User talk:Kosboot/Archive 1

2007-2010

Hey, welcome. How did you get that Rav Schwab bibliography? I've been looking for original editions of "These and Those". JFW | T@lk 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not planning to revert your linking of all the Rémy and Sand occurrences, but the general rule in Wikipedia is that it's normally only necessary to link the first instance in an article of any name, place, body, concept, etc., etc. The standard exception is where instances are some distance apart in a long article, so not (as here) when they are right next to each other. See this para in the Manual of Style, 5th and 6th bullets. Best. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on this article. There is no Woodburn, New Jersey, and I'd like to try to figure out if Woodbury or some other place is intended. Ancestry.com is great, but I can't find the specific reference that would have the details. Do you have a more specific source? Alansohn 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I did the original rewrite of the absurd fundraising letter of Mannes masquerading as a Wiki entry. I graduated from Mannes in ca. 82, with Ken Cooper hpschd (and Amy Kaiser choral cond., who's a dope with bad technique); Ken deserves an entry, as being the most sought after and creative continuo player in NY and Tanglewood (and a good handful of nifty records: fortepiano Bach flute sonatas with I forget her name, the gamba sonatas with yoyo ma, where in typical fashion it sounds like a cello concerto with a harpsichord somewhere (as opposed to the through composed equality), the Goldbergs, etc. etc.

My real question: Cortot?!? Holy cow. When, how?

Best, rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlishke (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I also went to CUNY Grad, musicology, ABD Feel free to add to the shlishke article; some jerk added an irrelevant cite someone has to kill; I have the Hungarian name of the dish but am too lazy to go copy it out.

Robert Braham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlishke (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the aricle mentions in one sord shlishke; it is still way to misleading, all about the village of Kiryas Joel, and, more importantly, is concerned with and gives recipes for Hannucka.

Not the most serious issue in the world, but credit where credit's due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlishke (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've discovered your secret.

Rob Braham

Shlishke (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, if you'll excuse the impertinence, but saying you were bred in in NYC is a statement about where your parents did the deed. If anything, it should reverse the order, with "bred, born,...." But wait, there's more: animals are raised; children are, among other things, "brought up."

I expect to see this issue resolved ASAP.)

Remember John Abraham, the great singer, aka "John Braham the Jew"?

Same story. I always tell people my father circumcised his name when he came to the country (cut off the tip, get it?). Plus his first name was Adolph, and that was right out. It's now Randolph Braham.

See ya Shlishke (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you write a paper on Lulus in the world? Shlishke (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that wasn't me.  :) kosboot (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research! Glad to see you did this... which has been sitting there waiting for someone like you. Btw, I've often wondered about Corwin's "Once Upon a Tune." Do you know what that was about? Pepso2 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Radio? --PhantomS (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for layout/design reasons. I'll put it back. Pepso2 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the table! Maybe someday every major radio program will have a table like that one. Pepso2 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you mention the "CBS program guide." Do you know anything about the history of this publication? What years it spanned, etc.? Pepso2 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to WikiProject Musical Theatre!

Thank you for adding your name to our project membership list! Our goal is to make Wikipedia the foremost compendium of musical theatre to be found on the internet: hope you're up to the challenge! As a project member, you might like to introduce yourself on our talk page and maybe add the project membership userbox to your user page.

If you haven't done so already, please add our main project page to your watchlist and browse our page of useful templates. When you have a moment, please take some time to review our article structure guidelines for musicals, which, after months of collaboration, we developed through consensus as our recommended structure for articles on musicals. If you would like suggestions about where to start, we've gathered a few suggestions in the Project to do list and in our tasklist.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the project talk page or on my talk page. Again, welcome and happy editing!

—  MusicMaker5376 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for forking that -- it needed to be done! If you could, please take a look at our article structure for musicals, and see if you can bring the article a little closer in line to that. The synopsis needs to be cut down CONSIDERABLY -- generally speaking, there's no need to break things into scenes. The section on "published music" is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Thanks again! —  MusicMaker5376 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the script is unavailable, I feel it important to have a detailed plot along with the scene changes. Perhaps I'll add a brief "plot summary." As a librarian, I do think the list of published music is necessary, since some of the music written for this show is lost. -- kosboot (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But just having a list of songs without any context doesn't make any sense. If, instead, we can get some sense of what was different from the original version to the summer edition -- specifically, where the songs were added -- it might be helpful. —  MusicMaker5376 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that most articles on musicals have lists of songs without any context. It's useful to have, just like the listing on an album, for reference. In the plot summary I've included the context for every song, so your criticism is answered there. I'll soon be adding a section on what was changed for the 1926 Summer Edition. -- kosboot (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Opera Project!

Hello, Kosboot! We're delighted you've signed up to join us! Opera is a very active, medium-sized project with more than 4,400 articles - it's smaller than the mega-projects like Music etc, but it is also larger than closely-focused projects such as Richard Wagner. We have a discussion page linked to the main project page where you signed in. Participants work together on articles, see for example the Composer of the month, Singer of the month and Can you help? features on the Project page. Please take part! The scope of the project is huge: 400 years of history, many countries and many languages. For that reason the editing style of opera articles can sometimes be complicated, so we have detailed guidelines for formatting on the project page, covering the tricky points like opera titles, capitalization, categories etc. Please don't be too bothered if you make a few mistakes at first - we all went through the same thing when we started! Some opera editors use reference books such the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the Oxford Dictionary of Opera and the Viking Opera Guide. These are helpful for checking facts and providing the essential references required on Wikipedia. It's great if you can get access to these books. However if you don't have access to books, there are still many other ways you can contribute to the project: compiling lists of recordings, writing synopses of your favourite operas using CD librettos, translating texts from other languages, picture researching, writing biographies of contemporary singers from online sources etc etc - and see also the To do list for articles needing attention. We hope you have a great time on the Opera Project. Please don't hesitate to ask us if you have any questions! We are always here - here! Best regards!

--Kleinzach (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kosboot - I notice you changed the Coconut Grove article to say the musical Cocoanuts was set in that town. Why would you say that? In the Wikipedia article for Cocoanuts it says that it is set in Cocoanut Beach. I don't know of any hotels in Coconut Grove in 1925. In 1923 there had been Camp Biscayne, El Dorado, and the Sunshine Inn. These were all rustic things, not what we would think of as hotels. Anyway, they were all gone by 1925 - sold out during the BOOM. GroveGuy (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot - Maybe I'm not asking the right question. I'll try again. In the play/movie what are the exact words used to designate the location of the hotel ? I do not have a copy of the play to look at. In the Wickipedia article it says "Coconut Beach". If it is "Coconut Beach" the author was undoubtably referring to "Miami Beach" the fun riotous place where tourists went in 1925, not "Coconut Grove", the quiet boring residential suburb of Miami. GroveGuy (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I stumbled upon this list that you created, and while I respect the effort that's gone into it, I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standards as an encyclopedic topic (in other words, it's listcruft). The list apparently has no standards for how meaningful the opera reference has to be for a book to be included, nor any kind of justification for why it's significant that these books mention opera. (There are also no citations, for what that's worth.) The Talk page indicates that these weaknesses were apparent when the article was created, but that you and/or other people planned to improve the article to alleviate those problems; obviously, that hasn't happened, as the article has basically gone untouched since the week of its creation. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD but since you're still apparently an active editor, I figured I'd mention it to you first and see if you had anything to say about it. Propaniac (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to your comment on my Talk page) Well, I kind of am making suggestions for improving it: "The list apparently has no standards for how meaningful the opera reference has to be for a book to be included, nor any kind of justification for why it's significant that these books mention opera. (There are also no citations, for what that's worth.)" I'm happy to place my comments on the article's Talk page as well. As for why I'd rather suggest that the article be deleted rather than improve it myself, there are two main reasons: I don't know anything about opera or any of these books, and the article as-is doesn't suggest that this would be a worthwhile list even if improved. (Worthwhile for Wikipedia, that is; if I was an opera fan, I can completely understand why a list of books mentioning opera would be interesting, and I have my own pet projects that are similarly very interesting to a specific community but not appropriate for Wikipedia.) It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and this could be a very good list, but the current criteria for inclusion doesn't suggest it. In other words, is there any reason why someone outside the opera fandom should care that a non-notable book happens to mention the name of a specific opera? (Oh, and I'm sure there are other bad lists on Wikipedia, probably much worse than this one, but that's a weak argument for retaining anything.) Propaniac (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to say I've replied here. --Kleinzach 03:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Murketing, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. JRP (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this useful? : http://books.google.com/books?id=ALbz24g5aOAC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=%22Manuel+Klein%22+composer&source=bl&ots=I7lYEE76js&sig=vcr3WAPpbNGWXnpzSc_IpTO0lTw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Furst, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot, I have suggested a change to our article guidelines here. As an active contributor to the project, I value your comments. Thomprod (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Manuel Klein at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SinbadWeddingBells.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manuel Klein, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Splendid additions to this new article - it's much improved thereby! Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. A nice little article now. I put in a DYK nomination. Can you do anything for poor Charles Klein? I copied over some material, but it needs work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun to read about Burnside. Question: Is his wife Kathleen or Katherine? The article currently says Kathleen, but then it says that his wife, "Katherine, died...." Or maybe he had lots of wives....  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, because I just got back from the eye doctor! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the William Furst article we say Delia Fox, but elsewhere, we say Della Fox. Which is she? It seems like she could use an article, if you're up for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful job on Fox. You outta nominate it for DYK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a vaudeville. Could be variety or possibly even music hall. I doubt it's a minstrel show. Vaudeville and variety both contained minstrel numbers. I'm not sure from this snippet. But, the question is, is it really notable? Was it long-running? If possible, I would go for the most successful, longest-running shows first. What I did with Britain, in the same period, was make an arbitrary decision to write up the shows that exceeded 400 performances in their original run. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herman Klein, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:

• The use of italics in article titles
• Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
• Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month

Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot -- The controversial issues you identify at David Ferriero are perhaps more appropriately positioned in the more promiinent New York Public Library article? I have mirrored your additions at Talk:David Ferriero in the relevant sections of NYPL. I don't doubt that it will garner comments and further edits which will enhance the quality of both articles. --Tenmei (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please strike one sentence at Talk:David Ferriero:

• <:strike>"Despite the quote, this section strongly suggests more than a casual contact (and perhaps autobiographical) component."<:/strike>

In this context, it is undeserved and it offends. --Tenmei (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are offended by the tone, I am greatly offended by the paragraph entirely, not only because it is inappropriate, but because its presence is a form of disinformation. It provides an extremely skewed and inappropriately personal view of a person that only someone on a frequent level of contact can have. Aside from those who meet frequently with him, Ferriero's term at NYPL has been characterized by a lack of communication with the staff which results in somewhat of a negation of responsibility. In this light, saying he has a sense of humor might be true for his confidants, but it definitely is not a characterization of how he has run NYPL. Even he himself has said on at least two occasions that the job requires a person in his position to circumscribe what he says. -- kosboot (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot -- This is not an issue of non-specific or perceived "tone."

I object to innuendo, which Wiktionary defines as "a derogatory hint or reference to a person or thing. An implication or insinuation."

I don't dispute what I take to be your point-of-view. In fact, as you can see, I have mirrored it at NYPL and supplemented it with other verifiable material from reliable sources. I only disagree with the undeserved aspersion your sentence casts on me. You can articulate a valid point without this harmful insinuation; and I am quite properly urging you to do exactly that. Please strike the words you posted in a single sentence. I am not discouraging you from expressing your reasonable point-of-view in different words.

WP:V does not address the issue of truth, only verifiability. The words I posted from more than one source produce a coherent impression. You argue that this impression is misleading and unbalanced -- fine. I follow your reasoning. The innuendo in your sentence wrongly focuses on me for having summarized what I found in the course of a Google search. If the impression produced by that research is misleading, please don't hesitate to show why and how that is the case. In any event, the derogatory implications are undeserved and unwelcome.

My words are not evidence of "bad faith". I object in the way that I do because I've learned the hard way that unchecked derogatory labels produce unanticipated consequences; and that I am wrong to ignore such unfounded commentary as yours.

Consider this: The NYPL cultural changes in the past five years are significant, noteworthy. Although discrete elements of that change have been the subject of news reporting, I haven't yet found published material which ascribes linkages across the array of specific changes in the branches and in the research libraries. There have been discrete news stories, but no overview commentary -- or I simply haven't encountered a published analysis. The discernible changes are striking -- and worrisome, yes. Nevertheless, our personal observations are deemed "original research" unless verified with reliable sources.

Example: As I ponder the innovations at NYPL, I draw comparisons with the changes in corporate culture which were wrought by Carly Fiorina at Hewlett-Packard. The changed HP corporate definitions of "quality" and "customer service" and "bottom line" were well documented in the Wall Street Journal, which also reported the dissent Fiorina created amongst the HP board members and shareholders. The surprising changes in the corporate culture of HP post-Fiorina were also the subject of news reporting. Even if accurate, the parallels I might draw about unintended consequences flowing from changes at HP and changes at NYPL are deemed "original research" in our Wikipedia context.

Do you begin to see my point?

Sentences which are drawn from published New York Times articles are not a priori an "inappropriately personal view of a person that only someone on a frequent level of contact can have." Please strike the offending sentence and the amplifying words you have now posted as well. There is an idiomatic phrase which seems applicable here -- something about "adding insult to injury." This gambit contrives a dispute were there is no cause. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take some time to consider what you say. But I'm not going to remove sentences that I wrote on talk pages because that's part of what Wikipedia is for - to record the discussion that is involved in coming to a decision. It's your choice whether to take offense or not. -- kosboot (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot -- No, you're not correct in ascribing "choice" in this situation. In the real world this trivial matter merit little attention; and indeed, your phrase expresses maturity in the real world. Yes, I understand what you mean when you observe, "It's your choice whether to take offense or not." In life, I would simply overlook this and move on; but in the difficult-to-fathom wiki-reality where your words are posted, every critical complaint has a significance which cannot be ignored.

I have not asked you to remove anything. Rather I have asked you to draw a line through specific words which are potentially harmful. This use of strike-out signifies withdrawal of the words in one sentence -- like this:

• "Despite the quote, this section strongly suggests more than a casual contact (and perhaps autobiographical) component."

At the same time, I am explicitly encouraging you to restate your gravamen of complaint in different words. As it now stands, you identify my participation in Wikipedia in February 2008 as a problem. Is that your intent?

I think your ultimate goals are quite different, and I theorize that these ill-chosen words were a mere rhetorical flourish -- which is why they are so easily stricken without diminishing the import of your valid complaints.

More deserving of our collaborative work would be something like this -- using your words above as illustrative examples:

• Ferriero's term at NYPL has been characterized by a lack of communication with the staff ^{[citation needed]} ...?
• Ferriero's influence has "result[ed] in somewhat of a negation of responsibility." ^{[citation needed]} ...?
• Ferriero's "sense of humor" ... "is not a characterization of how he has run NYPL." ^{[citation needed]} ...?
• Ferriero "has said on at least two occasions that the job requires a person in his position to circumscribe what he says." ^{[citation needed]} ...?

Please allow me to ask anew: Do you begin to see my point? We are not opponents. Does the central thrust of your contribution to this article need to proceed from the assertion that I am some sort of unworthy shill?

I hesitate to mention this because it may distract from the forcefulness of my arguments above, but the fact-of-the-matter is that I am not one of Ferriero's aquaintances. Your implied criticism is inaccurate because it proceeds from a flawed foundation, but I would have thought that my reasoning would be valid even if I were an NYPL employee with experiences and opinions different from yours. For absolute clarity, do I really need to state clearly that I am not an NYPL employee? --Tenmei (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot -- I just now noticed that you have edited out the "autobiographical" phrase in that first sentence. Thank you. An alternate, and perhaps better action would have been to strike out the words because then, if anyone happens to encounter this thread in the future, it would be a little easier to understand why I responded as I have done, e.g.,

"Despite the quote, this section strongly suggests more than a casual contact (and perhaps autobiographical) component."

I appreciate this constructive gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Joshua Greenberg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The explanatory comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg were useful for me.

Pondering the array of views in this thread helped me to step back only slightly; but even small movements do evoke a changed perspective, a new appreciation of our focal point. --Tenmei (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the AfD thread resulted in an improved article. Let me take this opportunity to acknowledge your contribution specifically. Your pointed comment helped me to develop a broader perspective. My imperfect understanding of what WP:Notability and WP:PROF require may need further tweaking in future; but this was a constructive step towards something better. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot, I've been looking at your edits to the page for Ferrario. As an administrator, I need to tell you that they come very close indeed to the edge of violating WP:BLP, and display an apparent conflict of interest in the expression of your opinion about the quality of his leadership. Looking at the earlier material on this talk page, it seems clear to me that you have indeed been using the article and this talk page to attack him, and it is a violation of WP:BLP in either place. As you will see from my user page, I'm a librarian, and I live in NYC. My career has not been with the NYPL, and I have no personal knowledge of the problems there--though I do read the newspapers and professional magazines. I don't think I have a COI in the matter. I'm just warning you that we take BLP very seriously here, and the article must be kept neutral. I support the edits of ConcernedVancouverite, and I strongly advise you not to interfere with NPOV in this and related articles. If you wish, you can email me from my user page to discuss this further, (& FWIW, I've left a similar message with another editor) DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure it's very close to a musical. Hope we now have a viable solution and the article can be edited. The puppet problem will probably re-occur, so I'd be wary of new users with advanced WP skills! Best. --Kleinzach 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a further correction & a note on the talk p. ; but you got to the Forward one day ahead of me. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]