User talk:Mllefifi

Regarding Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade

Thank you for turning the redirect into an excellent little article. This piece came up in conversation a while back, and I could not for the life of me remember the little triplet motif; if only we'd had this article then! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-15 07:48:53Z

Thanks, and you're welcome! The article needs some more things, like premiere performance info, etc. I think the short notated musical examples help. I added one to "Flight of the Bumblebee" after finding out what format to use and working with my computer software to capture the screen images. It might be nice in the future to add some short OGG files recorded from MIDI to enhance the illustrations aurally. -- Mademoiselle Fifi 21:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Operas

Thank you for your contribution to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Operas which is much appreciated. As you will have seen we are working on a 'Opera Corpus' list of some 1000-off works. We will be grateful for your ideas and corrections. We are using the 4-volume New Grove Dictionary of Opera as our basic reference for titles, transliteration etc. as per our guidelines. No doubt you are familiar with this. I don't know whether you might have time to do stubs for the missing Russian works? Just an idea.

Kleinzach 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I became aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Operas just recently. I add things to Wikipedia as they come to mind, mostly. Is it important to go ahead and start articles with brief stubs in order to get things going? I tend to input a lot of material for an opera article in one or two sittings, although I leave the stub-label if I haven't included the synopsis.

There are two questions I'd like to ask, if you could advise:

Is there somewhere on Wikipedia a set of guidelines for constructing titles for Wiki-articles, especially about musical works, and operas in particular? I ask this with regard to two things:
1. Whether to begin a Wiki-title with a definite/indefinite article;
2. Applying qualifiers to titles of opera Wiki-articles, especially when the opera derives from a source with the same title (regardless of whether a Wiki-article exists for that source).
Would it be possible to add some formatting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Operas so that it divides into alphabetical sections? That would make it easier to make a simple small edit to one title, as I just now needed to do with Dargomyzhsky's "Rusalka".

Thanks!

Mademoiselle Fifi 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's up to you whether you decide to create stubs or go straight for full-length articles. The latter are obviously better if you can produce them!

I and my friend GuillaumeTell have been trying to create a framework that makes it easier for other people to contribute. (We are members of an opera list so others are involved.) We both have an interest in the repertory as well. The opera project opera list was originally on my website but we've developed it and I hope we can make it (more) public soon.

There is a naming conventions page at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) which basically refers the writer to Grove. Grove had 1,300 odd writers and created a rulebook (no doubt the result of many years work) and rather than try to duplicate their effort it seems sensible to simply follow their practice.

Definite articles in front of English titles are no problem. The article is dropped in category tags, so that 'The Stone Guest' is listed under S and not under T.

Regarding qualifiers again there is an easy rule. The following is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera:

Operas: avoiding ambiguity

To avoid ambiguity the word opera, or the name of the composer, may be added to the title in parentheses. For example Macbeth (opera) refers to the work by Verdi to distinguish it from Macbeth which is the play by Shakespeare. Likewise Otello (Rossini) is differentiated from the more famous work of Verdi which is simply Otello.

Regarding formatting to divide the opera list, that is an excellent idea although I am not sure exactly how it is done - short of making it into a category list. If you have any ideas please let me know!

Lastly, if you like to write to my own Talk page I'll automatically get a message to tell me. If you put it here I won't know about it unless I remember to check. Also you might like to add your username to the Opera project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. if you aren't too busy, you could also perhaps leave a note on the Talk page to let people know what you are working on.

Kleinzach 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I found the necessary code and have divided the opera title list as you suggested.

One other thing: we are trying to put in as many redirects as possible, so that whatever version of the name of the opera known to the reader, with or without accents, with or without correct capitalization, he or she will get to the article.

Kleinzach 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tchaikovsky's 3rd Piano Concerto

Thank you for that more accurate account of the complicated story. I guess what this means is that, if I went to a concert where the "3rd Piano Concerto" was to be played, I would not be sure, until I had heard it, whether this was:

the 1-movement work that Tchaikovsky published as Op.75, or
the 3-movement work that consists of Op. 75 plus Taneyev's reworking of the 2nd and 3rd movements that he published posthumously as Op.79.

I guess if it was just the 1-movement work, it would be more likely to be billed as "Allegro de concert, Op.75" these days rather than as "3rd Piano Concerto". But maybe not; after all "3rd Piano Concerto" is the name Tchaikovsky gave it. Presumably he was happy with that title for a 1-movement work, even though romantic concertos were traditionally 3-movement works. (In fact, I can't think of another 1-movement romantic concerto at all, can you?)

The only case where I would know from the title alone what I am getting for my money, would be if it were billed as "3rd Piano Concerto, Opp. 75 and 79". This is because "Third Piano Concerto, Op.75", despite appearances, is now a little ambiguous. It could just mean the 1-movement work, or it could be a promoter's short-hand for the 3-movement work. I used to have an LP of the 3-movement work, which I am sure from memory was described as "3rd Piano Concerto, Op.75", and no mention of Op.79.

How very confusing. JackofOz 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. T.'s Op. 75 is a traditional 1st-movement type (sonata form with double exposition). Balakirev's early first concerto in F# minor consists of just one movement, but it's traditional, too. "Complete" one-movement concertos of the more progressive "fused" type include Liszt and Rimsky-Korsakov.

I think there are recordings of the Tchaikovsky 3rd which have just the one movement of Op. 75. (I have the LPs of Michael Ponti's 3-movement performance.) One thing that I did not put into my revision of that info on the 3rd concerto/7th symphony is that (as I recall from old record-jacket notes that I no longer have) the scherzo movement of the symphony is the same as one of Tchaikovsky's late piano pieces. (Then again, liner notes are not necessarily very reliable of sources of information.) I'd have to investigate to see whether that really is the case, and if so, whether the piano piece originally was part of sketches for the symphony but completed by Tchaikovsky for piano solo, or was an independent work that Bogatyrev chose to complete the symphony. Mademoiselle Fifi 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I misspoke above. T's Op. 75 does not have a double exposition (haven't listened to it for a long time, so my memory slipped). I'll have to check the Balakirev again; I think it does, but I need to make sure. Mademoiselle Fifi 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

Спасибо за внимание! Благодарю Вас за честь! Mademoiselle Fifi 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Verstovsky

Would you like to write a short article or stub on Alexey Verstovsky? We are trying to complete our coverage of 370 opera composers, and he is one of the last 12 to be written up! Best regards.

Kleinzach 12:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done an inadequate (!) stub. If you around later, perhaps you could have a look at it, maybe Russify it? Best regards.

Kleinzach 12:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on it. I should drag out the vocal-score of Askol'd's Tomb that I bought a few years ago at a Znanie Bookstore in San Francisco, but I can't remember where it is in my house. Mademoiselle Fifi 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russian opera

How do you do, Mlle Fi-Fi?

Could you please join the discussion at the address above?

Thanks. (Meladina 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your edit to Paliashvili

Your recent edit to Paliashvili (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my edit was not vandalism, but an attempt to redirect the article "Paliashvili" (which was extremely flawed by extensive POV) to the one already created earlier for that composer (Zakaria Paliashvili). Mademoiselle Fifi 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mllefifi! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 11:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unrecorded operas

In List of unrecorded operas, do you mean that operas which have been recorded as bootlegs should or should not be listed on that page? I would think that they should be eligible for the list, since the list appears to be intended to identify operas which have not been commercially released as recordings. --Metropolitan90 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidelines don't seem clear enough, feel free to adjust them. If an opera has not been recorded and made available in a legal manner, the title should be placed on the list (only the title or composer/title should be necessary in most case)s. Mademoiselle Fifi 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made such a change to state that operas recorded as bootlegs but not as legal commercial releases should be on that page. --Metropolitan90 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addLoadEvent

Hi, one of your user scripts uses the addLoadEvent( func ) function (see [1]). This function will be removed from MediaWiki:Common.js soon. Please modify your scripts to use addOnloadHook( func ) instead. —Ruud 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be making this change, as there are no clear instructions on how to do it (the "see" above leads nowhere but to a search index), let alone which user script this applies to. Wikimedia/pedia should figure out ways of making global changes like this instead of expecting every affected user to change the same thing. Mademoiselle Fifi 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, your script won't be affected by the change. In general, user scripting is done at your own risk, I will provide clearer instructions to the other users I will be spamming though. Cheers, —Ruud 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the back up

Thanks very much for spotting and fixing the mistake on my vandalism revert at You Suck. Much appreciated. — Satori Son 14:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lustlizard lg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lustlizard lg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coyoteblue lg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coyoteblue lg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Islandofsequined lg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Islandofsequined lg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicookie

Anything Goes (song)

I disagreed with your decision and wrote a rebuttal here. --Brokethebank (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration of the lyrics does not resist scrutiny under fair use. Please see my response on the same talk page. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taneyev's Oresteia

Greetings. This is just to confirm with you that in Taneyev's opera Oresteia there are 2 tableaux in the 1st part, 3 tableaux in the 2nd part and 3 tableaux in the 3rd part. I have no reason to doubt what you wrote back in 2006. It's just that I don't have the score and this guy on YouTube (who's uploaded Taneyev's overture and opera) claims the 1st part has 3 tableaux and the 2nd part 2 tableaux. I just want to make sure. Also, I understand the location of both tableaux of the 1st part is Argos, before the Atrides palace? (Note, in the current version of the article, someone has misplaced that location as if it was the location of the whole opera whereas it can only be the location of the 1st part.) Thanks you for any help. Contact Basemetal here 22:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beloved (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/stagsere/se1/se5/038000/038400/038486/pdf/msa_se5_38486.pdf]] Maryland Historical Trust. Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Form. Survey No. CD-1517]] (a Maryland state PDF document, searched Oct. 1, 2013).</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mllefifi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Tacoma for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Tacoma is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Tacoma until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]