Thanks for uploading Image:Winkleisland.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Old town hastings, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Winkle club, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Old town week, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Winkle club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bearian 20:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Hastings old town week, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Postoak 06:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Youngdancers.jpg[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Youngdancers.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 07:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Towncrier.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Trowncrier.jpg. The copy called Image:Trowncrier.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 12:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magiko,
I can see the rational for keeping the Winkle Island article separate from the Hastings article. The Hastings article has grown fairly large already, and adding a little information with a link to Winkle Island seems like it would be a good thing. As a matter of fact, I think it would be good to do with the Hastings Old Town article as well. I'll go ahead and remove the merger notices from both of the articles and mark them as stubs for future expansion. If you want to add a bit of information to the Hastings article about Winkle Island so it can be linked, go right ahead!
In the future, you can just leave a message on my user talk page rather than sending me an email about it. Cheers! :-)
--Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Procession2.jpg[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Procession2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 09:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Magiko! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. I noticed a few of your articles have been nominated for deletion, have a look through some of the links below, these might help, Happy editing! ~~~~
First of all you thank you for some of the edits you've been making so far, and well done for uploading so many good images, however I've noticed you've had an article deleted and one nominated for deletion. You may have a had a look through some of the links on my welcome message, but I think it would help if you had a look at Manual of Style and Featured articles you should get a feel of how a good wikipedia article is written, I don't expect you to read all of it as it is quite a long read! But hopefully you'll pick up the basics of how to make good constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
I see you've uploaded a few pics, which is brilliant! However there can be too many images on an article which become more of a nuisance than constructive, I did a rewrite of the Hastings Old Town article, so it looks better presented and doesn't have an excess of images. Please don't feel that you should stop uploading, as you can still upload images onto this site.
Please find published references to reinforce your changes to the various tango pages. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide references for each and every change you make to the Tango pages. There are many opinions about the history of Tango and very little absolute truth: all we can do is compare and contrast the various referenced opinions. You can't simply change the text to be what you prefer it to be. You must have reputable sources and cite them. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Oldtownentertainers.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Winklerchurchill.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. multichill (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Procession1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200ptalk 20:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the article The tides of time, because it id not in any way indicate how or why the album is notable or significant. Have a look at our Guidelines for music notability. There woulds need to be published reviews or comment from a reliable source or one of the other criteria would need to be fulfilled. I didn't see any indication in the article you created of any such notability. This isn't the same as proving that the album exists. Nor of whether the article as written was or was intended to be promotional (although that can also be a problem). Similarly, the problem with an article about composer Polo Piatti is the lack of any notability indicated in the article.
If you can tell me, even in general terms, why the album and/or composer is notable, and particularly if you can point me towards independent sources that verify this, I can see about recreating the article(s). But remember that Wikipedia is not for bringing things to notice that are presently unknown. It is for summarizing information about things that have already been written about in reliable sources. If there are, for example, published concert reviews (online or in print), that would make a difference. But, for example, blogs, forum posts, and interviews with the composer do not count as reliable and independent. DES(talk) 19:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The links you provided on my page look like they might be helpful in establishing the notability of the album and perhaps of you as a composer. Some confirming data will be helpful. For the "Observer review18.12.09" I assume this was published on 18 December 2009, but can you tell me which "Observer" published this quite favorable review -- there are of course many different newspapers known as "Observer" or "The Observer". The file "File:observernewspaper11.12.09.jpg;" says it is from the "Hastings Observer" -- is that the source for the first as well? And can you indicate the page numbers for each news article?
Who's Who is not generally considered a highly reliable source, as they get most of their info from the subjects, but it has some value. One of the articles describes you as "award winning", can you indicate which awards you have won that are of general significance? It isn't so much that I question your notability as that it must be established for a Wikipedia article to properly exist, and verifiable awards are one way to establish it. if you have other sources that can be cited that will help also. You need not scan and upload -- story title, author, date, publication title, publisher if available, and page number and a relevant quote will do.
It is true that there are Wikipedia articles in place that shouldn't be, but because Wikipedia operates on volunteer labor this may jsut mean that no one has reviewed them recently. The argument "This is better than existing article X, so this must be let in" sometimes leads to deleting X, but almost never to not deleting "this" unless there are other, positive reasons as well.
It is possible for an admin, such as myself, to restore deleted articles with a good reason, such as finding additional references to establish notability. The tides of time may now be on the way to that goal. I am sorry if the process is frustrating to you, I do actually want to assist you. DES(talk) 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that simple concert listings with little or no critical comment are of lesser value, unless they are for a very prominent venue, where the mere act of appearing indicates a degree of notability. Note also that page numbers, dates and other publication information is helpful in allowing others to verify the references. Note further that scans of newspapers, even if you make the scan yourself, will usually carry the copyright of the paper, and so will not persist on Wikipedia for long. But they aren't required, so that isn't a major issue. DES(talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and you mention "been on radio and television worldwide". Dates and programs of the more significant broadcasts would be helpful. If there is a published listing or transcript that would also help, particularly if it is online, but offline transcripts can also be cited. DES(talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One further point. Starting a media link with a colon inside the double brackets creates a link rather than a display. This is a more useful format for the kind of links you have been providing me. DES(talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English-language sources, when available, are preferred here, because there is a greater chance of a reader begin able to verify them, since this is the English-language wikipedia. And I must admit my personal ability to read other languages is quite limited. DES(talk) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting that you are a liar or that your recordings and performances do not exist, although sources for verification are important to Wikipedia articles. What was questioned was your notability. Frankly Wikipedia get lots of newly created articles on bands, singers, and other performers and composers, many of whom have done nothing more significant than play at the local bar, if that. We have thus established the rule that such articles must affirmatively state their significance, and failing that be deleted on sight, so that volunteers don't have to spend endless hours proving that a garage band is only that and nothing more. Your articles have been sort of caught in this unfortunate flood. DES(talk) 20:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft based on the previously deleted article at User:DESiegel/drafts/The tides of time I have used in it the two Hastings Observer stories you pointed me to. But given that this is apparently a fairly local paper, for the area where you reside, which might have covered you in part out of "local interest" I would be happier if you could find any published reviews or commentary from other sources, especially regional or national sources. None of the other items on your website seem to be copies of or citations to independent reviews or critical articles or commentary, or if they are I missed them. I attempted a Google search but found nothing useful beyond what i already have. DES(talk) 22:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If sufficient information on you as a composer can be established to clearly make an article Polo Piatti notable it would support the existence of an article about the album. For this purpose any reviews or critical comments about your preformacs, espically in major newspapers or publications; any specific dates of performances at highly notable locations; details of any significant awards (date, name of award, body giving award, and if available news cite confirming the award); publication details (author, title, publisher and page number) of books which mention you in any detail (more than a mere 1-2 sentence passing reference); any of these would help. DES(talk) 22:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If sources are not in English a rough translation of significant quotes would help. DES(talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DESiegel. You have been extremely helpful and understanding (and have managed to restored my faith in Wikipedia). In fact you should receive an award for this!
In any case and in the meantime many thanks for creating the draft based article. After reading what you and Airplaneman have written to me, I guess that everything will be simplified if an article on myself would be created also so that both articles can support each other. The only small problem I can see is that the majority of my info and reviews are in foreign languages (especially Spanish and German) and would take a bit of time to translate. However, I can do this, no problem. Also, I have now understood that to protect Wikipedia’s integrity you do need specific proof, reliable sources, precise dates, names and venues that support everything. That is no problem either, I just need a little time to do it (I am working on a composition deadline at present). Fortunately Airplaneman has declared his willingness to help and mentor me! I guess the best to do now is to stay in contact with him directly and provide him with all the information needed for both articles (the The Tides Of Time and the Polo Piatti one). I would be very grateful if you (and Airplaneman) could please let me know if you are both OK with this? I would hate to make any more mistakes. Thanks again. 86.142.31.193 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That will be fine with me. You may work directly with him or with both of us, as you please. I suggest creating a draft for the Polo Piatti article in userspace also. For that one we might need to go through deletion review, I'm not sure, because of the previous deletions. But it shouldn't be a problem. DES(talk) 03:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Magiko. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page. Message added 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Great, thanks for that to both of you. I just need your help one more time so that I can work on my own from now on. If you can open (or tell me how to open) a Draft Page for the Polo Piatti article I could start. The only important thing is for me to be able to work on the articles by SAVING info on the Draft but OFF-LINE and therefore WITHOUT uploading to the internet. That way I will avoid making any more mistakes before any of you have approved the articles. Can you help me do that, please? Many thanks again. Magiko (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the most recent version of the article to to User:Magiko/drafts/Polo Piatti. Please do edit it there. Changes that will be needed:
The "PERSONAL DETAILS" section should be converted from a bulleted list to running prose.
the LECTURING & TEACHING ACTIVITIES section should be converted from a bulleted list to running prose and should not read like a personal resume. Items not relevant to the subjects notability can be reduced or omitted.
More details should be given on why the subject is significant.
Section headers should not be in ALL CAPITALS, but rather in Sentence case like this.
Specific quotes from reliable sources should be used that indicate the subject's importance. The more the better.
If there has been negative critical comments or reviews they should be quoted too. This will answer arguments of conflict of interest, and will actually help with notability. The more evidence there is of independent third-party discussion, positive or negative, the clearer notability is.
Significant performances, and any tours, compositions, and publications should have dates listed.
Published books, articles, and scores should show the publisher, and if there is an ISBN or similar ID number that should be shown too.
Non-English sources should provide English-language translation of relevant quotes, and the source of the translation should be indicated.
Words like "pioneer" should be either removed or, even better, attributed to a specific quote from a source.
If any of the films in particular are themselves notable, citations to show this should be provided. If any already have Wikipedia articles, they should be linked.
You should be able to edit this without undue interference. However if it sits unchanged for weeks someone may notice it and think that it is an attempt at stealth promotion.
I urge you not to try to move it back to the main article space without having me or some other experienced editor, preferably an admin, review it. Since an early version of this was deleted by AFD, we probably want to go though deletion review to restore it.
Please keep the requirements of WP:COI in mind and be very careful to write as objective and neutral an article as you can manage.
I hope this is helpful. DES(talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for everything DESiegel. I truly appreciate your help and advice. I will start working on the Draft Page as soon as possible and wait for your advice (and Airplaneman's) before moving it to the main article space, of course. Airplaneman suggested I should stick to just one account from now on and I totally agree with him. Hence I'd like to declare this openly and keep the Magiko account as my only one. Unfortunately I don't know how (and where) to declare that the two accounts are from the same source? Otherwise I don't have any problem with shutting down my other account - the Polo Piatti account - altogether. I would be very grateful if you could help me do this. I will then do the rest on my own and contact you once my article has progressed enough to be reviewed by yourselves. Many thanks again! 86.142.31.193 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on the user page of your other account (User:Polo Piatti) place the following:
{{User Alternate Acct | Magiko}}
{{Retired}}
This will indicate that you acknowledge that that account and this account were run by the same person, and that you don't plan to use that account again. Alternatively, just place a note at or near the top of that user page saying this in your own words. And then don't log in with the other account. That is really the ony important part -- the not logging in with the other account and editing using it. If you are going to use it, then place a note on the user pages of both accounts indicating that they are run by the same person, and then be very careful to not use them on the same articles or in any way which might make it seem as if you were trying to count for two people. But it is better not to do that. See WP:VANISH and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternate account notification for more details. DES(talk) 17:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
recent changes in the Polo Piatti draft, and work still needed[edit]
Phrases such as "His work is highly evocative", "Piatti was considered a musical prodigy", and "eminent choreographer" should not be included unless there is a speciifc independant published source to which you can attribute these opnions by name, in a cited reference. See our guideline on "peacock terms".
In connection with two positions you note "Provide Wikipedia With Contract". Don't bother. A contract is of no value to a wikipedia article unless it is verifiable which would normally mean published. To verify thqt you held a particular position at a particular time a published artilce mentioning this, or a published directorey or anouncement from the institution (either on-line or off-line) would be a proper source.
The text "His main intention as a creator gravitates towards the philosophical and spiritual impact of music on human emotions in both the performer and the audience." shoulkd not be included unless you have said this in an interview or on your own web page or in some simialr place to which this can be refered. Otherwise there is no way for anyone else to verify that this is your intention, and it becomes a case of original research.
The section Training-Education-Diplomas shul,d be convereted from an itimized list to prose so that it reads less like a resume.
I would suggest that the sentance "From a very early age, Piatti has devoted his entire life to music in practically all its forms, working not only as a professional composer and concert pianist but also as an arranger, musical director, conductor, singing coach, teacher, artist developer, artist manager and music publisher in many countries around the world." be revised to read "Piatti has devoted his life to music, working not only as a professional composer and concert pianist but also as an arranger, musical director, conductor, singing coach, teacher, artist developer, artist manager, and music publisher in many countries around the world." This makes the point but sounds less promotional.
I would suggest editing "At the age of 3 he was sent to the Grassi Conservatory in Buenos Aires to attain his first tuiton in piano and music theory. There he finished the Piano Teacher Training Qualification with just 12. At the same age and despite his very young age he was then sent to Argentina’s most prestigious/major musical institution" to "At the age of 3 he started to attend the Grassi Conservatory in Buenos Aires where he first studied piano and music theory. There he finished the Piano Teacher Training Qualification at age 12. At the same age he commend studies at the Conservatorio Nacional de Música Carlos López Buchardo in Buenos Aires (now the Conservatorio Superior de Música de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires ‘Astor Piazzolla’). He graduated with distinction as Professor of Music [Provide Diploma] in [DATE].
(again a diploma is not useful, a published lsit of graduates would be, or an independant article of any date that mentions this fact. For this sort of biographical fact, failing any better source a citation to your web site would do)
The Solo Concerts section needs dates, adn references where avaialable. recies would be nice, but even published notices that the concernt was scheduled would do, given date, name of publication, and page number. If online so much the better, a urkl will also help.
The Original Compositions section also needes dates, adn if any of them have been published, publication information (publisher, publication date, ISBN if available). Again, if ther can be suporting references for any of these it will help, even a published notice that the production is taking place and that the music is your composition.
Above all, additional published references are the key thing.
I hope these suggestions are helpful. DES(talk) 06:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that, DESiegel. I am fully aware of all your recommendations and suggestions. As I mentioned to you before, I am just "practicing" and adding info before contacting you for a proper and final revision. All comments will definitely be backed up by published articles, newspaper reviews, academic publications, etc. I will now take out all I've written in the article and continue working on a file on my own computer. When finished, I will come back to Wikipedia and paste it into the article and let you know. I guess, this will be best. Thanks again. Magiko (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me how do I send you (and where to?) the files you need to approve specific quotes in my article? (such as publications ISBN numbers, photocopies of articles, links to relevant websites, etc.)? Do I include them in the article itself for everyone to see or shall I send them to you for approval first? Magiko (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Include all citations in the article itself. Generally you should not upload copies or scans of articles, but merely give reference citations to them, showing when and where they were published (title, author, date, magazine or newspaper title if relevant, page number, and generally the publisher if available). If copies are already posted online (outside of wikipedia), you may provide a link to them. Online archives run by the original publisher are best. If you choose to scan them and post copies of scanned articles on your own website, outside of Wikipedia, you could link to those copies. But that is not required. (However if the source is not available online, including a relevant quote is helpful.) If a source is not in English, including a translation is helpful (if you do, say who did the translation). See Wikipedia:Citing sources and particularly Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to format citations for more details. The object, as per our verifiability policy, is that anyone reading an article ought to be able to verify it. Books (and any other publications) with ISBN numbers should have the text ISBN nnnnnnnnnn somewhere in the citation (where nnnnnnnnn is the actual ISBN), this will automatically create a link to a page providing lookup facilities. DES(talk) 20:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Many thanks. I will start writing the article bit by bit now then. Please remember this is a Draft and that I will be providing you with all the necessary quotes, etc. if you need them. And that I will wait for your final approval before moving the whole article to the final place in order to avoid making any mistakes. I am very grateful for your help on this. Magiko (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have briefly looked at the current draft. You have obviously done a good deal of work in it. Several points:
Inline bare hyperlinks to identify institutions or entities are discouraged. Where a Wikipedia article exists, a wiki-link to it should be used. Where it doesn't a footnote reference to an element of the External links section is a good idea.
In the Orchestral Works section, if these works have been performed, including information about the performance(s), such as the orchestra or troupe who performed them, the dates of performance, and if available a citation to a published work that mentions the performance would be helpful. If these works have been published, full publication details, such as the publisher, date, publication location, and ISBN if any would be helpful. If any have been reviewed or discussed in independent published sources (not press releases), citations to (and, if not available online, quotes from) such reviews or discussions would be very helpful. If any of these pieces were commissions, the source of the commission should be stated.
The same apples to the Choral Compositions section.
For the "Film & TV Soundtracks" section, if "Copyright Control" means simply that the work is copyrighted, it adds no value. The name of the firm, library or institution that produced each particular film should be supplied. There should be enough information that a user could look up the film in a relevant library or archive. Again, if there were any published independent reviews or discussions of any of he films, particularly ones that mention the score, but even ones that do not but help establish that the film was notable, such reviews or discussions should be cited. Even if this is not possible, a citation that establishes the verifiable existence of the film is highly desirable when it can be provided. Each such citation helps establish the overall notability of the subject.
For the "Compositions for Stage", remarks similar to those for the Orchestral Works apply. An indication of what theater company performed the work (if it has been performed), and the date or dates of performance, is helpful. Again this should be supported by a citation to a published source whenever possible, but the information should be given even if no source is at hand. (Others may be able to find a citable source later, given the basic information). i see that some of the works have an ISBN and a publisher listed. This is good. If others have been published, similar information should be given for them.
"Compositions for Piano Solo" much the same remarks apply as to the Orchestral Works. If they have been performed, indicate who performed them (especially the premier), where (specific theater or concert hall, not merely the country), and when (specific date or dates if possible). If any have been published, give publication information sufficient to find them in a library or to purchase them, including the publisher's name, date of publication, title of publication if part of of a larger work, and ISBN if there is one. Again if any published reviews or discussion can be found they should be cited.
For "Solo Concerts", specific dates and venues (concert halls or theaters) should be provided. Published reviews or discussion should be cited. If there are several similar concerts without separate source citations, they should be combined. If this section can be done as prose rather than as a list of items, that would be better. Much the same applies to "Choir Conducting", except that the names of the specific choirs should be listed.
For "Musical Direction", "Artist Management", "Academic Lecturing", "Teaching", and "Other Activities" prose would probably be better than a list of individual items. Again, any published independent sources to support the facts stated would be helpful.
The "Notes" should be automatically generated by reference items, as described in WP:FOOT.
I'm not sure what you have in mind for the "Listening" section.
Remember that the finished article should not read like a resume or vita, it should read like an encyclopedia article. Examples of featured articles on classical composers are Rebecca Helferich Clarke, Bradley Joseph, Witold Lutosławski, Dmitri Shostakovich, and Leo Ornstein. Obviously we are not going to get this to FA status in one jump. But take a look at those examples and the use of references and lists versus prose in them. Have a look also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, which lists some style suggestions for articles about composers.
I hope this give you some indications of a useful direction. If it is not clear please drop a note on my talk page.
I will edit the draft to to improve the formatting of the existing links and references.
I hope this long comment is helpful. DES(talk) 21:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Satierkreisreviews.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --After Midnight0001 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Magiko. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page. Message added 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Your alternate account is considered a doppelgänger account. You can tag your Polo Piatti account with {{doppelganger|Magiko}} or {{doppelgänger-other|Magiko}} to let people know. I'm archiving the discussion, which will now be in User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 11. Please start a new thread if you'd like to converse with me on my talk page. All the best, Airplanemantalk 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Polopiattithetidesoftime.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Polopiattithetidesoftime.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ArmbrustWrestleMania XXVIIUndertaker 19–0 15:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Armbrust, thanks for that. I own the copyright of this file myself. I must just have made a mistake by uploading it. I have tried to delete the file and upload a new version of it but the system doesn't let me do it! I wonder if you could help me on this. Shall I upload a totally new version of the same file to solve the problem? I look forward to your response. Many thanks!
This account (Magiko) is a doppelgänger account created by Magiko, an established user, to prevent impersonation by vandals. Please see their talk page for relevant discussion. You can also view Magiko's edit count by clicking here.
Administrators: Please notify Magiko when taking any action on this account, or any related user pages.
File permission problem with File:Observer review18.12.09.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Observer review18.12.09.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Observernewspaper11.12.09.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Observernewspaper11.12.09.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Observer review18.12.09.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Polopiatti.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Polopiatti.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Southamericapapersreviews.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Southamericapapersreviews.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Timeoutwithphoto.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Timeoutwithphoto.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Crazinesssinhastings.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
Just noticed that you are still active. :-) Any chance you remember this file? It was lost some time ago. Do you still have a copy? Can you create a new version? Is it still needed? --MGA73 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Procession.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:GrigorovitchPiattiBessmertnova.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:GrigorovitchPiattiBessmertnova.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opus Theatre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholas McCarthy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:International Composers Festival in 2015.jpeg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:International Composers Festival in 2015.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:International Composers Festival in 2015.jpeg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:International Composers Festival in 2015.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The Menace
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
