ABOUT MY ARCHIVES
Past topics I · Past topics II · Past topics III · Past topics IV · Past topics V · Past Topics VI · Past Topics VII · Past Topics VIII · Past Topics IX · Past Topics X
Past Topics XI · Past Topics XII · Past Topics XIII · Past Topics XIV · Past Topics XV · Past Topics XVI · Past Topics XVII · Past Topics XVIII · Past Topics XIX
Past Topics XX · Past Topics XXI · Past Topics XXII · Past Topics XXIII · Past Topics XXIV · Past Topics XXV · Past Topics XXVI · Past Topics XXVII
Schoolwork · AfC · DYKs etc. · Resolved notices
Thanks for spotting my mistake and for expanding the article. It looks good. One question - I thought we were having separate sections for (inline, specific, reflisted) references and general sources? This came up recently on the project page here. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. We might write a new guideline on it, though i don't know if it should be a priority. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Apropos Angela Gheorghiu and your changes to my additions: I have aimed to improve the piece by toning down the original article which apparently was dictated by her PR department. All of my writings have been from documented and reliable sources. There still remain several completely gratuitous remarks, which have little use in an objective article. The last, was directly from the Grammy.org association itself, but apparently inserted a less reliable surce. AG WAS NOMINATED IN 2001 not 2002 according to "The Recording Academy" BTW -- so it made no sense to replace my footnote with a less reliable source. I took the trouble to TALK to someone there regarding that fact BTW, and can supply his email address if you doubt that. As matters sound, the article is still an obvious fluff/gush piece by a FAN rather than an objective article. I appreciate your interest, but I will escalate the problems with your overly complimentary comments, if you continue in such a biased manner. I also had nearly THREE years of correspondence with AG, from which I can draw information and material that can be documented. And, if you doubt any of my assertions, check with operchic.typead.com, or Norman Lebrecht, who have been observers of AG for many years, and know much more about her in most ways than I.
BTW There is one other little tidbit at this time about AG: "The Recording Academy" (Grammys) verified that AG was never nominated other than in 2001. and, that she never won. Howver, for several years, she/Rolex have claimed a Grammy win on her homepage -- www.angelagheorghiu.com/en -- and The Recording Academy is proceeding accordingly -- probably a "cease and desist" order.. I'll let you be the judge of what to say about that, if anything, in the wiki article. Sidney Orr ( talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "Libel":
Nolo is a universally recognized source of information on American (and probably, UK and worldwide common law. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/7613C25C-8E5D-47A5-9E0D93B952DE16E7/alpha/L/ They are a reliable source of the definition of "Libel":
"An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community."
"Untruthful" is obviously an essential part of the definition.
Granted, it is the responsibility of the speaker to provide reliable sources for their assertions.
I place my trust in the majority of serious critics and musicologists -- and they have many times said in print, that which the nonobjective, narrow-minded, and emotional fan would consider libelous.
Furthermore, an "injury" must be proven, and in the case at hand, it is quite impossible to do so, given the SRO situations, etc that prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney orr ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
“Notes by Composer” still exists in
Bells for Stokowski,
UFO (composition),
Dead Elvis (composition),
Metropolis Symphony, and
Niagara Falls (composition). I can’t find anywhere these things have been copy pasted from, but it seems likely that it is the composer who is writing them. They seem to always be written in the first person. Shall we revert these sections? It seems to me that regardless of other concerns they are not in any way Wikipedic.--
S.dedalus (
talk)
01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit to add.
User:Ethreinen does claim to be
Michael Daugherty himself.
[1] --
S.dedalus (
talk)
02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ethreinen ( talk) 06:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Hello there. This is a message from Ethreinen. I am the one that has been working on the Michael Daugherty site. Ethreinen is NOT Michael Daugherty himself, as someone above suggested. Please do not continue to make that assertion. All of the issues you have discussed above are simply mistakes on my part as the 'editor/author'. I am new to WIKIPEDIA, I have never written an article. When I started working on his article, it was simply to enhance what was already there (very scant and out-of-date) with more historical, relevant, and current information. I have been consulting with Michael to be sure that what I add is correct and valid (obtaining more biographical information and photos) and I looked at other composers' pages for ideas of what was stylistically appropriate (repertoire, categories, additional links).
The dialogue above suggests negative intentions that are certainly not mine (or the composers). I am simply trying to add relevant material to the article. I did read the 5 pillars before editing and tried to follow the rules as they are listed. I honestly didn't realize that using direct program notes from the score ("Note from the Composer" in first person--as this is how they are written in the cover) was considered plagarizm. This is simply a misunderstanding on my part.
Please know that there is no malice in writing/editing the article/s, only inexperience. I read the 'how to cite living people' article on WIKIPEDIA and tried to follow the guidelines, but I admit, I was a bit confused by how to properly site the information, and clearly I have failed. After I received a 'citation/reference flag', I added the reference category. However, from what is stated, this isn't enough.
From above... "He has no independent references at all to establish notability...but he doesn't seem to get the point."
The bottom line is simple, I am just trying to add information that I thought would enhance the MD article (which was already on WIKIPEDIA). Obviously, I have come across some issues that will have to be changed or erased. If anyone can provide more direct advice or suggestions for work that is about a living person and hasn't been formally published (beyond program notes and internet sites) yet, that would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethreinen ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 13 July 2008
Ethreinen ( talk) 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Thanks for your comments above. I will be able to make the changes you suggest before the end of July. Again, my effort was/is to enhance MDs pre-existing article, and the links to the selected pieces were added to provide the reader information on the piece (date, premiere, conductor and ensemble) with the exact Program Note that is given on the inside of each score (always in first person narrative). Updates will be incorporated. Thanks again for your suggestions and examples provided above.
24.127.89.110 ( talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Another question: Is there any way to get the information back (in any kind of format) that has been deleted, ie, the links to the various pieces (Dead Elvis, Jackie O, Metropolis Symphony, etc.)? If so, please advise. 24.127.89.110 ( talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ethreinen ( talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Thanks for your note. I 'cleaned up' the paragraphs and other sections of the complete biography of the MD site. In addition, I deleted the note on the MD discussion chapter (on his page), which stated that paragraphs were too detailed and were written in a personal tone. Thanks for the updates on the opera and the link/footnote addition, too. Will continue. Ethreinen ( talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Ethreinen ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)By the way, the Jackie O article is really great. Ethreinen ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your additions to this page. It is a much better article now. If this is a particular interest of yours, you may be interested in working on the article on American Opera Projects. Thank you. Nrswanson ( talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You've done a great job recreating this article. Perhaps I should explain my thinking on this and similar articles that have been created by 'single purpose accounts' as adverts/copy and paste etc? I'm tagging and prodding them in the expectation that either the creators will fix them or they'll be deleted. From my point of view they are not a priority (like CotM, SotM, Can you help? and items raised on the talk page) and not usually worth taking time to repair. Should I assume that you think differently - that they are worth saving? If so, maybe I should not mark them up - but instead refer them to you for rescue treatment? What do you think? Best. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your notes. I am leaving a note on the project's talk page so that people will have an idea what I'm up to. I agree that the article title isn't the obvious one to choose, but I wanted the list to include all Mozart's works of an operatic nature, not just the acknowledged operas, and I needed a title to reflect that. It was always my intention to use redirects so that Mozart's operas or Operas by Mozart would reach the article. Thank you for your interest. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your interesting in the page of David Giménez Carreras. As you noticed I changed few little things: the name (without Ramiro), the year in which he was born and changed the phrase "the nephew of". I made that change not because the information is not correct, but because Mr. Giménez Carreras asked me to. I think that it is a very small change and in respect to Mr. Giménez request I think it would be not a problem to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.9.129 ( talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, but my only contribution to the article was to 'prod' it. Delete away ! :-) CultureDrone ( talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in regards to your edit of the Opera Carolina article and deletion of the Opera Carolina Chorus article, you state that you removed copyrighted material from the site OperaCarolinaChorus.org. There is no copyright notice on that site. There's not one there because I did not add one when creating that site. WaxonWaxov ( talk) 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have replied in User talk:Kleinzach. Thanks - Jay ( talk) 13:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Good day to you. I have replied to your message, please check here: [ Luis_Miguel31 Talk page]. Best regards, -- Luis Miguel31 ( talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Welcome back if you are back. I've been watching the new articles at User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult but perhaps I can hand the baton back to you now if that's OK? -- Klein zach 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
About the year in Kathleen Battle's, I deleted the “repeated year” after fixing the frame about 1/2 hour ago, like how I did to all other recordings frame (Including all the “Selected recordings” + Discographies such as Pelléas et Mélisande discography, The Flying Dutchman discography, Plácido Domingo discography and many other). I do not see why we should have the same year one after another unless if they are not in the frame format. - Jay ( talk) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
for the reminder Victuallers ( talk) 09:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You raised doubts about the notability of this article in May. I have just nominated it for deletion. Thanks. Jack1956 ( talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voceditenore/Archive_5. |
ABOUT MY ARCHIVES
Past topics I · Past topics II · Past topics III · Past topics IV · Past topics V · Past Topics VI · Past Topics VII · Past Topics VIII · Past Topics IX · Past Topics X
Past Topics XI · Past Topics XII · Past Topics XIII · Past Topics XIV · Past Topics XV · Past Topics XVI · Past Topics XVII · Past Topics XVIII · Past Topics XIX
Past Topics XX · Past Topics XXI · Past Topics XXII · Past Topics XXIII · Past Topics XXIV · Past Topics XXV · Past Topics XXVI · Past Topics XXVII
Schoolwork · AfC · DYKs etc. · Resolved notices
Thanks for spotting my mistake and for expanding the article. It looks good. One question - I thought we were having separate sections for (inline, specific, reflisted) references and general sources? This came up recently on the project page here. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. We might write a new guideline on it, though i don't know if it should be a priority. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Apropos Angela Gheorghiu and your changes to my additions: I have aimed to improve the piece by toning down the original article which apparently was dictated by her PR department. All of my writings have been from documented and reliable sources. There still remain several completely gratuitous remarks, which have little use in an objective article. The last, was directly from the Grammy.org association itself, but apparently inserted a less reliable surce. AG WAS NOMINATED IN 2001 not 2002 according to "The Recording Academy" BTW -- so it made no sense to replace my footnote with a less reliable source. I took the trouble to TALK to someone there regarding that fact BTW, and can supply his email address if you doubt that. As matters sound, the article is still an obvious fluff/gush piece by a FAN rather than an objective article. I appreciate your interest, but I will escalate the problems with your overly complimentary comments, if you continue in such a biased manner. I also had nearly THREE years of correspondence with AG, from which I can draw information and material that can be documented. And, if you doubt any of my assertions, check with operchic.typead.com, or Norman Lebrecht, who have been observers of AG for many years, and know much more about her in most ways than I.
BTW There is one other little tidbit at this time about AG: "The Recording Academy" (Grammys) verified that AG was never nominated other than in 2001. and, that she never won. Howver, for several years, she/Rolex have claimed a Grammy win on her homepage -- www.angelagheorghiu.com/en -- and The Recording Academy is proceeding accordingly -- probably a "cease and desist" order.. I'll let you be the judge of what to say about that, if anything, in the wiki article. Sidney Orr ( talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "Libel":
Nolo is a universally recognized source of information on American (and probably, UK and worldwide common law. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/7613C25C-8E5D-47A5-9E0D93B952DE16E7/alpha/L/ They are a reliable source of the definition of "Libel":
"An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community."
"Untruthful" is obviously an essential part of the definition.
Granted, it is the responsibility of the speaker to provide reliable sources for their assertions.
I place my trust in the majority of serious critics and musicologists -- and they have many times said in print, that which the nonobjective, narrow-minded, and emotional fan would consider libelous.
Furthermore, an "injury" must be proven, and in the case at hand, it is quite impossible to do so, given the SRO situations, etc that prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney orr ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
“Notes by Composer” still exists in
Bells for Stokowski,
UFO (composition),
Dead Elvis (composition),
Metropolis Symphony, and
Niagara Falls (composition). I can’t find anywhere these things have been copy pasted from, but it seems likely that it is the composer who is writing them. They seem to always be written in the first person. Shall we revert these sections? It seems to me that regardless of other concerns they are not in any way Wikipedic.--
S.dedalus (
talk)
01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit to add.
User:Ethreinen does claim to be
Michael Daugherty himself.
[1] --
S.dedalus (
talk)
02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ethreinen ( talk) 06:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Hello there. This is a message from Ethreinen. I am the one that has been working on the Michael Daugherty site. Ethreinen is NOT Michael Daugherty himself, as someone above suggested. Please do not continue to make that assertion. All of the issues you have discussed above are simply mistakes on my part as the 'editor/author'. I am new to WIKIPEDIA, I have never written an article. When I started working on his article, it was simply to enhance what was already there (very scant and out-of-date) with more historical, relevant, and current information. I have been consulting with Michael to be sure that what I add is correct and valid (obtaining more biographical information and photos) and I looked at other composers' pages for ideas of what was stylistically appropriate (repertoire, categories, additional links).
The dialogue above suggests negative intentions that are certainly not mine (or the composers). I am simply trying to add relevant material to the article. I did read the 5 pillars before editing and tried to follow the rules as they are listed. I honestly didn't realize that using direct program notes from the score ("Note from the Composer" in first person--as this is how they are written in the cover) was considered plagarizm. This is simply a misunderstanding on my part.
Please know that there is no malice in writing/editing the article/s, only inexperience. I read the 'how to cite living people' article on WIKIPEDIA and tried to follow the guidelines, but I admit, I was a bit confused by how to properly site the information, and clearly I have failed. After I received a 'citation/reference flag', I added the reference category. However, from what is stated, this isn't enough.
From above... "He has no independent references at all to establish notability...but he doesn't seem to get the point."
The bottom line is simple, I am just trying to add information that I thought would enhance the MD article (which was already on WIKIPEDIA). Obviously, I have come across some issues that will have to be changed or erased. If anyone can provide more direct advice or suggestions for work that is about a living person and hasn't been formally published (beyond program notes and internet sites) yet, that would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethreinen ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 13 July 2008
Ethreinen ( talk) 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Thanks for your comments above. I will be able to make the changes you suggest before the end of July. Again, my effort was/is to enhance MDs pre-existing article, and the links to the selected pieces were added to provide the reader information on the piece (date, premiere, conductor and ensemble) with the exact Program Note that is given on the inside of each score (always in first person narrative). Updates will be incorporated. Thanks again for your suggestions and examples provided above.
24.127.89.110 ( talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Another question: Is there any way to get the information back (in any kind of format) that has been deleted, ie, the links to the various pieces (Dead Elvis, Jackie O, Metropolis Symphony, etc.)? If so, please advise. 24.127.89.110 ( talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ethreinen ( talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Thanks for your note. I 'cleaned up' the paragraphs and other sections of the complete biography of the MD site. In addition, I deleted the note on the MD discussion chapter (on his page), which stated that paragraphs were too detailed and were written in a personal tone. Thanks for the updates on the opera and the link/footnote addition, too. Will continue. Ethreinen ( talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Ethreinen ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)By the way, the Jackie O article is really great. Ethreinen ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your additions to this page. It is a much better article now. If this is a particular interest of yours, you may be interested in working on the article on American Opera Projects. Thank you. Nrswanson ( talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You've done a great job recreating this article. Perhaps I should explain my thinking on this and similar articles that have been created by 'single purpose accounts' as adverts/copy and paste etc? I'm tagging and prodding them in the expectation that either the creators will fix them or they'll be deleted. From my point of view they are not a priority (like CotM, SotM, Can you help? and items raised on the talk page) and not usually worth taking time to repair. Should I assume that you think differently - that they are worth saving? If so, maybe I should not mark them up - but instead refer them to you for rescue treatment? What do you think? Best. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your notes. I am leaving a note on the project's talk page so that people will have an idea what I'm up to. I agree that the article title isn't the obvious one to choose, but I wanted the list to include all Mozart's works of an operatic nature, not just the acknowledged operas, and I needed a title to reflect that. It was always my intention to use redirects so that Mozart's operas or Operas by Mozart would reach the article. Thank you for your interest. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your interesting in the page of David Giménez Carreras. As you noticed I changed few little things: the name (without Ramiro), the year in which he was born and changed the phrase "the nephew of". I made that change not because the information is not correct, but because Mr. Giménez Carreras asked me to. I think that it is a very small change and in respect to Mr. Giménez request I think it would be not a problem to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.9.129 ( talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, but my only contribution to the article was to 'prod' it. Delete away ! :-) CultureDrone ( talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in regards to your edit of the Opera Carolina article and deletion of the Opera Carolina Chorus article, you state that you removed copyrighted material from the site OperaCarolinaChorus.org. There is no copyright notice on that site. There's not one there because I did not add one when creating that site. WaxonWaxov ( talk) 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have replied in User talk:Kleinzach. Thanks - Jay ( talk) 13:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Good day to you. I have replied to your message, please check here: [ Luis_Miguel31 Talk page]. Best regards, -- Luis Miguel31 ( talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Welcome back if you are back. I've been watching the new articles at User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult but perhaps I can hand the baton back to you now if that's OK? -- Klein zach 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
About the year in Kathleen Battle's, I deleted the “repeated year” after fixing the frame about 1/2 hour ago, like how I did to all other recordings frame (Including all the “Selected recordings” + Discographies such as Pelléas et Mélisande discography, The Flying Dutchman discography, Plácido Domingo discography and many other). I do not see why we should have the same year one after another unless if they are not in the frame format. - Jay ( talk) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
for the reminder Victuallers ( talk) 09:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You raised doubts about the notability of this article in May. I have just nominated it for deletion. Thanks. Jack1956 ( talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voceditenore/Archive_5. |