User talk:Almost-instinct

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi. Chubbennaitor 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Howlett

I'll probably be able to add a few things, but I see that Voceditenore has already made a number of additions. Just wondering what your interest in him is - did you see him on stage? I saw him in quite a few operas, mostly Verdi (I due Foscari and Les vêpres Siciliennes spring to mind) in the 70s and 80s. --GuillaumeTell 21:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks! Four and a half years on WP and suddenly three of them come along at once, like the #73 bus. Did you notice that we were both dab-ing simultaneously? Caritas was the sticky one - I'd done the dab properly but had put it into the sort key (Hs) area rather than the opera title. --GuillaumeTell 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too sure whether or not to leave in a redlink - I've yet to work out if there's a policy on that. I can see that they encourage people to add info. On the other hand, I don't like the look of them [always a very important consideration, no? ;-) ]
I've just been trawling through the Met's fantastically well-looked-after online records, while doing something for the Robert Merrill page, and was struck by how tiny the repertoire was, decade after decade. When Leonard Warren sang Macbeth there in the 50s, it was the first time the Met had done it, and Macbeth was only their 8th Verdi opera! In almost 30 years there, Merrill did 768 performances of just 20 roles. almost-instinct 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ON tables

Thanks for expanding the dates. I was contemplating doing it myself, but I'd have had the second date on the line below, so as not to use up extra width that would benefit more important info in other columns. I've been thinking as well of putting in <br> here and there, for example in conductor and designer columns, to avoid breaking names in half. Any thoughts? --GuillaumeTell 16:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the dates aren't exactly the most important info, but I was finding it consistently confusing having the start and finish years basically in the same column when I was trying to scan up and down them. Keeping them on a single line is easier on the eye IMO. As you'll see on the first article I've put in column widths for the Conductor/Director/Designers and added <br>s consistently after the "/" when there are two conductors or designers. On my computer this seems to be working fine, whether I have the window wide or thin. These tables really do seem to have a mind of their own, but I think I've got it under control! Anyway, with this formatting the names of the Conductors&c., like the dates, are always on one line, and the cast lists are (almost) always on two or more lines. Although this means the cast list column is a bit less wide than it was before the greater consistency is also easier on the eye, I think almost-instinct 09:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just getting back to this after a fairly busy week (inc La fille du régiment at the ROH). Thanks for the explanations here and on my talk page. I haven't investigated exactly what you've done yet (and I'm still on a bit of a learning-curve in the matter of tables), but the two things that are currently worrying me, given that horizontal space is at a premium, are 1) the years (still!) - could we maybe compromise on a 1990-91 format all on one line, which saves two spaces? 1999-2000 would be a problem but hard cases make bad law. Also, 2) compare the start of the latest table that's currently in my Pebblebox with Opera North: history and repertoire, seasons 1981–82 to 1989–90 (ignoring the date format difference for now). Wouldn't you agree that the former looks nicer? The latter squashes the principal cast into an unacceptably small horizontal space and leaves acres of empty space in the five/six boxes on either side, except where the principal cast listed is small. The first list ('78-80) is OK, probably because there aren't too many operas there; the two most recent ones are better than the '81-90 but still (IMO) not ideal. All comments gratefully received - reply here or on my page as you wish. --GuillaumeTell 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the 1981-90 page you'll see I've done a load of little alterations. A few very long names (in all three colums) I've now split over two lines (eg Christopher Renshaw) which has hugely reduced the amount of wasted space. I've also changed 1984-1985 to 1984-85 etc. In the case of 1999-2000 I think we should simply bite the bullet and write 1999-00. No one is going to be scratching their heads over that one! Anyway if you think that it now looks ok I'll do the other pages to match. Oh btw, an indication of how weird wikitables are: the system was breaking "Rimsky-Korsakov" over two lines automatically- but then leaving quite a space after the hyphen. By putting a line break in after the hyphen, that wasted space disappears. So I've gained space there too! almost-instinct 09:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! 1981-90 definitely looks better, though the dates, e.g. 1981-82, occupy two lines on my screen and now look odd. Is that because the dashes should be ems rather than ens (as in my Pebblebox) or does the width need adjusting? I'll have a closer look at all the tables later on this evening. --GuillaumeTell 17:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! I can force the width size - please tell me if it works for you almost-instinct 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Years on one line for '81+ and '97+ tables, BUT not for 78+ or 90+
  • White space: '78+ and '90+: not too bad; '81+: not so good but more or less OK; '97+: too much (IMO)
It might be worth contacting Michael Bednarek, who has a lot of experience in these matters, notably in lists such as those in Category:Lists of operas by composer.
--GuillaumeTell 00:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sort this out later today, don't worry! I think WP must interact slightly differently with different browsers. I'm on IE on Vista - plus a widescreen ;-) almost-instinct 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They all look OK now - thanks. My IE is ye olde XP. --GuillaumeTell 17:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Larkin

Hi, think you are going to have to reword your change to Philip Larkin the "Hull Paragon Interchange Hull's main railway station" is not really true as it is Hull's only railway station and it is also a bus/coach station. Not quite sure what is best - may be just drop the railway station bit. Keith D (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! As I wrote that I thought, that's a bit iffy, but Keith D will sort it out ... ;-) (I wasn't sure whether Cottingham/Hessle still counted as outside Hull) I'll, er, abbreviate it... almost-instinct 07:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Karenina

I dug out two old copies of Opera magazine yesterday. May 1981 has an article by Noel Goodwin about the opera, which could be used in a "Background" section. July 1981 has a review by Arthur Jacobs, including a complete cast-list. He's rather rude about it ("Ends with a major chord? No, not possible!"). I'll put in some quotes from it when I have time.

Looking around, I find two WP redirects, each entitled Anna Karenina (opera) (I'm surprised that this is possible), a reasonable Anna Karenina (disambiguation) page and an almost identical but with too many blue links Adaptations of Anna Karenina page. Erk! --GuillaumeTell 17:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 13:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for getting the York thing sorted out - you obviously know more about linguistics than I do. I was reluctant to revert in case a ton of bricks came down on my head, but no problem, as it turned out. Next stop, Worcester College, Oxford. And I see that there have been developments in the Anna Karenina saga. So much to do, so little time.... Best. --GuillaumeTell 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of York

Hi Almost-instinct, do we really need a source for that the 'r' in "York" is pronounced in rhotic accents? We'd rather need a source that it isn't pronounced like you're stating, what would be VERY irregular.--F. F. Fjodor (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to claim that in England in general the "R" in York is pronounced. If you are making this claim then you will need produce a source that says so. By the way, I find the grammar of your second sentence confused, leaving me unsure of what you mean. almost-instinct 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't claim that the "r" in "York" in general is pronounced in England, I claim that it is pronounced in rhotic accents. /ɔr/ is mostly pronounced as [ɔː] or [oː] in England, also in York. There's a difference between phonemic and phonetic writing. Sorry for my bad grammar, as you probably noticed English is not my mother tongue. I meant that it would be very irregular not to pronounce the "r" in rhotic accents like those of Cornwall and Devon.--F. F. Fjodor (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In England, rhotic accents are definitely in a minority, possibly even in some of those areas where tradional accents are still in evidence. To put the rhotic version in the pronounciation of a placename like York would come under the heading of WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". So in the context of the York we should not be giving the pronunciation as a Devonian would deliver it. Were we to give the pronunciation for Peter Tavy, on the other hand, I would imagine that both rhotic and non-rhotic versions ought to be included. Yours almost-instinct 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the phonemic transcription /ɔr/ with slashes means that you can pronounce it [ɔː], [oː], [ɔɹ] or otherwise. You wouldn't change the /r/ in /ˈkʌmbriə/ to [ɹ], just because most people in England pronounce it like that, would you? Regards, F. F. Fjodor (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands at the moment, the guide given for York at the moment is a truthful expression; beyond that I'm not terribly interested, I'm afraid. almost-instinct 22:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David R sockpuppets

Thanks, that's a good point. Can you add it to the [Sockpuppet investigation]? I was told by the admin who warned me off interacting with Zafio that there were "channels" to notify the administrators that someone was a sockpuppet, but the administrator didn't tell me what they were! Yonmei (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "puffery prevention"

My latest tussle Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a joy for you ;-) Did you like the little tit-bit of information about Gary Lehman I chanced upon that his biography avoids mentioning? almost-instinct 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ps noted who created that page..... almost-instinct 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. I also left this note. Oooh! You added that tidbit about Lehman after I saw the article. Very interesting! I'm glad he finally found his fach. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of some blanking that's just gone on, I've created this in hope that it will save you any bother! Hopefully some nipping in the bud by an admin can go on. Yours almost-instinct 16:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you should really stop this habit you seem to have of attempting to violate the privacy of other users. Your attempts and collusion here and elsewhere have nothing to do with the substantive discussion of articles at hand. It is really unseemly. Stick to the subject of article content editing not personality and personal information discussion. If you have a problem with content, then talk about that. You really are making it difficult for others to make substantive contributions and discouraging others from even wanting to make contributions. I think you both may have forgotten the basic premise on Wikipedia which is to "assume good faith" on the part of others. --Classmusic (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am trying to find out if sockpuppetry is being used to further autobiography, its true. However, to accuse Voceditenore of failing to assume good faith, despite the enormous amount of work she has done improving your own article, is beyond the pale. almost-instinct 08:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, User:Almost-instinct, you have an axe to grind, because you have repeatedly posted non-content-related, inappropriate questions, that do not assume good faith, on Talk:Jonathan_Cohler. If you have problems with edits I have made to Jonathan Cohler, then comment on those edits. It is clear to an objective person that the edits I have made have vastly improved the page with independent sourcing, better writing, better style, etc. User:Voceditenore has also made several good edits starting, I might add, back in 2008. You yourself have made very few changes to anything I have written. Admittedly, I am learning more as I go about how to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies (which are numerous and daunting at times), both from you and from Voceditenore, but I do not appreciate the personal attacks.
You have made a few, generally small edits, such as removing the word "adjudicator" from a topic sentence, because that word was repeated two paragraphs later (see here). Because there was a subsequent paragraph on Mr. Cohler's adjudicating activities, it is correct writing style to put this in the topic sentence. The fact that the word "adjucator" was used again in the paragraph that discussed his adjudication activities is not repetitive. In any case it occurred paragraphs later. I fixed this, apparently to your satisfaction, by using "adjudicator" in the topic sentence, and using the active "judged" in the detail paragraph.
You also have removed other important information from the article, making it less specific, and therefore less accurate, for no valid reason. For example, you remove the list of specific countries where Mr. Cohler has performed and taught and replaced it with non-specific generics, such as "Latin America", "South-east Asia" and "North American" (see here). This is not helpful. Latin America includes several countries that were not listed previously, and South-east Asia includes several countries that were not listed previously. Readers of a biography want to know specifics, not generalities. Why do you feel that making the article more general and simultaneously less accurate somehow is an improvement? I have not yet changed this back, but unless you have a valid reason for doing this, I will.
And why are you so interested in editing this particular article in any case? Your user page says that you are not currently active as an editor User:Almost-instinct "I don't make many contributions at the moment but I'm always looking in to keep an eye on vandalism etc." Your editing history doesn't show a particular interest in editing pages of classical instrumentalists.
You have published, twice now, on Talk:Jonathan_Cohler an inappropriate question asking me (Classmusic) to reveal my personal identity, which I have, appropriately, declined to answer. Privacy is very important on Wikipedia. This is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY in general. You have couched it as your personal quest to discover whether I am a WP:Sock_puppet. But, nonetheless, it is inappropriate.
Asking whether I, Classmusic, am the same person as the now inactive User:Cohler, who publicly revealed on Talk:Jonathan Cohler that he is, in fact, Jonathan Cohler here is clearly an attempt at Outing, whether or not your assumption is true (see WP:OUTING).
User:Voceditenore has also published inappropriate, thinly veiled, advice about Sock Puppetry on my personal Classmusic talk page, which I promptly removed here according to WP policies. This was an inappropriate use of my personal Talk page.
The two of you have been publicly discussing your endeavors at "puffery prevention" here. Your private theories about who is or isn't violating Wikipedia policies should not be broadcast to the world on your public talk page. That seems to me to be an inappropriate use. It will discourage other good Wikipedia editors from taking part in the project, which I am sure you don't want to do.
You also accuse me (Classmusic) above of "blanking" which is false. "Blanking" is defined in WP:Vandalism as "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense." I have never done anything like that. The example you cite, where I did remove an inappropriate personally directed comment by you that had nothing to do with page content, as discussed above, is most certainly not an example of "blanking". In fact, it is an appropriate removal of inappropriate content as discussed in WP:Outing. See where it says, "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason."
You further state as fact above that the article on Jonathan Cohler is "your own article". The article is a Wikipedia article. I (Classmusic) do not own it. I have edited it extensively, much as you have edited some other articles extensively. It is not "my" article no more than the articles you have edited are your articles. If by this statement you are again attempting to "out" me as being Jonathan Cohler, this is yet another example of WP:OUTING. What are your intentions here?
Once again, I ask that you stop these inappropriate, and personally directed activities and return to the job at hand, which is improving the content of Wikipedia, not attacking users such as myself who are, in good faith, attempting to further that mutual objective.
If you have valid issues with any content that I have edited, please let me know.

--Classmusic (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Classmusic/Cohler

Your almost-instinct turned out to be right - Classmusic/Cohler belong to the same person. I've blocked Cohler indefinitely, and left a warning for Classmusic on their talk page. As for the Cohler article, Voceditenore and yourself are welcome to look it over for any bias that may have been introduced by the socks; while we can't prove a conflict of interest, I'm not prepared to assume good faith on the behalf of a user who abused multiple accounts and lied about it. So, until Classmusic replies to my warning (as I'm sure they have something to say), I've told them not to edit the article at hand. Aside from that, everything should go smoothly. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Give me a shout if you have any questions. Cheers, m.o.p 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Keenlyside

I started a topic at WP:RSN on the issue of the website. See here. Feel free to contribute.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello both. I decided to start referencing the roles list (each role individually) and start generally cleaning up the article. While simonkeenlyside.info seems to have been a reliable source for the roles list, it shouldn't have been used to source the bio. On top of that, I discovered that rather big chunks of it had been pasted in verbatim. The unattributed "quotes" from him came from there. I took some out as unnecessary. The one I left in (sort of, because while having the same general gist, it appears to have been a paraphrase of what he had said elsewhere), I referenced to a much more reliable source and corrected it to exactly what he said. Voceditenore (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had anything to do with the Simon Keenlyside biography. All I know is that the independent-yet-reliable-enough-that-Simon-Keenlyside-approves-it website www.simonkeenlyside.info is quite clearly a quality source for the list of what roles he sung; eg it even has dates for when he sang Morales in Carmen in the 80s. If, thanks to some arbitary rule, it is deemed to be unreliable, I'm not sure I can be bothered. Leave the section blank and give a link to that website. Given that we're just nicking their info, maybe that would be fairer, anyway almost-instinct 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had anything to do with it either (or at least before yesterday) but I don't mind fixing it up, despite my general avoidance of living performers. That article has always annoyed me. He's one of the most distinguished baritones in the world and the article was piss-poor. Hopefully it will be bit better now. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there's a decent source that takes a thorough look at his move into heavier repertoire. His coverage does tend to be a little awestruck, even from the mainstream media. I should never have let my subscription to OPERA lapse! almost-instinct 12:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ruciński

He's giving a recital (I suspect his UK recital debut) at St. John's, Smith Square on January 18th. [1]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you SO much for that! I shall drag my Polish friend who first told me about him along :-) almost-instinct 13:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tickets booked :-D almost-instinct 13:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Are you on the Rosenblatt Recitals mailing list? You can sign up here. I've been going to them on and off since they started. In one of the very first ones, I heard this now super-star when he was just a 23 year old lad. I eavesdropped on the Guardian critic during the interval who opined somwhat pompously to his companion that because the high notes were so easy for him, the frisson of waiting for him to crack was lacking. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt by ordering online I've signed up for a lifetime of their spam ;-) I don't really have the wherewithal to go to the number of concerts as I might. I get to the opera as much as I do thanks to, er, various avenues.... almost-instinct 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above and beyond the call of duty

You're a brave soul . And thanks for the low-down on the Ruciński recital. I'm glad he did so well! I often find that younger singers in big recital debuts get absolutely exhausted-looking. Recitals are so "exposed" and the stakes are big. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that brave, really, more disingenuous: I see Owner of the article has got himself blocked. I think that upon account creation the If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here warning should flash in pink.
I think Rucinski was going to keep at full pressure until he was spent; presumably opting for the Toreador Song (not his rep at all, and sung very frivolously) was an indication that he didn't have enough strength left for another Verdi. I hope spies were in from ROH and we get to see him here again sooner rather than later. Rosenblatt Recitals tweeted that they hope to be able to post a piece or two from the recital online almost-instinct 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[2] . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...Almost-instinct for your contributions on page 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles final, please continue helping as always, thanks once again :) . Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure! That's the great thing about Wikipedia - one does the things that one can do, and other people do the things they can :-) almost-instinct 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James MacMillan

Hm, I'm not a fan, I'm afraid. I saw his Ines de Castro in Newcastle some years ago and didn't like it. I have the programme somewhere but have never felt inclined to write it up for WP. What I've heard of his on the radio didn't enthrall me either. More to my taste are The Death of Klinghoffer, The Tales of Hoffmann and Béatrice et Bénédict which I shall be seeing seriatim on Mon-Wed next week. BTW, why is he James MacMillan (composer)? There are lots of James McMillans but no other James MacMillan. --GuillaumeTell 17:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olsen - c163 performances at the Met - certainly deserves an entry. Google tells me that his various bios say that he made his debut there opposite Joan Sutherland (in I puritani), BUT they don't mention that he only came on in Act 3 after Rockwell Blake (one assumes) lost his voice. I've never seen him but he seems to have made a number of recordings. --GuillaumeTell 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Georgian Society

It looks notable enough to me. However, it is clearly copied from this (as I'm sure Voceditenore would spot), and a polite warning about copyvio is necessary (maybe this was why the article was deleted previously?). Also, Wardrop is blue-linked three times in close proximity, all of them redirected to Oliver Wardrop, so help on overlinking and piping links seems also to be needed. The status of the images also needs checking ... --GuillaumeTell 18:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For four fucking years of dedication and vigilance at Philip Larkin, from a humble new small-time editor. Leonxlin (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fauré mélodies

Seeing your addition to the Fauré FAC page, I wonder if I can interest you in collaborating in the near future on an overview article about Fauré's mélodies, on the lines of my recent effort on his piano music (Piano music of Gabriel Fauré)? I think such an article might be a useful addition, and I'd be most interested to know what you think. Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Larkin

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that es:Philip Larkin, a translation I have made from the article that you wrote here, has been selected as a featured article on Spanish Wikipedia. So congratulations and thanks a lot for your work. :) Cheers, Mel 23 (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hi Almost-instinct,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Carolina Thanks For Looking..

Hello! Thanks for commenting on User talk:EricCable/OperaCarolina. I have responded to your comments there. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Trafalgar Square 1948
 Happy Holidays, Almost-instinct!

And a big thank you from me for your help at the Opera Project, especially with your trusty anti-puff broom. May you have a wonderful music-filled Christmas and a very happy new year.

Voceditenore (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Hee

I suspect you'll find this a tough nut to crack . I'm now going to sit back and observe the antics from afar. It's actually quite funny in a way. I'm off to deepest darkest Tuscany on Friday and back on Twelfth Night, but might peek in while I'm away. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My application of one carefully aimed swing of the nutcracker had the desired effect, and I see from looking at their talk page, the action has escalated. I'm glad to have put the effort in. Hope you had a nice break. I didn't look into this for a week after I had made the report, to avoid getting sucked in, so its been quite a treat reading it through just now almost-instinct 21:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vanR

the dispute was resolved. If you would please undo your last edit. to JGVR (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

only one problem

those of us that were actually involved in it have come to terms and are in agreement....JGVR (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true, JCVR. As I said at Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname), I am in complete disagreement with you about your refusal to "allow" a highly pertinent and necessary reference to an unreferenced article, but you have made it clear that you will continue edit warring to remove it and for entirely spurious reasons. Thus, I have decided not to touch that article again. That is not "coming to terms" at all. If we were in agreement, you would have re-added the reference as an inline citation in the text. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Larkin's women

Letting you know:

Remember this discussion from back in August 2012 at Talk:Patsy Strang? Shall we go ahead? GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'll take a look into that, though I may not have the time to do anything until I get back home. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, happy Holidays. GiantSnowman 09:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the basic merge. More work is now needed to expand it, and tidy it up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view this is unfortunate timing - I'll about to go away for a fortnight. I might be able to put some basic info in today, and then will flesh things out when I get back (assuming someone else doesn't) almost-instinct 10:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I did what I could speedily last night. Hope its enough to give the page structure for now. When I return I shall do it more thoroughly almost-instinct 09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puff alert

Need more stuff for your watchlist when you get back? :) I've taken my red pencil to the recently added schlock at Rachel Santesso and left a note on the talk page. The editor in question is pretty obviously COI, not to mention their rather indicative username. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, just waving goodbye to internet access for a while :-( almost-instinct 10:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cripes! How are you going to book plane tickets and order 3 for 2 wines at Ocado? Seriously though, being internetless for a while can be mighty relaxing. I eagerly await your return. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what comes of booking plane tickets, you see. If only I had thought it through almost-instinct 10:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Hee

I assume you've seen who the major "contributor" to this article is? The book he keeps plugging is due out in March and he's not getting in there until then, harrumph ;}. Voceditenore (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw ;-) I was tempted to tweet him to tell him that someone's misusing his name on WP.... almost-instinct 22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L @ 60

It certainly would! Didn't we discuss this some time ago? I have a photocopy of it somewhere but I think that I couldn't pin down the date it appeared in the TLS and/or I got side-tracked and/or worried about what, if anything, to quote, and/or you name it, so nothing got done. Likewise, I think I said I'd try to précis each of the contributions, but ... da capo.... --GuillaumeTell 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if it was the piece I remember you talking about, so hurrah! My entire WP life is the offcuts from a very side-tracked person. Thank god I got the Larkin page done while my tail was still wagging almost-instinct 17:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps I think you're really describing Rondo form, not da da capo ;-) almost-instinct 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who's going to do what when (and how - selected titbits?)? I'm still plugging my way through banda (opera), plus I'll be packing and panicking en route for a week in foreign parts starting on Friday... --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the unlikely event of my contributions to WP acheiving much more than comments on the opera project talk page I really should get the details of a lot recent books of / on Larkin onto his page. Btw, someone bought me this and it helped make a lot of things in the letters make sense almost-instinct 18:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this interesting. --GuillaumeTell 18:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that it hadn't been deleted - which I had expected - and so I thought it may as well get de-orphaned. Besides: York buses - what's not to love? ;-) My personal opinion is that information on bus routes and who operates them has a valid place on WP - I remember once spending an annoyingly long while trying to fathom out a journey in York from the various council / company websites. I later decided I would have been better off walking, it took so long. Also I'm sure that in my time I've added some slightly crufty things to WP.... almost-instinct 14:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Patrol

I've tried to expiate my edit-conflicting sins by creating South Bank Sky Arts Award (to make the hook look better) . I've nominated your article as a DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Ghost Patrol (opera). I'll keep the nomination on watch, so I can answer any reviewer's questions, nit-picks, etc.. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WikiProject Opera

I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Ghost Patrol (opera)

Hello! Your submission of Ghost Patrol (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! AgneCheese/Wine 17:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, A-I. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sorting that out - especially as I was away from computer for a bit :-) almost-instinct 11:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Away from your computer for a bit? Shocking behaviour. Seriously though, I was glad to help. And congrats on the DYK! I'm shortly going to be "away from my computer" myself. For 2 and a half weeks (Whoopee!). We're off to California to see our new little grandson. I'm certainly not going to miss this while I'm gone. My own suggestion, primarily for sanity, is to just ignore the endless tangential quibbling. Sometimes just letting that stuff stand without comment speaks volumes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great time - say hello to sunshine and warmth and all that. I hate to think of the sinking feeling you will be feeling when you turn your computer on when you get back...... ;-) almost-instinct 20:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ghost Patrol (opera)

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Project stuff

Hi A-I, I'm writing to members who participated in the March 2013 discussions about the possibility of developing an opera infobox. We now have a reasonably stable and usable box with examples of how it would look in articles at Template:Infobox opera and a new discussion re its potential addition to the project's Article Guide as an option for opera articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera Infobox update. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't look bad - sensible and brief. The way GA keeps the conversation on the WP page veering all over the place makes me think I'll keep out of it, though. GA has pretty much extinguished my desire to join in those kinds of conversations, it feels to me like she has a totally different agenda to most people and no desire to take any measure of other people's desires. Sorry :( almost-instinct 08:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean :( Anyhow, it was a bit of a struggle, but yes, I managed to keep them sensible and brief with the help of input from Brian Boulton and others. I figured that from past performance, if we don't have a sensible and agreed one to use, then there will be endless guerrilla warfare, with various monstrosities being pushed article by article, with all the attendant disruption. I'm off to deepest, darkest Tuscany tomorrow for a week. Yay! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Midsummer Marriage

Dug out my programme without much effort and filled in the roles, plus added a ref. Incidentally, the programme declares that the WNO production was the first production outside London - might be worth adding somewhere. NB I'm dubious about mixing recordings in with the stage performance columns, especially as there's a recordings paragraph lower down the article. I suggest a different table, such as the one in La_donna_del_lago and elsewhere. Off to Glyndebourne (Hippolyte et Aricie) and Bayreuth (Dutchman, Tannhãuser) next week.... Best. GuillaumeTell 16:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Almost-instinct. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear

I have not only forgotten my wikipedia password, the associated email account appears to be no longer part of my life. Is there any way I can get into my wikipedia account again? I can't think what I could do to prove that I'm me :/

Unfortunately not. You'll have to create a new account. Huon (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt answer. If only I could remember the name of the email account that I used to access Wikipedia, I might have some hope. Is that information impossible to access, too? Meanwhile, is this account vunerable to being hacked? I think that's a bigger worry than my having to start over, tbh 51.6.65.190 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not have access to the original email address or know what it is, there is no way to assist with account recovery. Please stop using the help me template as your responses will show up on the helpers watchlist. Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What advice do you recommend for making it clear that this account can never be used legitimately again? Are there admins who can make the account dormant? Sorry, after five years away, my WP knowledge has got very rusty 51.6.65.190 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is compromised, it will be blocked. On your new account just indicate this was your old account. Praxidicae (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you Almost-true (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Almost-instinct"