subject. However, the three earliest creations of the article in 2013 and the subsequent crosswki articles were pretty clearly the products of paid editors from the Nickaang sockfarm. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "local buddies" arrangement for the support of marginal articles is behind some articles on wiki. Such an arrangement could join multiple instantiations. Thank you for your stellar contributions.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your work over at the SPI and Nitin Schroff is incredible. Question: Do I need to ask explicitly for a CU at the SPI?104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 104.163.147.121. I didn't get a chance to answer this before I signed off last night. I see you've now asked for a checkuser at the SPI. I've left a new comment on that issue there, but I kind of doubt they'll do one. I also note that the editor who created Jesse R. Waugh within days of the first Jesse Waugh being deleted back in 2013 was found to be unrelated at the Cinesis SPI. This doesn't surprise me. Given the timing and the choice of the salt-evading title, I strongly suspect that editor was actually part of Nickaang's paid editing sockfarm, but the account is stale. These people are a real pain as are the people who hire them and then frantically defend their "investment" at the inevitable AfD with yet more sock and meat puppets . Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voce.

A fascinating tidbit from our old friend The Master, who was blocked for sockpuppeting back in 2012.104.163.158.37 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankk you for your advice and guidance. (MenoPorsche (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

WP:TALK contains guidance on how to use talk pages correctly. Please read it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi,

I noticed your interest in portals. Here is what has been going on behind-the-scenes with them...

Currently, there are about 1500 portals, comprised of 150,000 pages in portal space, the rest beyond the 1500 being subpages. Most of those subpages contain an excerpt, copied and pasted from some article. Such excerpts never change, and they go stale over time (no longer matching the original source material).

The Portal WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and has grown to 68 members. We've been busy redesigning the portal model so that portals will not need all those subpages.

The design concept called "

We are also working on ways to make excerpted content, and listed entries, dynamic, so that the material or links shown automatically change over time without the intervention of an editor. Selected articles, could be set up to change daily, for example, to present a different article each day. This can even be made to show a different article every time a user visits the page. Currently, we can do this from a set list. We're trying to make it so that the list is updated automatically from an external source that is regularly maintained.

Other automated solutions are being sought or developed for each section type of portals. To automatically update and archive news, did you know entries, and so on.

Once we get a fully automated design worked out, it will be applied to all the portals that do not have dedicated maintainers. This will reduce the amount of maintenance they need. A single editor will then be able to watch over far more portals than before, ideally, with each portal taking up only a single page in portal space.

The Portal WikiProject is dedicated to updating, upgrading, and maintaining the entire portal system and every portal in it.

Come check us out, and if you like what you see, feel free to join.    — The Transhumanist   05:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   00:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{

Dear Voceditenore, Thank you for taking your time to review my attempted edits. I really appreciate your professional opinion. With regards for your concern of COI with Benjamin Wey and/or LN*Evans, I have no external relationships with the people, places or things written about in the page Benjamin Wey. I do not employ or am employed by or have any affiliation with Benjamin Wey. As a first time editor, I am passionate about making positive contributions to the Wikipedia community. With no past experience, I believe I followed the guidelines closely and accurately. My attempted edits are factual and sourced. As white collar crime is one of my many interests, I followed the case carefully. Additional sources are available if you think it is needed. Thank you again. Looking forward to hear back from you--Luke GSB (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that long-term experience with that article and the numerous single purpose accounts who have edited it or attempted to edit it once the page was protected leads me to believe otherwise. I note that despite your professed "passionate" desire to contribute to Wikipedia and interest in white-collar crime, you have made no other contributions here (before or since) despite numerous articles on that subject, many of which are tagged as requiring improvement. Voceditenore (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Voceditenore, thanks for explaining the complicated history of this article. It now makes more sense understanding how these single purpose accounts work in the case of this article. I followed this case closely as it was fascinating to me. I will follow your advice and edit some of the easier articles to raise my knowledge of the platform and the working politics behind the editing and reviewing policies. What other advice can you give me on becoming a better contributor? In the future, I'd like to be able to edit this pages and other that have protected status.--Luke GSB (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Please keep further conversation there. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Voceditenore.

I hope you are well.

Together we've worked over numerous GUS wiki pages, GISMA, UCW, LCCM, etc. We've both looked to improve the page, whilst I've bowed to your greater insight as to the suitability for Wikipedia and Wikipedia policies.

I've seen you are a keen contributor to the pages and have added key facts and removed false/unsuitable information. I would like this to continue with my assistance. As you asked me to look into acquiring an image for LCCM's Music Box, what if you were to inform me of what is needed on any GUS page to improve it so I can look into having it provided?

This way we can both contribute to improving the page and can ensure policy guidelines (the usual: promotional, noteworthy, correct sources, etc.) are strictly adhered to with your guidance. I will of course make my own Edit Requests and you will continue to edit GUS pages as you have, but if I am able to provide anything to the betterment of the pages (e.g. an Academic titles, images, staff info, etc.) - please ask.

I can see the areas of for-profit and higher education are of importance to you, so invite you to help me make GUS wiki pages as complete as Wikipedia would hope. This would also, of course, be in your own time, informal, and at your convenience. It would be in no way a matter of paid editing - more so a matter of providing advice for the improvement of Wikipedia pages according to Wikipedia policies.

Alternatively, we can continue as we have done, in which case I will continue following your informed advice.

Your help on all our pages has been very much appreciated.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MrAttempt, my main area of interest is 19th century opera and related arts subjects. My involvement with articles on institutions owned by Global University Systems came from an enormous clean-up operation we had to undertake over a whole suite of inappropriate articles by employees of their institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that too @Voceditenore: though I am regrettably ignorant regarding 19th century opera. However, I'm fairly informed about Global University Systems and their institutions. Previous direct-editing from employees has not contributed to our pages and is regrettable, especially regarding wasting the time of volunteer editors. I'm hoping we can change this so the pages are in-line with Wikipedia policies. So, if you notice a GUS institution page in need of information that is otherwise unavailable to you, please ask and I will research and provide as best I can for you and the improvement of that page. With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had hit "save" too soon in my comment above. Anyhow, as I was about to say... There's a summary with links to various discussions at

University of Applied Sciences Europe, and London College of Creative Media are more than adequate and do not require any significant improvements or additions, apart from an image of LCCM's new building. I always do my own research for articles and will always keep it that way. I cannot possibly conceive of any information for those articles which only GUS could provide, as opposed to already published sources. In any case, if it's not published, it doesn't belong in the article, and as you should know by now, even published "information" doesn't always belong in the article. Arden University, IBAT College Dublin, and University Canada West are not particularly well written or encyclopedic, especially the first two. But frankly, I'm not interested in working on articles on non-distinguished for-profit colleges with no significant history prior to their acquisition by GUS. However, I keep them on watch as I do with all GUS-owned institutions because of the company's past shenanigans on Wikipedia, and their continued and deliberate obfuscation of the status of the institutions they own and their relationship to each other on both their websites and in their press releases. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

MrAttempt, I had a closer look at IBAT College Dublin. It was too appalling—outdated, promotional and seriously misleading—to let it stand in that state. I've re-written and re-referenced it entirely. Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning @Voceditenore:. Good, glad to hear it's been seen to. Should any absent information be required; please ask. Thank you for your help with this - MrAttempt (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: Thanks for replying and for keeping an eye on the GUS pages. I appreciate your points and my offer will still stand if I am ever needed. With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Voceditenore:, I really want to thank you for reviewing & accepting my edits towards Remy Blumenfeld's article. I have submitted other edits (complying with Wikipedia Policy) for Remy Blumenfeld's mother (Helaine Blumenfeld) & it has been over three weeks since my edits have not been reviewed. I would greatly appreciate it if you could just go through & review my submission. --MrDavies (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at Talk:Helaine Blumenfeld. Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 11 - Cantus Musicus

Hi Voceditenore, I have been doing some improvements for articles related to classical halls, orchestra and choruses in Malaysia. All of them can, and have been improved such as

Salve Voceditenore, dato che ho visto alcuni tuoi edit nella voce su La fiamma, volevo chiederti la cortesia di dare un'occhiata a quanto ho scritto, con riferimento anche a tale opera, sulla talk page della voce su Kiri Te Kanawa: mi pare che ci sia qualcuno che sta cercando di diffondere ad arte delle notizie non veritiere. Nella Wikipedia italiana sono già state cancellate le tre registrazioni apparentemente false. Grazie molte e scusa per il disturbo.--Jeanambr (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Di un altro utente con un numero di ip molto simile a quelli che ho indicato nella talk page di cui sopra (37.77.114.53), avevo cancellato io stesso un edit sulla voce Médée (Cherubini) con il quale era stata aggiunta una registrazione probabilmente inesistente.--Jeanambr (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeanambr. I'm sure you were right. It looks like an administrator has taken care of it on Fiamma. See [3]. I'm going to revert the ones on Kiri Te Kanawa and check the others [4], [5]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Jeanambr (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post at arbcom. I'm still trying to shape my own views, but your post corrected one mis- assumption I had been making. I accepted, at face value, the assertion that the phone number was only one step removed from being posted on wiki, and I now see that I should not have been so accepting. I still think this too much high dudgeon over a situation that's a little grayer than many observers seem to suggest but your investigation was an important piece of information for me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note Sphilbrick. Too many false statements from that editor are still being accepted at face value by other editors. Another one subsequently exposed by an arbitrator [6] was that he had tried to ask permission before calling, which was manifestly untrue. I appreciate that for some people it is a grey area as to whether cold-calling an editor with whom you are displeased—without their permission and without them ever revealing their phone number or explicitly pointing to where it could be found—constitutes harassment. I can only say that if I had been the recipient, I would have notified the WMF immediately. Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...........and other seasonally appropriate exclamations...............

Thanking you for your general tolerance over the past twelve months, and craving your indulgence for the next.....Smerus (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , Voce,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

-

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

... and the voice of understanding for each editor being a person! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Gerda, you're very kind. I've been working in France for the last three days, metaphorically speaking. I was fixing up Monsieur Duboul and one thing just led to another. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, this one leading to another. (You probably know that I came to Wikipedia to fill a red link, and than that article came with a red link I could not possibly leave that way ...

Saxon Academy of Sciences has a lousy article. The unpredictable ways of DYK made us deal with the Leipziger Universitätschor all day, although we have 12 hour sets ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sigh, Yaron Traub, copyvio reverted, and you are the first coming to my mind in such a case ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I've put it on watch. I'll also add some better references to it tomorrow, Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you please also watch Marzio Conti, for similar reasons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Gerda. I've completely whacked that article back. It's on my watchlist. I remember it because it already had copyright problems back in 2010. Grrrr. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next: thank you so much for the link to the dissertation about Trois Chansons, - I should have used it more right then, or saved the pdf, because know when I click on the link, it takes ages and ends in time-out. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used some more today, thinking of you with thanks! There could be even more, about it being partly Renaissance but still "contemporary", but I don't really have the vocabulary to say the same thing as the source in other words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of you with thanks for clarifying words (Maritana, for example), - I ran into the same old problem once more, for Georg Katzer. I should have checked out who wrote that article before improving - in sad routine - a "recent death" case. There were three that day, 2 opera singers. I will certainly check from now on, and leave those untouched ... - A victim on the side: a possibly innocent (like knowing nothing) IP blocked for edit warring. Discussion on the talk, but I understand everybody who has better things to do, which includes myself, I won't return ;) - Instead, I wrote about his opera. I got a JSTOR source with much more detail, but leave that for later. First today - in the sad routine - Jens Beutel, just because it was such a pitiful tagged stub yesterday, - and then someone in the house remembered playing with him as a child. We are all conneted. - I expanded another opera, premiered 50 years ago on 15 May, and can't find a list of singers in the premiere, not even roles. Some singers appear in individual bios, but usually without role. Help? Michael, perhaps, as you began it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I began Klebe and his operas 12 years ago, my first stubs. I noticed then that I could find very little about his works, and they didn't age well so there's very little written about them since. Grove has nothing, Kloiber has only Jacobowsky. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda! See here for the roles and premiere cast of Das Märchen von der schönen Lilie. See also this which gives the principal roles and their voice types but no premiere cast. Michael, you might also find those two sources useful for other Klebe operas. Related subject, Ursula Kramer... I've added reviews for four of her principal publications which may or may not help if it's taken to AfD. Without them, the article would have virtually no chance of surviving. As it is, she's pretty marginal. What I usually do if I need to clarify a person cited in an article who doesn't have their own article (or may not qualify for one) is to use a footnote. For example, see the footnote attached to Elisabeth Bartlet in this version of Rose Renaud or the one attached to David Summers in Alan Lloyd (composer). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all, made my day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the latter source for Antigone oder die Stadt. It has the premiere date wrong but only by about a week, using the second or third planned date. All obituaries for Katzer have it wrong by two years, using the first planned date! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the full newsletter

Notice archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking care of her! I would have loved the image to appear on the Main page today, instead of the horse: a woman smiling openly, and openly experienced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Gerda. I have to remove her picture from here, though. It's a copyright fair use image and can only appear in her article . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could ask you, as a highly experienced editor with experience on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, for your advice on a problem I’m having with a couple of editors.

First, let me tell you about myself. I’ve been on Wikipedia since 2010. I’ve made about 1700 edits, less than 40 of which have been deleted. (This, of course, is far fewer than your total edits, but still, I think, a substantial number.) In 2015, I updated the article for

Note that I had edited most of the page for Vice Presidential candidate Cheri Honkala and had included in that article an entire section of published negative comments about her. In my article on Akira Kurosawa cited above, a subsection entitled “Legacy of general criticism” gives an overview of negative views of Kurosawa and his films both in Japan and abroad, and an entire page, Criticism of Akira Kurosawa, was created by me, devoted to a detailed exposition of such criticisms. These are just two examples of my commitment to NPOV. I would be just as rigorous with an article for which I am compensated as I was for those two articles, for which I wasn’t paid, but I don’t know how to prove this. I feel my integrity is being questioned.

In short, I don’t want to follow Nat Gertler’s recommendation to make changes only on the Talk page. But though Grayfell and Gertler are not administrators, I fear they will try to prevent me from editing this and other pages somehow, perhaps even block me, if I do not comply.

I wish everyone would remember the WP:CIV rule!

So I’m asking your advice about how to respond to these editors, and where I should go from here. I know I’ve made mistakes, but I want to make up for it, and I need real help to do that.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter (and excuse the very long post).

Dylanexpert (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COIN discussion, plus your lengthy commentary on Grayfell's talk page, Talk:QuisLex

, your version of that article, and several other articles which you have created. I'm not sure why you decided to ask me about this problem, but I'm going to tell you upfront that I think paid editing (declared or otherwise) on Wikipedia is a scourge. My advice to you is the following:

1. On your user page declare each and every article on WP for which you have been paid to edit, who employed you to do so, and the ultimate client if you were hired by an agency.

2. Confine your editing solely to requests and suggestions on the talk pages of those articles.

3. Dial down your accusations of other editors, particularly completely unfounded ones like harassment and "prosecutorial tone". To a neutral observer, albeit one of long experience here, your version of QuisLex read like the advertorial that it was. It is now considerably improved after Grayfell worked on it. Several of your other articles for which I assume you have been paid, likewise read like advertorials. Rare Beer Club is a prime example. The fact that you cannot see any of this is precisely why conflict of interest editing is so strongly discouraged here.

Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response.

Dylanexpert (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Voceditenore. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Just Chilling (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Hi Just Chilling. I've replied to your email. Check your inbox. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had no idea about the other pages at all. Honestly, I never even heard of Simple Wikipedia either. I do not know the owners at all. I was looking to start editing about a couple weeks before this page was created. I had joined a facebook page about wikipedia and there was someone looking for someone to help them with a page. She was not one of the founders or at least the account wasn't and I thought it would be a good way to practice. I did not notice several of the articles were created by the same journalist. If you want to nominate the page for deletion due to notabilty I support your decision 100% and will not oppose it's deletion. I would however encourage someone to do a bit of research as there were a number of media pieces and some significant coverage from sources more aligned with hip hop culture which I did not include. There are several on HypeBeast, highsnobiety, and Creator Lab. Just a consideration since I do believe the article could be viable for a stub which I would be happy to include on the page. I hadn't noticed the article's author so I thought those were the best references to use. I am not sure if guidelines state that I am even supposed to edit the page anymore and I don't really have a stake in this so.. I support your decision either way. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion process. Kiana Danial is also very problematic. The sources are basically all PR based and/or based on her self-written bio. It was created at the same time as her book Cryptocurrency Investing For Dummies was released (April 2019). Was help with an article about her also being sought on that Facebook page? Also, where did you obtain the professional high-resolution headshot of her? Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reply Voceditenore no they weren't offering to pay it was a large group of 10's of thousands of members and I was looking for tips on wikipedia editing. I hadn't yet created a page and i was trying to gain some knowledge of the whole process, coding, design process, how to create infoboxes since I couldnt find them with the visual editor. It was probably my 3rd time in there and a female was looking for help creating a page. I don't feel that I need to explain myself but I have a relative who I was discussing cryptocurrency with and she had some familiarity with Kiana and suggested creating a page after we had a discussion at family dinner one night which resulted in some google searching on her, her books and her courses. This is twice you have brought up the subject of "paid editing", is this some sort of issue I am not aware of? From my research, both subjects seemed to have enough press for a wikipedia page. Is there some sort of issue I am missing? She is on TV, reports for Nasdaq and has written several book which has a good bit of press. I've participated in the AFD discussions to some degree to get a better understading but I am not anywhere near peeling all the layers of wikipedia. Are you saying that neither of these articles meet wikipedia's guidlines for a page? This being my first couple of pages I did a fair amount of research to determine their credibility. I did not see that the same author was the result of multiple pieces of press which I guess would fall on me but I am confused? Is the point to penalize the subject of the article for trying to get pages or to determine if they are notable? What guidelines should I be following? Since I am still new to this process I would like to make more pages, is that a problem? I read on the comments of one of the pages that I created the page in one day but I was told that you should create the page in your sandbox before adding it to wikipedia. Is that not the correct process? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Continued on your talk page where this conversation is more appropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Voceditenore On a completely different subject, can you take a look at the page I just created? I am looking for the correct template, stub, categories etc to improve on this article. 2019 Philadelphia Packer Marine Terminal Cocaine Seizure ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Voceditenore I undid the redirect on this article. I would have appreciated if you would have contacted me about deleting the page. I feel the event is notable enough since it is the 2nd largest seizure in US history, and possibly the 3rd largest cocaine seizure in history by weight. If you feel that strongly about the page I would be happy to have a discussion or go through the AFD process which I have been working on participating in over the last few months. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, thank you for helping update the List of Laureate Education institutions.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick ciao because your annual Wikibreak will be here almost as soon as we've washed the pasta dishes and put out last night's wine bottles. So lest I forget (frightfully busy, should have retired in RL 5 years ago but my boss won't let me), here's wishing you a happy holiday!

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tante grazie, Kudpung! I'm looking forward to our annual month in the Maremma—not to mention the mozzarella, the pecorino and honey, the tagliatelle con funghi porcini.... Take care, don't work too hard, and thank you for thinking of me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

m:The Wikipedia Library/Newsletter/May-June_2019

@Voceditenore: The photograph for Heather Kuzmich vanished weirdly, on the revision history page it is not listed as being removed. Can you do some investigating to see what happened.Catfurball (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Heather Knox. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Many thanks for rescuing and this page 26 JULY 2019Clive sweeting (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Clive sweeting[reply]

You're very welcome, Clive sweeting. It was my pleasure. By the way, I've moved your comment here to my talk page. By mistake you had added it to my user page. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, VdT! Thank you for helping the students and me again this past semester: we enjoy demystifying Wikipedia.

Having spotted an error in the

In other news, I'm not offering "A Vision of Music's Future" this autumn, but we'll be back in the New Year.

Here's hoping that the heat hasn't brutalized your summer unduly,

Yours, Ijmusic (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IJ! Sorry for the late reply. I was in Italy all of August and the first 3 days of September. Plenty of heat, but the plenty of sea to jump into and ceiling fans at the house. Anyhow, I see that one my of ever-helpful talk page watchers has stepped in and fixed the misprint. Looking forward to meeting your next Berklee brood in the New Year. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,VdT! I'm glad that the misprint got fixed. Taking a break from music's future this autumn, the students and I will be back in the spring. Love your Italian vacations! Ijmusic (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Opera/Selected biography:

Maurice Ravel

Alan Bush

Portal:Opera/Selected article:

Orpheus in the Underworld - Watch the image on this one - I'm really not sure why they think the lead image isn't suitable for Commons...

Handel's lost Hamburg operas

]

Hi Adam! The Orpheus in the Underworld image is clearly public domain in both the US and France. The artist has been dead for well over 70 years and Gallica also labels it as "Public Domain" [7]. It ought to be uploaded to Commons. As for the Falstaff pic, it really is stunning. I made a cropped version to use in the "Selected article" section. I look forward to the uncropped version ending up in the "Featured picture" rotation on the portal. Thanks too for setting up the new FA pages for rotation. Above and beyond the call of duty after all your hard work in making them FAs in the first place! I've finished off some of the descriptions and we're all caught up now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Portal

Afraid I've been a bit bad at bringing over images since we got the rotation at the top of the Opera Wikiproject page. I THINK I've caught up everything, though I didn't do all the descriptions yet; I'll finish that tomorrow.

FPs 04:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

See above . Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of modern productions: There's a lot of productions I wouldn't want to see used as illustrations unless they were independently notable. The Scottish Opera Sci-fi Magic Flute really didn't add much from all the changes, for instance, and would misrepresent the opera (and had rather dull sets). The 90s/early 2000s trend towards using stark lighting and minimalist sets and modern costumes made a lot of productions of very different operas look very similar. So.... I think we need a little care in which modern productions we hold up.

FPs 08:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree 100%. They need to be high quality and capture the essential "spirit" of the opera at the same time, like the Falstaff one. I've removed several of those photos of modern opera productions myself. They added nothing to the articles about the operas, and in many cases misrepresented them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FPs 01:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright problem on University of Law

Hi Voceditenore. A recent bot report prompted my visit to the above page. Unfortunately quite a bit of copyright content has crept into the page over the years, added by various editors. I have removed it, and will be doing revision deletion going back quite a ways. Just thought I'd let you know first so that you can have the opportunity to see what-all I removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I've reverted your latest removal. It was a clear case of backwards copyvio which I have documented at Talk:University of Law#Backwards copyvio. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

Read the full newsletter

Opera project November

Hi, I have completed

talk) 05:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks so much,

Jay! Well done! Sorry for my late reply. I too have been immersed in various ladies' biographies. It's amazing how many more articles there are still to write. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

Read the full newsletter

Thank you

For bringing that to my attn re: Suzy Loftus page! Editing now

talk) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Replied on your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays, Voceditenore!

Thank you for teaching me all kinds of Wikipedia tricks — like this pretty box here!

Have a great winter holiday season! Best wishes, --OrestesLebt (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Voceditenore, Thank your for the card ...

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you

                                  ♣   Jay  ♣

Happy holidays!

Hi Voce! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Seriously hoping that you'll join me for a glass of wine in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]