User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 28

Impact
Thank you for your impact
	in being the spirit behind project opera,; friendly and firmly, supporting new articles; on top of writing them "on demand",; open for new ways but in moderation; (in the best sense)!

Four years ago ...
voice of opera and reason
	... you were recipient; no. 18 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page

yet more past topics...

Verismo & Puccini[edit]

Hi, I did a fairly extensive rewrite of the Verismo (music) page, following up on our discussions on the talk page there almost 2 years (!) ago. I think it could still use some more quality citations, but I wondered if you'd provide any other suggestions. I left the section on verismo singers pretty much alone, although it is not well cited and I have some doubts about what it is saying. Also, I've been chipping away at the Puccini page, and would welcome suggestions there. Specifically, in terms of structure. The Puccini article has a chronological account of his works, followed by about 5 or 6 sections that address some aspect of his life non-chronologically. I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be better to integrate this material into the main chronology, as in the Verdi page, but that would require a very substantial rewrite. Thoughts? David.thompson.esq (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Sorry for my tardy reply. I got quite sidetracked this past month, mainly by my runaway librettist. I'm about to be travelling for the next two weeks. Will definitely have a look when I get back. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saffo[edit]

Hi Voceditenore. Following your latest edit at the article Saffo, and considering that most sources classify the role of Saffo as a soprano part, I've tried to have a quick check on the voice type of this role. Should you be interested, I edited the result at the Italian article. BTW, despite being originally performed by a bass, the role of Ippia is stated to be a tenor part by Dizionario dell'Opera and, in fact, it is notated in the tenor clef in the manuscript score available at IMSLP. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeanambr. Sorry for the late answer. The trouble with that article and many of the earlier ones written here is that they are very poorly referenced—no inline citations. So it's impossible to tell what the actual source of any of the assertions is. The Almanacco Amadeus source seems to be the one originally used to expand the role table [1], although the editor disregarded the classification of Saffo as a mezzo in that source and kept the "soprano" that was already there. I suggest perhaps picking a source, like the Dizionario dell'Opera, make the role table consistent with that, and reference it with an inline citation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree: it's much the same as I did in the Italian article. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/La casa disabitata[edit]

I took the liberty of nominating this for DYK. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you! Just joking . Looks like it went OK, although as usual the article is now peppered with citations after virtually every sentence. Geesh! Kind of the opposite extreme from Saffo (see above). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:PhantomMeep[edit]

Hi, just some friendly advice. Your edit summary on this page ("you may not remove active block notices") is not correct. A blocked user may not remove declines in response to an unblock request, but they can remove block notices. That said, your edit was fine because the user didn't simply remove the notice - they vandalized it, and that of course they cannot do.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Bbb23. That's good to know. I was also going to add to the edit summary "and don't refactor other editors' comments", but given that I had previously deleted one of his own comments from the page which subsequently had to be suppressed, I chickened out. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda :). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak French? There's so much more on Antigone in French, and costumes by Coco Chanel would make a lovely DYK hook ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I can read French, but generally tend to make a fool of myself when I try to speak it . The French WP article is quite good. I might have a go at expanding the English one a little later on. But generally when I do that, I don't translate. I write the stuff from scratch and use my own sources. It generally works out a lot better that way. The sources listed in the English article have a lot of material for expanding it, although as per usual with these early articles (mine included!), it is currently completely devoid of inline citations. Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has an inline citation now. I will try a bit more, and good when you come in a little later, to avoid edit conflicts. I didn't plan to translate word by word (nor could I, my French is only for menu reading), but to get some main ideas. It will be linked from the Main page in half an hour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He composed theatrical music (incidental, film and the dramatic psalm) already before his first opera, not really "in addition" ;) - He composed another oratorio later which we could mention if we stay with "addition". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I assumed that was clear, but I've rephrased to make it more obvious. I've also fixed what you had put originally as: Inspiring operas of the 1920s were for example Hindemith's Cardillac and Alban Berg's Wozzeck. I had assumed that the assertion came from the reference you used, but it seems to have come from the French WP article. However, that's not what the French WP article said. It said that other 1920s operas like Cardillac and Wozzeck were also inspired by works from the past. As for Honneger's other oratorio, no I wouldn't add it unless it's directly relevant to Antigone. Otherwise, it's just padding. Le roi David is relevant because it was the reason why Honneger had earlier fallen out with Cocteau. Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all makes sense, and we talked about my lack of French before ;) - I think what you achieved is presentable, and people missing something are free to add. I think a plot section would make only sense if Cocteau deviated substantially from Sophocles, - which I can't tell. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. There's more to be said about how Cocteau adapted the play for the libretto as well as the performance history. I'll see what I can do there. By the way, I'm not familiar with the kind of refencing format you used on Simone Ballard, but with the 30em parameter added, it breaks up one reference over two columns. Since there are only two references, I removed it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Swoon" was pictured here! About the same "era", - small world. I didn't notice then, because of the piped link. Have Bach music "on" today, DYK? All Puccini operas have an infobox now, no battle. (Beethoven was different.) Mozart next? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeas (Judge Smith album)[edit]

Regarding this edit of yours, I'm curious to find out why you would decide that Orfeas is not an opera. In the Wikipedia article about operas an opera is defined as "an art form in which singers and musicians perform a dramatic work combining text (libretto) and musical score, usually in a theatrical setting". Did you decide to rule Orfeas out simply because it was never performed in a theatrical setting (until now, that is), or do you have other considerations? Thanks in advance. Mark in wiki (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. Has it been performed in a theatrical setting, i.e., live in an opera house or concert hall? It appears to be a concept album (although Judge Smith says he doesn't like the term), which is not the same as an opera. Not every piece of "narrative music" (as he calls it) is an opera. The closest thing Orfeas comes to is a song cycle like Winterreise, but even then the musical idiom is quite different and does not use classically trained voices. In fact, I'm also going to remove Hadestown from that list. I've added Orfeas to Template:Orpheus and Eurydice, however. Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact[edit]

Prompted by the nice image of the singing sisters on top of the project talk, which I now also included in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda :) Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I was pointed at the section about biographical infoboxes in the project guidelines, - which I never looked at ;) - It reads a bit dated, no? I applied {{infobox person}} to many of "my" bios, without any problems, doing so more often for others also now that persondata is deprecated, - data of death and birth are no disinfo, - besides, there's Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation (by RexxS, 2014), enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, guidelines are simply that. Everyone is free to ignore them and I ignore them myself. I add {{infobox person}} to all of the bios I create now, unless they're very short. Sometimes I even add them to articles I haven't created

. I've not come across any biographical articles of the many on my watchlist where the box has been removed because of those old guidelines, although it may happen occasionally. And, assuming you're referring to Talk:Maria Radner#Yea or Nah to Infobox, it all worked out fine. Anyhow, I'm certainly not about to start stirring up the inevitable hornet's nest and bad feeling about it, either by unilaterally changing the guidelines or starting the inevitable sinkhole discussion about changing them. People are gradually accepting them (infoboxes), and if they are missing from some articles, just leave it be. The more they are argued over and pushed for, the more entrenched people become. Voceditenore (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You guessed right, I came from Maria Radner. Next time the question comes up I'll point here, the secret guidelines with common sense ;) - Leave it be when missing: I now look before adding, - Orfeo ed Euridice is close to my heart, but I looked at the contributors and left it without. What I don't take well is removals, - I say something then but I hope not in a pushing way. - Rossini this weekend! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Mark Chichon[edit]

I just saw your (very justified) message on the Karel Mark Chichon talk page to past malefactors, after I totally rewrote the page just now. Perhaps we can both keep an eye on it. Cheers, DJRafe (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJRafe. Good job on cleaning it up after the latest ministrations by the malefactors. I've still got it on my watchlist and have left some replies to your queries at Talk:Karel Mark Chichon. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind note about KMC's page. I might wait a bit for some major news about KMC in the future, and then I can clean things up a bit on the whole Sinopoli and Gergiev issue. BTW, on a side note: what's the best way to go about requesting that a page be deleted? I'm thinking of 2015 Leeds International Piano Competition, because there's no other page devoted to any other year of the Leeds competition. I thought that there was a page to submit suggestions, but for the life of me I can't find it. Cheers, DJRafe (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, my name is Linda Molnarova (yes, I am still using the login of my predecessor) and I am an assistant to Maestro Karel Mark Chichon. Mo Chichon would greatly appreciate if you could please leave our updates unchanged. we understand that Wikipedia is an open source format for general information only, but most of the people do not realize this and so the wikipedia page creates part of his public image. In particular he would like to point out some nonfactual information such as "In March 2015, the orchestra announced that Chichon is to conclude his DRP tenure at the end of the 2016-2017 season". It was not the orchestra who made the announcement but Mo Chichon. Also you have removed the names and dates of birth of his both daughters, which Mo Chichon would love to have there. The same applies on Elina Garanca's wikipedia page. On behalf of Maestro Karel Mark Chichon, I would like to kindly ask you for your cooperation otherwise they will be forced to take further action and I am not responsible for the consequences. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, Linda Molnarova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lienelapsevska (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Lienelapsevska. See section Your recent comments re Karel Mark Chichon. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voceditenore - thanks for the note about the continuing KMC soap opera. Extremely bad form there from KMC's PA, as you noted. I just did fresh edits on KMC's page, which had the unfortunate effect of somewhat undoing your recent work, but at least my edits (unlike a certain conductor's PA's) are constructive, at least IMHO. I recently encountered a somewhat similar situation when I rewrote Sol Gabetta's page, as her page seems to have a self-appointed minder after a fashion as well. Cheers, DJRafe (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I think we were reasonably responsive to each other in the two AfDs - I think you did great work saving those two articles (one by completely rewriting it and refocusing it). I also feel like you added a lot of unnecessary friction with the "COI phobia" stuff. Believe me I wrote many draft responses to you that responded to that and commented on you and your motivations, but I deleted every one of them before I saved it, and simply responded on the content matters. The essence of CIVIL is not writing or doing stuff that creates unnecessary interpersonal friction so we can all focus on getting work done.

If you think I am overly zealous about COI stuff I would be happy to discuss that on your Talk page or mine, but please don't insert that rhetoric into Talk page discussions about content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about my remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Roadrunner. They were addressed to all four editors there !voting "Delete" on that basis alone and/or not doing even a minimal amount of BEFORE—not simply you. Discussing the merits of the deletion rationale and the quality of the evidence for it is highly relevant at an AfD. I have no idea if you are over-zealous about deleting COI articles in general, I don't think I've encountered you in more than one or two previous AfDs. If you find that my remarks caused "unnecessary friction" with you, I will happily re-word the argument in future AfDs, but not its essence. Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singer[edit]

Just came across Gina Sanders while reviewing edits. I was about to nominate it for deletion, but I'd rather hear your thoughts first. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FoCuS! I'd definitely !vote "Delete" at an AfD. I can't find any evidence that she satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO and I looked very hard. You could try "Prodding" it first to save us a lot of trouble and palaver an an AfD. In the meantime, I've tagged it for multiple issues. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Voce! PRODed, will let you know if it goes to AfD. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax article[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_%26_Martinus

I don't know how to give you a direct link. This whole article is derogatory and false. Any advice on how to tackle it would help

Cheers, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.27.50 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How bizarre! I've reverted the article to its pre-vandalism state and made a report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to get more eyes on it. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that 'leafybeefy' was accepted as a legit recording label by so many editors 122.171.27.50 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't so much accepted as missed. That often happen when there is rapid-fire vandalism by multiple IPs and accounts. Anyhow, the article has now been protected for 24 hours from editing by IPs and new accounts. I'll keep an eye on it and if they return after it expires, I'll ask for longer protection. Voceditenore (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP / AfC[edit]

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article creation (from COI editor)[edit]

Thanks Voceditenore for all of your diligent work over the years. I worked with you at my previous employer to recommend some article changes, and you were extremely candid and helpful. Now I have a PR colleague at my current employer who wants to request the creation of an article for our organization, and she's looking for help to do it while complying with the COI guidelines. I work for USF Health, the partnership of health colleges/schools and the physicians group for the University of South Florida, and while most of the individual colleges/schools have Wikipedia pages, the parent organization does not. Our peers (University of Florida Health for example) do have Wikipedia pages for their health organizations, and my colleague has written a well-sourced article (in journalistic style and including internal-Wikipedia links) that she would like to submit for consideration. The Wikipedia article creation wizard specifically says not to create articles about our own organization, so she hasn't submitted it there.

Would you be willing to review my colleague's draft article, and if you think that it merits inclusion, suggesting how we could get an independent version created on Wikipedia? We fully expect that you (or any Wikipedia editor) would use your own editorial discretion and edit the article to your standards as you see fit. Respectfully, TampaEditor (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TampaEditor. Yes I remember you from Talk:Stetson University College of Law. I assume you are referring to this USF umbrella organization/enterprise. I don't think this should be a separate article and I doubt very much if there's enough independent coverage (not press releases) to justify one. I think it's already adequately covered at University of South Florida#USF Health, with perhaps just a slight scope for expansion. I could then make USF Health as a redirect page to that section. I also have to say that both University of South Florida and University of South Florida College of Medicine are horrendously promotional in their current state. They both read like brochures, especially the latter which consists solely of material taken from USF websites, and by "taken", I mean literally. You know, stuff like...

CAMLS is a 90,000 square foot, state-of-the-art, three-story facility with every possible form of health professional education and training, for individuals and teams, under one roof. CAMLS integrates simulation technology, aviation science, team training, and evidence-based best practice into innovative programs with measurable outcomes.

I suggest your colleague create an account and then put the draft in her own sandbox, not on her user page. To create her own sandbox, she should log in and the click the"Sandbox" link at the very top of the page, next to her user name). Since this would be paid editing in her part, she'll also have to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Let me know when she's done all that. I'll have a look at her draft there and give an honest assessment of what parts could appropriately be added to the existing section in University of South Florida, if any. Alternatively, she could use the article wizard, and at the end Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission, click on the top option "create new article draft". With that option, it will be independently reviewed by volunteers and if appropriate, will be moved to the article namespace. That option was specifically designed for COI editors. My own view, however, is that it is highly unlikely that it would be ever be accepted. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS TampaEditor, I just noticed that there is already a draft for this topic at Draft:USF Health. Most of it was deleted as blatant copyvio. What remains is very poor. Your colleague could edit that page to add new material and then submit it for review, if she wants to go that route, although, as I said, it's unlikely to be accepted. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More COI[edit]

An artist wrote about himself, David Stern, - I told m a few things but would like your eyes on also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I've left a notice on the article's talk page about the copyvio—it was a straight paste from his website. I've also left a note on the user's talk page and will keep both on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Adler (lyricist)[edit]

Nice work there! And thus one thing leads to another ... and another few hours go down the wiki-sink. But it's fun. PamD 09:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pam! Yep, a lot of my articles come from me meandering down roads to the most unlikely places. I'm pretty sure there was more to Adler's life than meets the eye, although not sufficiently well-sourced to add to the article, and besides he still has living relatives. See this article in the Sydney Morning Herald and this cover story on Shirley MacLaine from the April 2000 issue of this magazine. Incidentally, Adler's elder, brother Andrew Hart Adler, seems to be a reasonably well-known painter [2]. However, I shall leave him in blessed obscurity. I try to avoid creating articles about living people as much as possible. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for having answered me on the Teahouse and Yeah I am planning to use the Template on other articles, but I fear that they will not accept my edits.Luke de paul (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to rectify errors -marie banu[edit]

HI,

Let me clarify a few points. I am a novice and this is my first attempt in posting an article in Wiki. i tried creating an account in the name of the person i wanted to publish, then to avoid issues related with COI - i created an account webmasterscsim - this is because i wanted marie banu and csim to be linked in the user name. later to avoid confusion i created a neutral id webmasterssocial - you can note that all these were created from the same IP address.

2. i am not the webmaster for csim. i checked the site and learn that © web site developed by arjun aria - it is one person by name Senthil who is based in Bangalore who is maintaining the CSIM site.

3. i have blocked the domain name mariebanu.com as i had some free accounts.

4. after the content in wikipedia is signed off, i intend to write to her and ask her approval to publish her site. i have been handling several social work sites like: http://maathiyosi.in/; http://nlcharity.org/; http://shapecharity.

5. Marie Banu was handling all communications related to the Oxfam International tsunami programme in India. hence the international report - India section - has been authored by her. You will not find bylines for any of the content in the reports Photographs are acknowledged seperately as an Oxfam Policy.

Please let me know if you have any more queries.

Regards, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmasterssocial (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Webmasterssocial (John). I am quite sure you didn't mean to violate policies with your user names. It's a misunderstanding that happens to a lot of new users. Now that you have a new name which is much more suitable, make sure that you do edit again under either of the previous two names. As for the article, I have no doubt that Ms. Banu wrote those articles. But that isn't the problem. We require sources about the subject, not ones written by them to establish whether they meet the criteria for inclusion—what Wikipedia calls "notability". You'll find the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). It's a long page, but well worth reading all the way through. I think you were done a disservice by having your draft accepted before it was ready, i.e. before it had sufficient independent sources to establish notability. What will probably happen now is that the article will be moved to draft space where you can continue to work on it until it is ready for article space. You can follow that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Banu. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for responding. Please pardon my ignorance. Would be glad if the page is approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmasterssocial (talk • contribs) 09:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Santanu.baruah.Cincinnati[edit]

Hi, I added the recognitions to 6D Global Technologies Inc. because there are various articles with recognitions which looks legitimate to me. Please let me know if Collabera doesn't have a similar advertising. It is because, long ago, I created this article with a different ID( and i deleted the related gmail account years ago and hence using this new ID). What is wrong about it ? It is just recognition with cited third party sources. Thank you. BTW this is my first talk in wikipedia. Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santanu.baruah.cincinnati (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santanu.baruah.cincinnati. Well, yes Collabera is also very promotional, even now. Those "awards" are entirely non-notable and sourced to press releases. The are simply advertising for the company and using Wikipedia to do so. I also note that like 6D Global Technologies Inc. it was also created, fully-formed and formatted in a single edit from a new editor with their very first edit. If I have understood you correctly, you also created that one under a different account? I suggest you join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#6D Global Technologies Inc.. Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, Santanu.baruah.cincinnati, if you worked for either of those companies when you wrote those articles, you have a serious conflict of interest. If you wrote 6D Global Technologies Inc. as part of your employment with them, either as a full-time employee, intern, consultant, or free-lancer, then you must declare that financial interest or you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure has guidance on this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated content Marie Banu[edit]

hi, I have added more information in the interview section and edited content as well. please let me know if this would suffice. Regards, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmasterssocial (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Puccini[edit]

Hi Voceditenore, I removed the image recently added to this article, before noticing that you'd moved it elsewhere. There's no explanation of its import, and a user is adding it and other images of unknown provenance to multiple articles, which leads me to believe there's a motive beside enriching our cultural lives. If you think the painting has a credible significance, feel free to restore it, but I'm dubious. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My instinct was to completely remove it too and for the same reasons. I decided to opt for a more conservative measure, but am perfectly happy with the removal. If it were to be used, the frame would have to be cropped out—for copyright reasons if nothing else. Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've left the editor a message [3], and if they should continue I'll take it up at visual arts, or elsewhere. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You[edit]

Barnstar archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, EvergreenFir—you're very kind! You found the trunk in my virtual attic containing the stelle? I'd tucked them away from all but the very enterprising

. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. :) Was trying to find one you hadn't received yet, but alas... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week : nominations needed![edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating[edit]

Thank you for your contributions

Almost 400 new articles were created

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers

April 2016

(check out our next event Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon)

--Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kudpung! You are very kind as always. As you can see below cleaning the Augean stables has morphed into the task of Sisyphus

. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Seanerenstoft[edit]

Hello again. Per your last missive: please know that asking a lawyer to list his clients would violate an ethical tenet involving confidentiality. Second, to the extent Wiki allows for editing, places a burden on all editors to do so truthfully. My edits to the CinemaNow site reflect corrections of factual misstatements and correction of outdated material. I have asked Wiki to make the changes but it refused. The last edits were removed (probably by you). Instead, damaging and inaccurate material was replaced. I edit not as a lawyer but as an individual mindful that CinemaNow has third-party obligations to accurately reflect what it is. I do not get paid to edit. You are welcomed to phone me to discuss since you have otherwise blocked people from more direct communication--probably for the same reasons I am caused to fix the CinemaNow site... If you are going to host an editable site, you bear the burden of correcting damaging and sometimes libelous information. I have done this. Twice. I gave you my credentials. You took them down too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanerenstoft (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 May 2016‎

Copied to your talk page and replied there. Please keep conversations in one place. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're being very hypocritical given the fact that you allowed Netflix to post an extensive ad including studios represented by contract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanerenstoft (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Seanerenstoft, do not add comments to the top of a talk page, and please sign your comments. I have moved it to this section. At User talk:Seanerenstoft I have explained in depth the problems with the way you were editing CinemaNow and your violation of the conflict of interest guidelines. Please continue the conversation there—minus the personal attacks. I have not edited Netflix at all, let alone "allowed" the company to do anything. If you have issues with that article, then the appropriate place to discuss it is at Talk:Netflix. If you have issues with CinemaNow, then the appropriate place to discuss that is Talk:CinemaNow. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, Seanerenstoft, that these are not "ads" but encyclopedia articles. I'm not sure you quite comprehend what Wikipedia is. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos[edit]

Barnstar re this article archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tenebrae! You've done a great job in keeping that former advertorial under control despite the "I didn't hear that" in some quarters. I've got it on my watchlist now too. For obvious reasons, you might also want to keep this one and this one on close watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Sherlock![edit]

Establishing the connections between that user and the various companies. Great! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Fortuna :). And thank you to Theroadislong for reverting this charm offensive by the miscreant. Thank goodness he's now blocked. The more I look at those "companies", the shadier it all becomes, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7] and the fact that all those projects on Crowdfunder UK were in the Charities section, when none of them, nor Southampton Media, nor Zenetta Capital are UK registered charities. This is turning out to be an "interesting" day. Voceditenore (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May need to explain restriction[edit]

I don't want to derail the ANI proposal by quibbling there, but the wording is unclear to me: It mentions WP:1RR and "restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month". The former is one revert per 24 hours, while the latter is one revert per month. Should that be clarified, or am I missing something? Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I've clarified that now. WP:1RR states that while by default it's per 24 hours, the community or Arbcom has the option of imposing longer periods. However, as per usual at ANI, I fear that the whole thing will peter out, nothing will be done, and he'll be back there yet again, having made several editors' lives a misery in the interim. Having said that, some of his targets react in sub-optimal ways making it difficult to take the moral high ground and opening the gate at ANI to endless bickering and filibustering [8], [9] which derails any constructive solution by non-involved editors. Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that too. I might have to watch some of the pages, groan. Unfortunately, the definition of "revert" is such that most edits can be regarded as a revert because it changes what another editor wrote. For that reason, I don't think one revert per page per month is likely to get traction, but we live in hope. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, John. No line is bright enough to prevent determined gaming and wikilawyering. We'll see what happens. I had hoped that the comments from non-involved editors there might have led to a some self-reflection on the protagonist's part and a voluntary self-restriction on his shenanigans, but alas, nada. Voceditenore (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks promising to me. - Did you know that today we see on the Main page the last of my yearly cycle of having a GA Bach cantata for every occasion of the liturgical year, a collaboration? - I confess it was started because by improving quality I "won" permission for on an infobox, but I like the results ;) - I don't know though if the concept adhered to, that the people who improve an article can do away what others created and what readers knew for almost 10 years, is a good idea, latest example Catherine Zeta-Jones, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially promising, but one swallow doth not make a spring. We'll see how it all goes. As for the infobox issue, yes there are editors who invariably do this at the mere sight of them. And others who are utterly delighted when they see boxes. However, having a box (or not) isn't of cosmic importance to the future of Wikipedia as we know it and hardly worth spending one's time in the inevitable sinkhole those discussions produce. Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for excellent images! Box or no box is not my question, but respect for what other editors did before you, no matter if box or cantata. I wouldn't go and plant an infobox in Richard Wagner on his 203rd birthday (nor any other day), respecting the main editor who said (in the FAC) that it would damage the article. But removal of something that was stable for almost ten years, treating it as the revert of bold edit (look at the talk), is a different story, at least for me. - My image, celebrating collaboration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this template had been a stable feature of this article for nearly 10 years, and it was removed just a few months ago, twice, in fact. A definite improvement. Things change. The box removal from Ms. Jones's article and the ensuing discussion seem BRD-compliant to me. Look on the bright side, at least they're not all swearing at each other

. Voceditenore (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The former template was not removed, but replaced by a better one, the information is still available ;) - see my talk about Ms. Jones, - I am out of that discussion, - the "two-comments-max-training" of three years helps a lot to let things go more easily. Perhaps that would also be a good help for our Bach editor? Imagine how different our discussions were if everybody had to stop at two comments? You probably know that I was cited to AE, having crossed that "bright line" for Olivier, twice. Count the contribs of others in that discussion. One of my defenders was desysopped and blocked himself. He died. Easy to be generous, as Brian called it, on that background, - we are still alive, and every editor is a human being. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: one for amusement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, the information in the removed navbox is still available in Tosca albeit in a completely different location (at the very bottom instead of the very top), but the old infobox information on Catherine Zeta-Jones is also still available—in the lead—apart from where she currently lives, which I don't think should be in an infobox anyway. I don't think it should be anywhere in an article unless it is particularly significant that the person lives in that place at the moment. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with her article having a box and I'm all in favour of Tosca's "new look". I'm just saying that both sides can make similar arguments based on similar principles, and both think they're right. That's why I call those discussions sinkholes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You called them sinkholes in 2013, and I heard you and tried to avoid them, and mostly succeeded. Infobox discussions have decreased in numbers and intensity, this is only the third I noticed in 2016 (I looked away for one, even forgot the name), after Pierre Boulez and the aftermath on project composers. Several operas and two major composers were not questioned (in one case: questioned but accepted). - I still see a difference between the Tosca information, which is at a different spot but still the same arrangement of operas, assembled once for Puccini's operas, vs. the infobox of the actress, to which several editors had contributed over years. Why give that up? Moxy misses the age, I miss the date of birth in a templated (easy to translate) form, - I'd never need nationality and residence, - just the things we used to have as Persondata are enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for the arithmetically disinclined, Google's Knowledge Graphs (the first thing that comes up on a search) magically provide the age of living people like Angela Denoke even when their WP article hasn't got an infobox. But like I said, you don't need to convince me. I never remove them and generally add them to all the bios and opera articles I create now, unless they are very short. However, those "put back the infobox" discussions are not just a sinkhole. They're counterproductive to your goal. The consensus to have boxes on every WP bio (and all the operas) will gradually emerge, and a lot of old-timers are gradually coming around already. But every time there's a big brouhaha over removing them, especially on an FA or FAC, attitudes harden and it simply delays the process. Anyhow, I'm off to a week abroad tomorrow, so I must end my musings on the subject

. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your time abroad, I just enjoyed a week in Poland, with surprise music (details on my talk). So much better than what brought us here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person notable enough for wikipedia[edit]

Unbelievable!!!! Thank you so much for your help and guidance! When people go above and beyond to help strangers with there problems, it's certainly a rare thing anymore. A BIG Texas thank you!!!!!!!!! One more question please......because of the friends and family issue....would it be better for me to get a third party to do this?Donaldrkiddjr (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donald. Thank you for the kind words and the lovely star below. It was my pleasure to help out. I've commented on the third party issue over at Gestrid's talk page this morning [10] and left a further note for you on your talk page. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star now archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for everything! I am currently looking through photos for the perfect shot. Also, some of the photos have brand names (monster energy sticker on her surfboard she is holding, along with other sponsors), and I have a feeling they may not be approved by wikipedia since they may be considered advertising. Please advise.Donaldrkiddjr (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donald. A photo which is mainly her face is probably what to go for. I don't think the stickers on her board would make that much difference or be considered advertising, and presumably the board would be displayed a lot less prominently than her face. The two main considerations for avoiding red tape or problems with the upload are that you should have taken the image yourself so you can upload it as your own work and it should not have been previously published on a website or in a magazine. If it has been previously published, then the process becomes a lot more complicated. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayuto Correa[edit]

Hiya! I found your name on the History tab of the article Mayuto Correa. Can you please leave a message over at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mayuto_Correa? Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, good work! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

"Shiny thing" now archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies! Thank you for the "shiny thing", although I'm not sure I deserve it for something like this. I've had much more epic battles with COI editors on opera singers' pages, although normally it's the singers themselves causing the shenanigans. As for the COI at Andrij Dobriansky, both sides of that little edit war have a COI as is obvious from their edits, edit summaries, and talk page messages. I suspect it's some sort of family feud. By the way, the latest blocked sock appears to have had his account created by special request. See [11]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I may not have looked close enough to discover that COI, and the "other side" certainly didn't point it out to me. If there's some diff, or two, that nails it, I'd love to see it. As for the account creation, yeah--I wonder if some hired gun was brought in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voce is just being understandably modest - she deserves every bit of bling she gets for investing her skills in keeping Wikipedia free of junk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, re the COI on both sides... The three recently blocked sox (ALU0819, Nosay990, and LGR02g) have been accusing Tufkaa, the editor who created the article in 2008 and significantly expanded it earlier this month. of COI. He is the editor who added the detailed information about the subject's early life which the three sox have been repeatedly attempting to remove with the bogus COI rationale. However, they too are clearly involved with the subject's family and have stated so explictly. Note the comment by the latest sock on DGG's talk page [12], the edit summary by the previous sock [13], and the edit summary by the first incarnation of the sox [14]. Yes, the creator also appears to be a family member or closely associated with some of them because of the kind of information added to the article which has not been published elsewhere and would only be known by someone with personal knowledge. Yes, it is a kind of COI to write about your relatives or associates, but the subject is long dead, and as far as I can see there has never been any promotion of a third party in the article. Note what happened when the creator expanded the article earlier this month and sock 1 immediately showed up [15]. Actually, there is yet another editor from 2012, who claims to be the subject's son [16] (he had four sons), but hasn't edited since. However his additions about the subject's early life and all the references were reverted in 2013 [17] by LGR02 who is obviously the same editor as the three blocked sox above. So there you have it . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood it the way Voce did, partly on the basis of an OTRS request. Drmies, I think you just didn't pick up on the tone here. It's not that they called someone in to help; it's almost certainly socking. Probably both sides should be banned from the article: one wants absurdly extensive detail, the other too little. It's a good reminder that commercial COI is not the only sort of COI which can cause a problem. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies and DGG, I'm going to be away for the month with limited internet access. You might want to keep an eye on it while I'm gone. I doubt if Tufkaa will cause further problems, but the sox opposing him may well make another attempt. They seem bent on removing references like the NYT obituary and the performance record at the Met. The only reason I can imagine for this is that they verify that the subject sang only small roles, albeit a heck of a lot of them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks--have a great time. The internet won't be the same without you, of course. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

Kamran Bloach and TopBargains are classic examples of artspam by one user. The sources are typical Internet barrel-scraping and everything too clean to be true. I just don't know whether to CSD them or send them to AfD. In the current climate at AfD they might get kept. It's certain however that no NPPer is going to recognise the for what they are. I've also asked DGG to take a lok.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)o[reply]

Hi Kudpung. Yep, total spam with all the classic hallmarks of paid editing to boot. UGH! I don't think you could make a case for CSD, alas. But they should definitely go to AfD. Unfortunately, I'm off for a month in deepest darkest Tuscany tomorrow with suitcases to pack today and limited internet access once I'm there. Thus, I won't be able to do the detailed analysis of the references often necessary to get these deleted at AfD. You might want to hold off until I get back and can do that. Try PROD for now? We might get lucky. I've tagged them for notability and lack of 3rd party sources. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Stafano[edit]

Hello Voce! Hope you're having a great time. Just wanted to hear your opinion on that man's notability. I found a few references, such as this, but am unsure as to this + WP:MUSIC criteria. Anyway, best of regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FoCuS! I had a wonderful time! Anyhow, back to work. The notability of Pasquale Stafano is pretty marginal, although two of the albums probably scrape him a pass at WP:MUSICBIO. It's clearly an attempt at publicity by an SPA for the recent album. I've cleaned it up, removing the promotional and completely unreferenced laundry lists of "collaborators" and performance venues, copyedited for NPOV and added a couple of refs. I'll keep it on watch in case there are attempts to re-add. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Il Postino (opera)[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Il Postino (opera) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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) 23:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Captain Atom (Atlas Publications)[edit]

DYK banner archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to you, Dan for expanding it and then shepherding it through DYK. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Il Postino (opera)[edit]

DYK banner archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hello Voceditenore. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems at Charlie Zeleny the SPA IP person is adding back in weasel words and intricate detail[edit]

Hi!

Could you try and stop by this article if you have a moment. Charlie Zeleny SPA IP person is adding back in weasel words and intricate detail. Pauciloquence (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Voceditenore: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Pauciloquence (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Sending holiday love right back at you. Glad we could figure out all the differences of opinion on the page. 100.35.194.25 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a beautiful holiday season[edit]

		Happy holidays.
		Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Best wishes for the holidays[edit]

Thank you for your kind holiday wishes which I offer in return. - kosboot (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your greetings, VdT. Pray accept this Chanukah dreidel as a seasonal token of my esteem - best, --Smerus (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buon Natale to you too. See you in 2017. --Folantin (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year![edit]

I will be away for 3 weeks to Italy tomorrow night! Will continue writing when I'm back. Wish you a great and fun holiday! Thanks for the holiday wishes. - Jay (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here We Come A-wassailing[edit]

Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Happy New Year, Voceditenore![edit]

Happy New Year!

Voceditenore,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Bythebooklibrary (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Bythebooklibrary and a very Happy New Year to you too! Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you, Bzuk, and Happy 2017! Voceditenore (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas 2016[edit]

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Tito Dutta (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tito, and a very Happy New Year to you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings![edit]

A belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you l! Thanks for the lovely message. I am so busy these days I rarely get to check in anymore. Here is a potential new addition to our Christmas opera list if you care to create an article or just add it without a link. This is another good reference. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to hear from you, 4meter4! Interesting opera too! I may just turn my hand to an article about it

. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]