Revision as of 16:04, 1 March 2010

Welcome

Hi why do you remove stuf that are correct from the Bocelli page as if you are the only one who has the right to contibute to that page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.5.54 (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi why do you assume I am acting like I am the only one who has the right to contribute to the page. Please see the comment attached to the removal.Tonalone (talk)

Because thats wat u do, u keep removing every thing people write, even when its sourced and state raisons that are subjective; like the award section in Bocelli's page for example: wats ur problem with me stating all the awards won by Bocelli during his carrer, all of which are important awards. Perhaps I should create a page titled Awards won by Bocelli, and just put a link to that article under Awards in the Bocelli article, if u prefer, but i dont see y i cant just put all of them.

Orphaned non-free image File:Vocal technique.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Vocal technique.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Please do not remove statements that are well sourced, like Count Melzi's statement that Leonardo's love for his pupils was "passionate", and that Leonardo's sexuality had been subject to "satire". As it happens, the earliest mention (after his death) that Leonardo may have been homosexual comes from a 16th century satirical novel in which Leonardo is interviewed and questioned about his relationships and he says something to the effect that boys are irrestible at fifteen when taken from behind. The purported interview is satire. It is certainly not a serious study, but it does seriously indicate a trend that later analysis was to take.

Also, the reason for the odd placement of the reference in mid sentence is that words like "famous" etc are not used in wikipedia, unless they are cited. The referenced is to that one word, not to the whole statement. Amandajm (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of awards won by Bocelli

I undid your edits of the Bocelli award page, and the award section in the Bocelli article ... i don't see why we shouldn't put the awards in a seperate page, especially since I'm not done with editing the page you deleted. I was gonna do it the right way tomorrow but I need the page I started today, so I wouldn't have to restart everything, Tx. Plus there are many important nominations, for grammys and such that need to be added, and that will take too much space in the article. On the other hand, i don't have a problem with the edits you made with the Andrea Bocelli Template, I think I'll just write a separate article about each opera recording, as I would do for any of Bocelli's regular albums.Ahmad123987 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well other artists have pages about there awards, and it really isn't a big deal so you should maybe let it go. Plus grammy nominations, eccho awards and classical brit awards are important awards, (and being nominated to a grammy is a big deal) or else they wouldn't have thier own articles on wiki. I'm gonna undo it for the last time, please don't create n editing war for small deal.--Ahmad123987 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus I haven't made the article feathure more awards, the awards listed are the same as was in the article the only diffrence is they are better organised. An another thing opera and classical music aren't the same thing.--Ahmad123987 (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I meant opera music is singing arias from operas, and performing in operas, whereas classical music is a more generel term that includes other thinks, like a Canzone Napoletana or a hym, all of which Bocelli also performes, again not a big deal, so lets not argue over a simple word added in an article that is actually factual.--Ahmad123987 (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits at Amores (Lucian)

Hello Tonalone, I've reverted your edits at Amores (Lucian). Please don't "undo" obviously useful edits to articles. Paul August ☎ 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On the same lines, please stop blanking accurate and sourced information at Hoop rolling. If this continues, please decide what form of WP:Dispute resolution you would prefer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The historical issue of pederasty

Hi Tonalone! I notice that you have been making some bold edits lately, removing content dealing with the historical issue of pederasty. Pederasty was a fact of life in ancient Greece and Rome and it must be addressed in a spirit of historical objectivity. I and many others have opposed edits that set out to promote pederasty - such as by the now banned user User:Haiduc. Edits promoting pederasty disrupt, annoy and discourage conscientious editors - which is what your edits are also doing. Please use talk pages to discuss issues before making major changes. Sometimes history and propaganda differ in degree rather than in kind - as in deciding how much emphasis or space should be given to a particular issue like pederasty - and for that we must rely on the guidance of published scholars, not on our personal preferences. Edits promoting pederasty tend to have the following characteristics:

• they rely on sentimental accounts by authors of doubtful authority, ancient or modern, often quoting them in superfluous detail;
• they exaggerate the issue of pederasty by giving it more space or a more priviledged position than it deserves i.e. they don't follow the priorities established by accepted scholars;
• they misrepresent and misinterpret sources from habitual disregard for accuracy or from outright dishonesty;
• they add to a 'walled garden' of interlinked articles presenting a sentimental or favourable view of pederasty, based mainly on the idealised accounts of priviledged 5th/4th century Athenians;
• they locate pederastic images in inappropriate places, such as at the head of an article that has almost nothing to do with pederasty, so that other articles link to that image. etc

Propagandist edits like those cannot be countered by mere deletion of pederastic content - deletion merely clears the space for spiders to weave their webs again and it undoes the hard work of conscientious editors who were trying to keep the spiders in check. I hope you will accept this advice, in everyone's best interest. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)