Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:35, 24 March 2011

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 ·
Schoolwork · DYKs etc. · Resolved notices

Address Book

Hey

Oi, you haven't put your email into your preferences!

Only reason I noticed is that I usually ask this privately, but anyway...fancy a shot at RFA? I would be happy to nominate you. Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oi, Moreschi, I've sent you an email so you'll have my address if you ever need it. Thanks for the offer and your confidence. But... admin-ing would take too much time away from what I really enjoy – writing articles, rescuing worthy kittens from being drowned at AfDs, and helping out on the Opera Project. The latter can provide quite enough wiki-drama as it is. ;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance reviewing Italian source?

Hi. :) There is an article listed at the copyright problems board with which I am in need of assistance I'm hoping you can supply. Pauly & C. - Compagnia Venezia Murano has been tagged under suspicion of being a direct translation of the history section of this website. (See its listing here.) Direct translations are, of course, derivative works and unusable on Misplaced Pages. I can see enough similarities to suspect that concerns may be justified, but since I don't read Italian I can't really say how close a translation this is. If you have opportunity to weigh in on this, I'd be ever so grateful. :) If not, please let me know so I can track down another active contributor who is proficient in Italian. I also try to keep conversations in one location, so I'll be watching your talk page. Thanks for any assistance you may be able to offer, even if it's just letting me know that you don't have time atm to offer assistance. :D --Moonriddengirl 13:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually I didn't need to do too much examination, since I found the English version of the site.;-) The History section is here and the bit about the mosiacs (Abraham Lincoln etc.) is here. And yes, it's a pretty close copy. If these links don't work, go the home page and at the very bottom under Language selection click on International. By the way, this is a very famous glass company in Italy and internationally. See, for example . Certainly deserving of an article, although obviously not a copy vio one. Note that article's creator is User:Habanerosrl. Habanero Srl. are the Public Relations company for Pauly & C.. Hope this helps. Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius! :D Thank you very much. Very helpful. I'll check the closeness of copying and address the issue with the creator. --Moonriddengirl 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a delight...

...to read this brilliant piece. And I wasn't even looking for it; I came here to thank you for backing me up on the GA issue on Egardus, since that's something that's been bugging me for a while and had to get off my chest. But your essay was spot-on. Oops, there I go again, pretending to be an adult! Need to get a bouncier, animated signature ... Antandrus (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll make you one if you promise to give me three barnstars. ;-) Seriously, though thanks for the kind review. I wrote that when WP was in the midst of an invasion by a particularly... er... time-consuming... bunch of 13 year olds. At one point there was even a WikiProject (now deleted) that was awarding them barnstars for every 1000 edits, every 50 AfD's "voted on", every 5 (hapless) editors they adopted, etc., etc.. For a while, I and a couple of other editors spent all our time running around cleaning up after them, until they lost interest and/or got blocked. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciation

Hi, Voceditenore. Thanks for the beautiful rewrite on John Andrew Rea. I would prefer not having to delete noteworthy articles, but the current backlog at copyright violations leaves me little time to revise much text. (Especially in Moonriddengirl's absence.) I just wanted you to know that I very much appreciate your contributions. Cheers. — CactusWriter | 06:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome ;-) and you were absolutely right to delete it. If you have time, could you do me a favour? I've re-written Juliette Pochin on Talk:Juliette Pochin/Temp. Would it possible to move it into article space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Another nice job -- and better still was your discussion with the original creator on the talk page. "...Teach a man to fish..." etc. You're a good teacher. Cheers. — CactusWriter | 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! In my university teaching days, I once had a student who plagiarsed my own book in her essay. But at least it took some effort, bless her. She typed it out from the hardcopy — must have taken ages. Re "teaching how to fish...", I'm not sure how many new fishermen it produces for Misplaced Pages. In the Opera Project we get a lot of articles for singers, opera companies, etc. created by their agents and PR people, and sometimes themselves. In my experience, the best I can hope for is that they'll edit their article according to the guidelines in future. I have yet to find one who has ever contributed anything else to Misplaced Pages. Their only interest in the project is as a PR tool. Having said that, at least it results (after much red-pencilling from other editors) in one new article on a notable subject that we didn't have before. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me also, about every singer to opera and avoiding answers.com! I keep supplying singers to the project who never sing opera, last Dorothee Mields. When I found a Bach singer who also sang opera I nominated that fact for DYK, Franz Kelch, to be 95 this year, no PR involved. Unfortunately the only source for him I found in English reads like a machine translation. Any help in that case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My god, plagiarizing the prof's own book -- that's sadly funny -- the very definition of clueless. I would suggest she switch majors. I know what you mean about bulk of submissions coming from PR types. (It's one of the reasons I refrain from offering copyright violators much opportunity to license the source website -- the promotional text couldn't be used anyway.) But, occasionally, unexpectedly, when the stars align just so... you'll come across a true angler among the crowd of daytrippers. When is that next blue moon anyway? — CactusWriter | 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Humility

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I made Andrew Ladis today, so your readers won't say "Who he?" ;-) Will add more to it tomorrow. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Great. In fact he was more of a "big shot" than I had expected! History2007 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fabio Campana

Thanks for coming to the rescue.4meter4 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Very nice work! I hope you put this in for a DYK. Funny how deletion noms often prompt article improvement. :-)4meter4 (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm rather chuffed that the article is now at least 10 times longer than the one in Grove.;-) I did put it into DYK too. I had to move the advert image back to where it was in the first place. A lot of readers have wide monitors, including me and left-aligned images can seriously interfere with block quote formatting if they aren't completely above it (or below). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Assistance Please

Hello Voceditenore. Would you please check my user talk page? Some time ago you were assisting me in the creation of a new page, ".Gabriel". As you requested, I posted my request on that page but haven't heard from you. I understand you are very busy but would really appreciate your help. Thank you!TF537 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Children and Young Adult's literature Newsletters

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Children's literature/Unreferenced BLPs

• Full copy here
• The Children's literature Portal is up for Peer review here

Infobox

Please see edit request. In the meantime, you can use put the alt in the image parameter. e.g. |image=] Racepacket (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Image_alt parameter has been added to {{Infobox play}} Racepacket (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Great! Thanks so much! I'll add it to La Tosca. I used your "get-around" for the book infobox at I Love Bacon!. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

copyvio?

Hi Voce. This is an extremely close paraphrase of the source it's taken from. Bearing in mind that this was part of a certain SPI where thousands of similar poorly referenced stubs were created azlmost verbatim from certain web sites, policy allows us in such cases of SP + Copyvio to delete, rather than waste time trying to untangle and/or develop. However, from working with you, I appreciate your patience with getting even the most illegal articles up to scratch, so I would value your opinion before getting this, and maybe a few hundred more like it, deleted. Do not hesitate to reply on my tp if you wish. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the opera project has a whole tome on this saga. Having said that, I wouldn't consider the article you highlighted as copyvio or even extremely close paraphrasing. It's not verbatim, has material not in the source cited and there are only so many ways you can express basic information (and the order) in a short biographical article. Are you looking at these from the BLP point of view or as part of the CCI on this editor? I don't think the article would be a particular loss to Misplaced Pages, and not worth the effort to re-write (there's virtually no information in English about her). These articles are all linked from other articles, so when interested people eventually see the red link they can always create a new article. I'll leave it up to you.Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, well as I'm not a deletionist per se, I won't make a fuss about this one. However, I have all the same pages on my watchist as well as very closely following the work of the one that was allowed to continue. Singingdaisies was only one of four or five accounts that was used, one still exists, and unfortunately, to complicate the issue, opera is only one of several branches of classical professions to continue to be targeted.`no longer en masse thopugh. --Kudpung (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

With Gratitude

Dear Voceditenore, We the Futureclass of 2010 would like to extend our sincere thanks for all of the help you have given us this semester. Your knowledge and efforts have aided us both as Wikipedians and as curious musicians. Our gratitude is boundless!

We hope to continue to stay in touch and look forward to continued collaborations! From the bottom of our hearts, Ksbaryton Searsjm Johncello2010 Ericakyree MatthewKim927 Dbalandrin Ijmusic Ksbaryton (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you to all of you! It's been a pleasure to watch the progress of Professor Jackson's classes since he started the Futureclass project four years ago, and I have to say this year's has been the best one yet. Misplaced Pages now has six new articles thanks to you, and in an area that is noticeably under-represented in Misplaced Pages's actually useful stuff. I've learned a lot from all of you too... about musicians and composers in an area far from the dusty corners that I usually edit in. You've all been great sports—it's not easy for new editors here, especially when they have to jump in at the deep end as you did. Best wishes to all of you and enjoy your well-earned Christmas holidays. Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• You really know how to encourage your fans! Thanks for validating the students' efforts and for contributing to the success that each enjoyed. We are particularly honored that you deem our stuff actually useful! Your message to Matt Kim about Lauba's image will help next year's aspirants. Ijmusic (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming of Age (BBC TV series)

I would question why the BBC are allowed to vandalise the page and put blatant propaganda on there suggesting that the response to the programme was mixed in some way, when in fact it was universally appalling. Every time real and referenced reviews are put up, they are taken down by some BBC apparatchik dickhead. Why are they not censored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.176.103 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "real and referenced reviews" being taken down. You deliberately inserted false and in several cases defamatory content about living people in multiple articles related to this show, as well adding as your personal commentary disguised to make it look as if it were a quote referenced from a reliable source, e.g. , , , . You are going to get your IP, aka Oxford University, blocked if you keep it up. Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: new article on Ro Hancock-Child, concert pianist and composer.

Hello Voceditenore. My name's Ro Hancock-Child, and I've recently been told that you have been fairly active lately in editing a Misplaced Pages article about me. I see that you are a 'music-lover', which is good, but not a professional musician, like me.

I'm a busy lady, which is great, and because of this I have many agents and secretaries who act independently for me, also a considerable number of musical friends and colleagues of all nationalities who support my musical work, and my writing. We are not entitled to write our own Wiki articles, and I understand that others (not relatives) have generously been contributing to Wiki, creating to the best of their ability an article about me, based on what they know (gathered from me, and from published sources) of my life and my work.

I've been watching the progress of my Wiki article with much amusement, because people like yourself, who know nothing at all about my life, seem to have been removing material that is true and verifiable. I don't like this.

I myself can substantiate everything that went into the original Wiki article, and will do so on request. Maybe you don't appreciate the fact that new contributors have to get used to the Wiki formats, and learn the 'rules', so maybe some contributions are not immediately 100% up to speed with the required terminology, and have not yet adequately referenced the material; but references are certainly available for everything that has gone into the article so far.

People have contacted me this week because they have been very concerned recently that a large amount of changes have been made to the article 'Ro Hancock-Child', and much correct (and if need be, verifiable) information has been removed, and this concerns me greatly. I reckon I'm the expert on my own life, not you, and I'm honest, and don't make claims about things that are not true.

It's fine if you want to remove personal opinion, and too-enthusiastic adjectives, from the Wiki article, but removing fact is not acceptable to me.

I also want to make the important comment here that it is quite usual convention in modern musical parlance to refer in print (books, articles etc) to living women composers by their Christian name - using the surname (in my case Hancock-Child) is not normal practice. I would like to be referred to, in an article about me, as Ro, or she, so please do this.

If you live in the UK I would love to meet you, Voceditenore, retired academic, and introduce you to my work; you would find out that I am what the article says I am, exactly what it says on the tin. Others sometimes find multi-talented people difficult to accept; jealousy plays a big part in this, I'm well used to it, but I'm always sad when this happens.

No more unnecessary excision of material, please, just because you can.

Thankyou Ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohancockchild (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to the bottom of the page here where new comments go. If you wish to discuss the content, style and formatting of the article, the appropriate place to do that is at Talk: Ro Hancock-Child. Thus I will reply only briefly here. Even if I knew Ro Hancock-Child personally and knew the assertions to be true, I would remove ones which cannot be verified by a reliable published source independent of her. If these sources exist then I strongly suggest that the series of people editing that article on your behalf add them. And yes, they are absolutely necessary. I left links to pages which explain this key Misplaced Pages policy on Talk: Ro Hancock-Child. Please read them carefully. And please read the other pages I have linked there concerning conflict of interest, autobiography, and biographies of living persons. This has nothing to do with technical expertise or lack of it. It has do with understanding and adhering to the key policies that underlie Misplaced Pages rather than simply ignoring them. I notice that you have insisted on re-adding the link to www.rohancockchild.com. Clicking on that link, produces a page with "This Account Has Been Suspended". I am going to mark it in the article with . I also strongly suggest that you read the guidance on Misplaced Pages:User pages and follow the guidelines there concerning the content of User: Rohancockchild which is currently very inappropriate. If you wish to verify what I have been telling you or to seek advice about the content of the article, you can post your query at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. For more specialised advice on the appropriate style and format of articles on classical composers and musicians, you can post at either Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music or Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Voceditenore. Re: link to Ro Hancock Child's website. I see that on her website, the Misplaced Pages entry seems to be used by Hancock Child as independent validation of her professional worth. She doesn't bother even to do a biog on her own site, but links to Wiki instead. Reading the editing history, she appears to be writing a fair amount of this Wiki article herself with her own publicist and 'secretaries', and has a conflict of interest with the Wiki codes that you already flagged. This seems to be treating Misplaced Pages as self advertising and personal validation (that Misplaced Pages has somehow picked her out as a particular talent for recognition). Is this the purpose of Wiki? Cyranosnose (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No it is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages, and it is especially wrong to imply that it has "chosen" her, when the article was clearly written by her and her associates. In fact, there is so little coverage of her in any sources that are independent of her own publicity that the article would have a very difficult time passing an Articles for deletion discussion. Unfortunately, a lot people try to use Misplaced Pages this way. I am going to seek advice at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now added this article for discussion at the here on the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Biographies of living persons Noticeboard discussion now archived here. Voceditenore (talk)

Travesti/Victorian burlesque

Tim just did a nice job expanding the Victorian burlesque article. Does anything need to be added back and forth between this and the Travesti article that you are working on? Just a thought. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of the current merge proposal at Burlesque (literature)? I wonder if merging it into the poorly-written Burlesque article will destroy any value (or chance at expansion) that it may have. Your comments would be valued at Talk:Burlesque. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, V. You may find this article of interest: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3826405 -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. I'm going to file this away for when I next add to Travesti. I've still got a bit to do re the ballet sections. But I never seem to get the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Classical Music in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Music for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! -Mabeenot (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

La Tosca

Hi voced. Are you interested in taking this to FA at all? I think it's already FA quality and you deserve the recognition for the outstanding work you did here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi 4M4. Thank you! But, well, frankly, I'd really rather not go for FA. I don't care about recognition at all, and the process would probably start removing a lot of the stuff that I like about the article, and that I think the readers would also enjoy, especially about the backgrounds to the characters etc. They'd also start raising a fuss about the images, which are all PD in the US, but possibly not world-wide, hence some would have to be moved out of Commons. Since it's not an opera article, I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Hope that's OK. By the way, thanks so much for monitoring User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult. I've been so busy with other stuff, that I kind of let that slip over the past couple of weeks. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I completely understand your feelings on the FA review process. I didn't do the work at La Tosca, so I'll definitely defer to your wishes on the matter. On a related note to the AlexBot, I haven't been rating all of the articles and there is now a growing number of entries in Category:Unassessed Opera articles. Is it time for another assessment drive?4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, re Anne Sharp

Thanks a million for adding some references to the page I created on this opera singer. As you may have gathered, she is my mother, and still very much alive and with all marbles present and correct. Some of that stuff was acquired simply by asking her, but I have considerable documentation to support it. I have manuscript copies of Britten scores with alterations in the original cast's handwriting, typed-up scripts for the first BBC broadcasts of the works in question, original programmes, and of course her college diplomas. I also have contemporary press cuttings, and clippings from the Radio Times referring to her broadcasts (she did solo recitals on the Third Programme, recitals in London concert halls and other stuff I didn't include).

I don't know how to reference any of this stuff. Good grief, I even have the BBC archive recording of the original cast performance of The Little Sweep from 1949 on my iPod, but the BBC would probably have a hairy fit if I uploaded any of it. Any suggestions on how to make the article better referenced greatly appreciated. Morag Kerr (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Morag. You're very welcome. I nipped in as fast as I could because Misplaced Pages has a recently implemented policy of automatically proposing for deletion all articles about living persons which are unreferenced. If you have clippings etc., it's perfectly OK to use them as references. They don't have to be online. Just give the bibliographic info, e.g.:

New York Times, "La Tosca Makes a Record", 5 June 1891, p. 3.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, much appreciated. I knew quite a lot of what I had written was referenced by the Britten-Pears Foundation article on The Little Sweep I had linked to, but I didn't know how to format it correctly. I'm very grateful for your efforts in that department.

I'll get the clippings box out and sort out some more references. There is also the matter of the non-Britten stuff she did as well. I've left that out for now because it's the Britten connection that makes her short career notable, but once that part is sorted, there are performances of The Magic Flute (Queen of the Night) and Carmen (Michaela), possibly others, and recital, concert and broadcast work. I know she was doing Zerbinetta somewhere, though that may not be referenced. Might be worth a short section even though on its own it wouldn't have been particularly notable. Morag Kerr (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't resist to nominate her for DYK, some more inline citation is wanted there, you know more about the article than I do. - The date Rinaldo was fixed, finally. - As for DYK in general, I like your approach in the general archive, we could drop the other one. (How?) Perhaps we can keep a few (like three) hooks on top of the talk page, adding (and dropping) one a day? There are many undiscovered ones from 2010 which might be shown there first before going to the portal. Just a thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there are going to be problems with referencing this article sufficiently for a DYK. The ref for the hook is OK, but most of the other information is unreferenced and cannot be referenced to published sources. It was obtained directly from the subject or unpublished documents. This is complicated by th fact that it's a BLP, and the reviewers are liable to take a hard line on this. It's why I didn't nominate it myself, although it's a really interesting article. Re the portal stuff, I'll reply on your talk page, as it's not really pertinent to this topic. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you recommend to hold the nom (improvements to be expected) or withdraw? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's worth asking the creator if she's likely to find any references for the two unreferenced sections in the next few days. If not, I'd withdraw it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Author commented, I'll watch now, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Purcell Operatic Society

Hello Voceditneore, An excellent article - I see that it is classed as a stub; whilst I think it certainly more than that, I do look forward to more!

Just a note on the extract page from Up to Now - I see this originates from Inside Intelligence, which explains a lot. It is an edited piece of text from pages 26 to 28/30, but sadly does not show this. As such it includes part of one of Martin's delightful diversions, in this case on Handel and Milton, to make it look as if it were all part of what was sung by the POS, but in fact it was a) not performed by the POS at all and b) by being edited, curtails the delight.

Just to explain further, it is a diversion on unsuitable lines – Thus, on the fatal banks of Nile./ weeps the deceiful crocodile – which was sung by the POS, on to unsuitable lines in Handel's oratorio Samson which had not, but had been sung by the Middlesex Choral Union, (founded by his father James Shaw and Robert Newman) in 1893. I quote from Up to Now: "To man God's universal law/Gave power to keep his wife in awe./Thus shall his life be ne'er dismayed,/ by female usurpation swayed". Even in 1893 the sentiments seemed a little antiquated to me, although the chorus sang them without turning a hair. For years I imagined the author of these words to have been a bachelor! It was only recently that I learnt that they had been taken, with but little alteration, from Milton's "Samson Agonistes" ... ixo (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ixo. I assumed the bit about the funny lines in Samson was simply a digression. Probably most readers would too, especially after they've read the article. It's too bad the online extracts aren't formatted to show that they've been edited and what the original page numbers were. I might make a note of that by the external link. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Opera DYK

Thank you for moving the Handel DYK up high, link to the existing archive and incorporating the hooks there. Sorry I was not aware of the Portal nor that archive. What do you think of expanding it by adding (for the new ones) a date, possible with a link to the general archive? And/or show some new ones on the portal, instead of on the talk page? "New" seems to mean all of 2010, which might be incorporated slowly, when there are no really new ones. Portal:Germany had five new articles just yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Above in response to this – Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. I had as look at Portal:Germany. I see that it was made a Featured Portal in 2006, but I'm not sure if it would now. The requirements are much stricter now, which is why we had the portal designed by an experienced member of WikiProject Portals, specifically to bring it to Featured Portal status and to make it virtually maintenance-free. I'm quite against adding dates or "new" to the portal content. First of all, it requires too much maintenance and can quickly go out of date (this was discussed when we were setting up the portal). Secondly, it makes the portal boring to have only one set of DYKs which doesn't change for days on end. Ours change each time you refresh the page. The goal of DYK on Portal:Opera is not to highlight "new" articles but to highlight interesting articles and to show the breadth and variety of opera coverage to someone new to the area on Misplaced Pages. But I will create a couple of new DYK pages over the next couple of days that can be added to the rotation. I also added a link to the page you created at Portal:Opera/DYK in the Nominations section. But it would be inappropriate to add that link to the portal page itself. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! I don't think I was precise enough. Firstly, about the portal Germany, I only refer to the DYK section. At present that is fed by new DYK from the Main page, coming almost more frequently than we can handle. Older articles can be looked up in the archives, two different ones until the end of 2010, one since the beginning of 2011. Secondly, adding a date could be done as for DYK Germany, unvisible on the page but there once you edit, - no link then, though. One more thought: Fritz Lehmann will come up on the Main page with a hook about Bach, but for Opera it might be more interesting that he conducted the first modern performance of Tolomeo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. Yep, I know you were talking about the DYK section. But on Portal:Germany, the DYK is a static feature which needs to be manually updated. Such an arrangement is unsuitable for Portal:Opera for the reasons I gave above, plus the fact that the opera portal has many more sections than the German one and there's room for only 3 DYKs at a time. That's another reason for having it a ramdomly rotating section rather than a static one. Re Fritz Lehmann, the hook cannot be changed or re-worded to make it suitable for the opera portal. DYKs must appear exactly as they appeared on the Main Page. This was stuff I learned when we re-vamped the opera portal. Although there's no harm in adding hidden text about the date, there's no need to because the opera portal (in line with the current best practice on DYK sections for portals) requires that each DYK be sourced with a direct link to the appropriate recent additions archive. Here's an example Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So I understand know how DYK on the Portal Opera works. I see that the sources are in the old style, just a sequence number, whereas the archive is now organized by day/month/year, - you know the archive, you know the date. - I don't know yet where I would see the date in the "complete" opera DYK archive. Where would I enter a "new" conductor, for example? Top, bottom, alphabet, birth date, anywhere, not at all? Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've updated Portal:Opera/DYK/Did you know? now with instructions, and have added the new style archive links for those which haven't been added to the portal yet. There's no need to do this for the ones that have already been added to the portal Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

morgan pochin / Juliette pochin

I hope I am correct in setting up a new heading! We have had discussions previously ref the Juliette Pochin site and you kindly left some notes which I can no longer trace? (maybe its me!)...could you guide me please as it contained some useful advice I wish to follow? Secondly, I hope to add some other CD info..but cannot get any independent verification as yet...eg. Alfie Boe "Bring him home" was arranged and produced by Juliette Pochin and James Morgan. This is shown on the "discography" section of the Morgan Pochin website : http://www.morganpochin.com/ ..I am not sure a reference to this site would count as independent? I cannot find an image of a CD liner or anything else at the moment. Thanks for kind help so far. Pochinfan (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC) ps ..under the "much appreciation" section and the (made me smile) discussion ref "fishers" "PR" types etc. I am merely a friend of Juliette who asked me to have go at Wikepedia page. Without your assistance it would never have made it.... in fact I could well have ended up in an institution! Whether i will ever be brave enough to tackle another page remains to be seen. At least Juliette is a "proper" Opera singer i.e. she has actually sung in an Opera or two (unlike some crossover singers I know)..albeit her career has taken a shift recently. Thanks again Pochinfan (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. The notes you're looking for are archived here. Re the Alfie Boe CD. Personally I'd leave it off until it actually comes out, on the basis that this is an encyclopedia article, not a newsletter. It's only a few more days. But if you do put it in the article now, the Decca catalogue number is a sufficient reference, if you just want to reference their credits. The actual credits don't need to be online. If you want to say anything more about it, it would require a review as a reference. Anytime you want to have a go at another article, I'll be happy to help. I'd recommend writing about a notable dead person. They're a lot easier to reference properly. . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, The Alfie Boe" Bring him Home" album (gold so far) was actually issued in December so I will add it shortly ( I will need a stiff drink first!) Maybe I should find a dead person who did not achieve much ...for simplicity . regards, Pochinfan (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

any idea why the page for Juliette Pochin appears in some sort of "minimalist " format currently. I have not altered anything! Regards, Pochinfan (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. You might have accidentally changed the display settings on your browser. Try logging out of Misplaced Pages, closing your browser, and then starting over. Voceditenore (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

strange...as you say it is fine now. I looked yesterday on my daughter's laptop and today on my own...and it was very different. Did not alter anything on either machine. hey ho ...it is fine now :). thanks for responsePochinfan (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

same happened again today..tried both firefox and internet explorer...no wiki frame/logo etc etc. Very odd.Pochinfan (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to note that if I log in all seems back to normal ? Pochinfan (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

still the same intermittant problem...quite random and on different laptops.Pochinfan (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo title italicised

An editor has italicised the title of Rinaldo (opera). No other opera articles in Misplaced Pages seem to be italicised, and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (operas) does not mention italicisation, though WP:ITALICTITLE seems to suggest that titles should be. Is there a specific Opera Project policy, in writing, than can be used to justify restoring the Rinaldo title to its non-italic form? Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brian, there's Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Opera#Title_display_.28use_of_italics.29, which is a recommendation not to use them in the article's title. But as we all know a determined italicizer backed up by WP:MOS, couldn't care less what the OP recommends.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal

How do I put it in the Portal rotation? Do I need to have two others before I can do that? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese. I was just about to leave you a message at your talk page. It's not that Gerda didn't believe it had been a DYK. It's that the green ticks are only for the DYKs that have already been added to the Portal:Opera rotation. The list you added it to is our "working list". I'll be happy to add it. Just give me a couple of hours. I like to get a balance of topics and need to add an image for one of them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized and apologized for my misinterpretation - I'd thought the removal of the tick and the "when" were part of the same edit, as it were, ie. "this has not been verified," rather than two separate issues. Patience and Sarah has an image if you want to use it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for an(other unclear) edit summary which I would have liked to change once I hit Save. It's resolved, I hope? The procedure to add to the archive (with a link to the date in the general DYK archive) is described, right? There are examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I get it now. Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Anyhow, I've made a new page to add three more to the rotation, including the one by Roscelese. Portal:Opera/DYK/23.

Thanks! And if I want to add more, I just create a portal page at the next higher number, or is there something else I have to do to put it in rotation? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's what to do...

• Each new page must have three DYKs (no more, no less).
• Each one must be sourced to the link in the exact Misplaced Pages:Recent additions archive where it appears.
• The page layout/coding is at Portal:Opera/DYK/Layout.
• The wording must be exactly as it was in the original DYK.
• Each set needs an image. The image must be free-use and only 1 per set of 3 DYKs.
• It's best to make sure the three DYKs reflect a variety of subjects, e.g. a mix of bios, operas and periods
• Once the page is created. You transclude it at Portal:Opera/DYK.
• Then you update the max number by editing the portal at:

  Random portal component|max=23|header=Did you know...

I've got the portal pages on my watchlist, so don't worry about making a mistake. I can always fix it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks so much! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Hi VdT. I saw you also asked the same question on DGG's page. He's now answered it. Does it harmonsise with what I suggested? He has excellent objective interpretations of notability policies. This is a purely academic question, as BLPPROD will be up for review sooner or later. --Kudpung (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

QpQ for DYK

Thanks for the reminder, but to my knowledge you only have to review another nom if you nominate your own article, not that of someone else. I wasn't sure about being a co-author, so did a voluntary review when I nominated Ravel's Introduction and Allegro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't read the fine print.;-) I thought anyone who nominates has to review, even if it's not their own. By the way, I'm enjoying your DYKs at the top of OP talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! More to come, Stoepel and Sharp passed. - I followed the QpQ discussion only partly, one argument was that nominating the work of others should be encouraged. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Operissimo

Hi VdT. I hope you didn't mind me bringing it up again on DGG's page. The point I was trying to make was that there were dozens, if not hundreds of extremely short stubs where Operissimo was the only ref. A poor ref indeed, but unfortunately sufficient to prevent the use of a BLPPROD template. I don't see the BLPPROD so much as a threat to delete, but more as a message to the creator that s/he has ten days to do something about it. Of course, if we want to do their work for them, that 's up to us, but in the case of the Operissimo stubs I had the feeling that the creator was actually quite aware of the Misplaced Pages requirements. --Kudpung (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, it's just that I personally find them less annoying than the COI rubbish. ;-) Besides, the majority of articles using operissimo as a reference are for dead singers, and on the whole, I've found the operissimo database to be quite accurate. Even so, I've hammered home at the OP that this shouldn't ever be used as the sole source, and as far as I can see, this has stopped. Another one that editors (not the one you're referring to) were using a lot was bach-cantatas.com until I pointed out its unsuitability. In fact, it's even more of a primary source as most of the bios for living singers are plagiarised from their agents' websites. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane Williams

Thanks for adding the picture and the assessment there. I should have thought of adding that portrait but my knowledge of images and copyrights is pretty poor. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I love finding images and adding them. If you ever need one for an article, just give me a shout. Fascinating article, by the way. Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Women's History

Thanks for the heads-up on the vote, and for researching the bot options. I wasn't sure if there was one we could have run, or if we'd need to make our own, which is when I bailed. :-/ - PKM (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have bailed too, if I thought we'd have make our own bot. ;-). Simple navboxes are just about the limit of my expertise. Actually, it was good to have a vote regardless of the outcome—brought a lot members back to the talk page, including the founder. It'll be interesting to see if this project gets anywhere. Voceditenore (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Le dernier sorcier

Hello! Your submission of Le dernier sorcier at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK talk page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Nina (Dalayrac)

I would appriciate your input at this discussion, whatever your opinion might be. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Jarvis Street Baptist Church

Thanks for your help with the stub issue. Here is another situation that I would like your input on. A new user, User:Kategona, recently added content on Jarvis Street Baptist Church to Henry Langley (architect). It really wasn't appropriate content for that article, so I copy pasted that content into a new article titled Jarvis Street Baptist Church. Then another new user, User:Iboury, added a bunch of unencyclopedic promotional material to the church article. I know you have a lot of experience with coi editors and I thought you might know how to best handle this. Thanks for any help in advance.4meter4 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Off with their heads!" ;-) Seriously though, the second user had a point, albeit somewhat unencyclopedically expressed. Churches (apart from disused ones) are also congregations and neutrally worded information about that congregation's history and its activity in present times is not only appropriate but desirable in such articles. (I'm including it in an article I'm currently working on about a London church.) I've restructured the Jarvis Street article, rewritten the "Current activities" stuff, and added a section on the history of the congregation which predates the current church building by nearly 60 years and has included some quite famous Baptist preachers. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Great work on the article! Here is another image if you care to add it File:Jarvis Street Baptist Church.JPG.4meter4 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oooops. Forgot to mention that when copying or transferring material from one WP article to another, WP's license requires attribution, minmally in the edit history. I've done that now. Here's what it looks like: . There's more about the process at Copying within Misplaced Pages. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that there was a licensing issue in such cases. Interesting.4meter4 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Geesh! Look what you started .;-) The other image isn't too great, but would be good in a gallery. I'm assembling one now with a couple of other images. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! I wonder if these editors are church members who are excited about the new wikipedia article. lol4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Keto and Kote

Many thanks for re-establishing this article. During copy-edit driving I found the previous version a complete copy-and-paste violation from inception; I was the one who tagged for deletion. I have to say your succinct but elegant stub is superb, and should be set as an example of “how to do it”’. I have a tendency to reduce faulty articles to the brusque and barren, so I will log your Keto and Kote as a guiding light. In admiration. Acabashi (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

:Lashuto‎;

This discovery of yours explains alot to me in how the editor was navigating this place so well for his first time. Moxy (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If he continues his disruption and/or blows off my question with sarcasm, I'm going to bring an SPI and ask checkuser to look for sleepers. If anyone wants to bring one regardless, that's fine by me. If my analysis is accurate, the original editor has clearly done this to avoid scrutiny, i.e. make it hard keep a watch on his contributions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the closed SPI, Lashuto doesn't have the MO of the banned user I blocked based on private CU evidence. --Bsadowski1 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It could be a coincidence that Lashuto (and Teecono) registered at about the same time that Dresian started mass-adding the YouTube links as well as creating a template to make addition faster, and then simply took up where he left off, including editing the template Dresian created and restoring Dresian's deleted links. But whoever Lashuto is, he's clearly not a "new user". In addition to this comment, new users don't immediately head for a template and start editing it as well as creating several more in their first 24 hours. Similarly, the very first edit by Teecono (who had exactly the same MO as Lashuto including identical edit summaries) is highly unusual for a new editor. Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Le dernier sorcier

On 11 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Le dernier sorcier, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, in 1869, Johannes Brahms conducted the chamber opera Le dernier sorcier (The Last Sorcerer), composed by Pauline Viardot to a French libretto by Ivan Turgenev? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request

If you have time (and of course the inclination) I'd be glad of any comments you may like to make on the Thomas Beecham peer review page. I don't know that Beecham was a singer's number one friend, but any suggestions will be gratefully received. There's no rush. Tim riley (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this. A drive-by editor has thought fit to close the PR after less than 2 days and has, for some inexplicable reason, nominated the article for FA. I have naturally opposed the nomination as premature (some might also say discourteous, but let it pass) and will get the PR reinstated as soon as I can. Meanwhile, sorry you are being mucked about by this other editor. Tim riley (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Neil Falcone again

This article was just recreated. It is up for speedy delete, but objections have been raised. See Talk:Ryan Neil Falcone.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As you've probably seen, an admin declined the speedy but put it up immediately for AfD. I suppose the AfD will see more of the flashmob shenanigans outlined here. I've now put Aaron Raitiere and Peter Shalvoy on my watchlist in case they too rise from the dead. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your alert. Unfortunately, due to a series of misunderstandings, I am now on edit restrictions whereby I am not allowed to add materials to main article space unless it is first reviewed by another user for possible copyright infringement. Should corrective text be necessary, would you be willing to review it so that I could post it quickly? Many thanks for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page to keep the conversation in one place. Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears the flashmob has materialized now at the AFD. Should we add these new meat puppets to the list? On another note, somehow I missed your message about Louise Homer on my talk page until today. I'm done expanding that article for the present, although doubtless much more could be written. Feel free to contribute in anyway that interests you. More pictures are always a welcome addition.4meter4 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see from the AfD, an administrator is looking into it and will probably file an SPI if it continues. The clueless cookie-cutter "Strong Keep" arguments put forward by the latest "contributors" to the discussion are higly unlikely to carry any weight. I wonder if they realize that at least three of the discussants there as well as the nominator are administrators, who will no doubt appreciate their explantions of what the notability guidelines mean, and a fifth is a science fiction author and publisher, who will no doubt appreciate their explanations of how science fiction publishing works. :-) Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Just wondering - did you remember to inform the user? --Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't per "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." Should I have done it anyway? Voceditenore (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I always do, but it's a matter of opinion - don't let me sway you. However, as no one has responded yet to the SPI, unless they are all aware of it and come to their defence, the SPI might just go stale and get archived. CUs can only technically establish that the same machine was being used, and overlaps and relays in editing; they can't prove sockpuppetry, just as much as they can't disprove it. We'll never know what gets discussed off-Wiki, but 'little brother/flatmate' or 'I went out of the room and left my machine logged in to Misplaced Pages' are the most hackneyed of all excuses, while 'I heard my coworker tapping away furiously at Misplaced Pages in the next cubicle' is rather original. Of course, we have to AGF, but as I said on my RfA (which nearly cost me the mop), sooner or later GF has its limits. I'm sure the CU in this instance is acting in GF, but perhaps a broader view is required - too much of the stuff I turned up is worrying, and seems to support your own opinions. --Kudpung (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note at the SPI stating that I didn't warn the user and why, asked the admin if it should be done, and if so to leave the case open. But if you look at the cookie-cutter "defenses" mounted at the last one, it's pretty obvious that they will be advised of what to say and how. The case will go stale eventually anyway. My impression is that the SPI process doesn't really care about meat-puppetry, and that's what this appears to be. The information about pledge season at the fraternity makes a lot of sense to me in terms of what went on with the Falcone article. I'm pretty sure the article's creator was supplied with a copy of the deleted article and given a mission impossible to see if he and his friends could get it back onto WP. If the flashmob shows up at the AfD, then it can simply be dealt with by marking their contributions as SPAs. There's no way any uninvolved editor could conceivably argue for notability in this one. Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Would have been nice to inform me; have not been active for a while. Was informed by an e-mail. Think some technical understanding of how the internet works would help. See my comment, below. I tallied up the number of URLs I travel through in one week -- 7, folks. One of those is probably Racepacket's, as well, as he is in the same county as part of my weekly travels. On the rest of the CoI allegations, I think those were all cleared or stated last fall, and everyone knows to do so now. Racepacket took this to the Cornell Board of Trustees last year, but it is not clear if all Cornellians are conflicted from all articles that touch on Cornell, etc.Cmagha (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See my comment below. Voceditenore (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Neil Falcone and Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)

Thank you for your recent edits. I have added more {{fact}} and {{how?}} tags today. Could you please review the lead paragraph of Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)? Two ideas that are missing from the lead are that the organization became coeducational shortly after women students started to attend the University and that it welcomed members from a variety of fraternities. Once those facts are reintroduced into the article, it will lose it promotional value, and the link to it may be dropped from the main page of the PKP website. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's better to use a new heading when posting on a different topic. Anyhow, I re-wrote the sentences in Falcone to obviate some of the tags you added—a rather Quixotic gesture on my part, as this article hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of passing the AfD.

As for the Irving, I did a bit of very basic cleanup last autumn after the 2nd AfD, but it still needs a lot more. Nevertheless (and not surprisingly), the cleanup tag was removed by another editor in November with no improvement to the article. I've now had a good look at it again and added a multiple issues tag. All of the references have to be checked to ensure that they actually say what they are claimed to say (I know for a fact that many of them don't), and it has multiple instances of synthesis and off-topic theorizing. The prose is atrocious and often "in universe" and the article generally lacks coherence. The lead is totally contrary to the Manual of Style. The article definitely needs more stuff about the Society's openness to women and to all fraternities, not to mention the fact that it was completely taken over at one point by... er... Delta Kappa Epsilon.

Frankly, I don't care who links to the article from their website. I only care that it ends up a decent article, which it currently is not despite its massive word count. I won't have time to work on it in the next few weeks, as I'm currently working on a much more gripping society, but I'll eventually get to it. I also have it on my watchlist and the closing admin at the AfD offerred support if any attempts are made to hijack it. The shenanigans that went on with this article (and its numerous offspring) make me very glad that my alma mater and her sibling had no truck with "Greekness". I find the whole concept faintly ridiculous, but à chacun son goût and all that. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that they are reaching out to claim folks like the future President of Cuba and John F. Kennedy, Jr. although these celebrities have documented affiliations elsewhere. I think that by reaching out to the freshmen as individuals and inviting them to participate in Misplaced Pages in a positive fashion, we have curbed the original plan. They believe everything they are told about the Irving Literary Society, JFK Jr, etc., because they trust their fraternity brothers regarding their fraternity heritage. Thank you for all that you do. Racepacket (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I knew about their attempt with JFK Jr. but Menocal takes the cake. I've fact-tagged it and will remove it in 48 hours if it's not referenced. In any case, just because the Cornell Phi Kappa Psi is now coextensive with their own brand of the ILS, doesn't mean it was then. By the way, have you noticed that after a 3 month hiatus, not only did this editor show up again on the day the Falcone article was recreated, but also this one. Interestingly, the latter has participated in the AfD today by plagiarising the third member of the triumvirate. Dear Oh Dear. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Menocal brothers joined the Irving together; Alfonso was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, later became a naval engineer. Mario had dual membership in Deke and Phi Kappa Psi, Deke becoming more important to him in later years. But all that was stripped out when you two rewrote the article last fall, along with the coeducational references I put in earlier. I stayed away from the text in deference to you. Just ask. Cmagha (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I did ask by putting {{citation needed}} in the Menocal article. If you have reliable published sources verifying Mario Menocal's membership in Phi Kappa Psi and the Irving Literary Society, please add them to Menocal's article. One for each please, as the Irving prior to its demise in 1887 was not necessarily co-extensive with either Phi Kappa Psi or Delta Kappa Epsilon. Incidentally, the "stripping out" as you call it was done primarily by three other editors, not me, and rightly so. Material which was removed and/or rewritten was in compliance with the consensus at the second AfD and with Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. The list of ILS members had not a single reference verifying their membership. Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying you are staying away from the article out of deference to me is irrelevant and misses the point. As per the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, you or anyone else affiliated with Phi Kappa Psi should propose changes to the article at Talk:Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). As for Coldplay3332 and Lebowski 666, all three of you should abide by the advice you were each given following the sockpuppet investigation , , and which you have so far completely ignored. Either avoid editing the same articles and especially participating in the same discussions, or openly declare the fact that you share the same IP. Be aware that even if you do declare it, per Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Sharing an IP address, your comments can (and usually will) be treated as if they were from a single user for purposes of deciding consensus. Voceditenore (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is really interesting --- do you realize how the internet operates? Aside from someone on a land line at home, thousands of people are hook through the same URLs. It is good to post the common URL, when you know it is common. The one I am on right now, I think, is in New Jersey -- four hundred miles away. How many people are piping through it? Between here, Phildelphia and New Jersey? Co-workers is more serious, and when that was the case, we declared it -- was almost a year ago in one individuals' case; and was not a co-worker at the time. And note, Racepacket has yet to declare his conflict on the Falcone matter, even though he did on the Irving issue. He is a former Cornell Trustee and has actively lobbyied the Board of Trustees on Misplaced Pages matters, hasn't he? I suggest a double standard, and some quiet prayer and meditation might help the detractors come to peace with their disturbed thoughts. Cmagha (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know exactly how the internet works. Unfortunately, you have no idea how Misplaced Pages works. I based my arguments on the behavioural evidence, which is quite transparent. The co-workers clause is still in effect. You, Coldplay3322 and Lebowski 666 are of course free to ignore the advice you were given, as indeed you have. Voceditenore (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nor are we still co-workers, nor in communication. Does the CoI apply to past co-workers, and if so, how long is the statute of limitations? I have stayed off the AfD intentionally. And does your work for Racepacket conflict you? These are all good questions. Cmagha (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not "work for Racepacket". Nor I do not consider myself "conflicted" as you can see from this and this. You may put whatever construal you want on the fact that you no longer share the same IP and building with Coldplay3322 and Lebowski 666, and all three of you can continue to ignore the advice you were given. It's your choice. As I said before, I have consistently based my arguments on behavioural evidence only, as have at least two administrators at the most recent SPI. I have no intention of continuing this conversation here. If yet another SPI or AN/I is opened, you can discuss it there with other editors. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Castrato parts

Hehe :) Moreschi (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on my GA reviewing

For your information a RFC/U has been started regarding some of my GA reviewing. Please visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Racepacket_2 Thanks, -- Racepacket

It's not really about areas that I am familiar with, but I hope you all can come to an amicable settlement. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)