User talk:Slfarrell

Welcome to Wikipedia and to WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan! I hope that you enjoy contributing to the articles: there is certainly much to do. Also, the links in the welcome message below may be useful.

Welcome!

Hello, Slfarrell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Moreschi 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the G&S project (WP:G&S) and for your recent edits. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott! Good to see you here! Was just discussing how to add your Sapphire Necklace work to said article the other day - as the only complete version, it does deserve a short mention. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We would need date and publication or link info and other brief details that explain its notability in connection with the piece. Any factual assertions should be supported by something published in a journal or website or somewhere with appropriate citation info. -- Ssilvers 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really quite surprised that it even came up. I have photos, the programme (which omitted any connection to Sullivan or Chorley), and the recording that caused much irritation on SavoyNet. There was also an article on the company in "The Gaeity" and SN was mentioned as a past production, but only in passing. Oh, and the press release announcing the show, which I took from the newspaper, but it doesn't mention Sullivan either. (Does that matter?) I have mixed feelings about its inclusion - it's not very good and I plan to revise it someday. Slfarrell 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it would be useful to add the references to "The Gaiety" article and to give the details of the new libretto and of the production. Again, thanks for all the wonderful edits you are making the G&S Project articles. -- Ssilvers 16:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I like helping. Makes all my seemingly useless knowledge go to use. So, I should write something like "the opera was given a new libretto in 2000 by composer Scott Farrell, who premiered the work in July that year" and then I talk about the new plot and production? Sounds like self-promotion to me, which Wiki isn't about. But if anyone's got an objection, it can be removed, ya? Slfarrell 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, because it's just the facts. You're not selling anything. Of course, it should be relatively brief. If the work is available, however, there can be an "External link" as to where to obtain it. Also, you can cite any reviews and certainly any journal or news article about it. -- Ssilvers 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll get right on it. Slfarrell 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got appropriate mentions of the Illinois performances on the various appropriate pages now, with good weblinks for people who want to know more. Next, you might want to beef up Jane Annie, with more introduction and a "Background" section discussing the genesis of the opera and the critical reception. BTW, do you know about this great Wikipedia feature: If you click the button at the top of each page that says "Watch", you add the page to your watch list, and you can check to see which of the pages you are watching have been edited recently. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that a while ago. But the watcher doesn't seem to respond to my articles. Maybe I did it wrong? I shall try to add more Janie in the coming days. Slfarrell 15:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "preferences" (another button at the top) may be set not to pick up your own edits. I prefer it that way: I want to see other people's edits, not mine. But you can set it to show your own also. Note that the watchlist only shows the most recent edit, so if there are several edits to an article on the same day, you will only see the most recent one and must go to the article to see the full history. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few tweaks to it, and pointed out a couple sentences that don't seem to make sense on the talk page. Could you have a look? Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam had difficulty with a few bits, so I tried to clarify, but I had to guess a little about what the key that Caddie has unlocks - from context, it had to be either the boathouse or a lock on the boat. I guessed one. Is it the other?

I do think you were pretty clear, but I suppose if you haven't read any boarding school stories, it could be confusing, as you don't know the general patterns that Jane Annie is built around. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the background paragraph to the intro, but it certainly could be expanded if you like. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Sam as well, but would like a range of opinions. This is from the opening of Act IV of Charity, after the fact that Mrs. Van Brugh never marrie d her husband has become public. Mrs. Van Brugh is reading letters, the last of which is this oily one:

"Honoured Madam,

We shall feel greatly flattered and obliged if you will kindly afford us a sitting for your photograph at the earliest convenience.

We are, Honoured Madam,

With much esteem,

Most respectfully yours,

Scumley & Ripp"

To which she replies "When these people address me, I am degraded indeed."

What are Scumley and Ripp? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, perhaps? No, a most respectable firm, like Tare and Tret. Don't know. Slfarrell 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott! If you have any time, take a look at the "to do" items at WP:G&S and see if there's one that you feel like tackling. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have the time, but my expertise is pretty limited to the lesser-known works that are *related* to G&S, but not G&S itself. (Is that strange?) Slfarrell 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's useful, since the mainstream G&S stuff is already covered, or at least represented. I look forward to reading anything you produce related to G&S or Victorian musical theatre. How did your performance go? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The performance was same as always: a disappointment. I can't ever get a break. One of the oboes came in a beat too early and half the ensemble followed - the other half didn't and it showed. I was so embarrassed. :( Slfarrell 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Live performance is always a risk, but I bet people in the audience did not think one mistake spoiled their experience of the whole piece. -- Ssilvers 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, add info about their recordings to any articles where they are the most notable recordings. With respect to pieces that have been professionally recorded by others (and the others are generally considered to be more definitive) they don't need to be mentioned in those articles. Also, by all means, add an article on Prince Consort describing their contributions. Good idea! -- Ssilvers 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will endeavour to contact Borthwick and Lyle and see what they have to say about it. Slfarrell 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Note that you will need citable references or weblinks where most of the information that you put on Wikipedia can be verified. An Amazon list of available recordings would even be useful. -- Ssilvers 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I asked Alan directly for anything that might have been in print about their group. No response yet, but it's been only a few hours. Slfarrell 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I added info about their recording to the Haddon Hall (opera) article, but my understanding is that their earlier recordings are not that good. You definitely don't want to say anything at Rose of Persia, because that has other better professional recordings. Having read what Marc says about them at the Discography, I am not sure they should have an article. -- Ssilvers 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never received a response from Alan about the article. So without any sources or anything to go on, there is no way to create an article. It's not about the recordings or promotion of them anyway - it was for their major contribution to the SWOGs. Never mind that Beauty Stone or Chieftain or Ivanhoe aren't that good - but they are all we'll have for a long time to represent them. But this is a separate discussion. Slfarrell 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been proposed for deletion. You can vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Trial. I believe that this is not notable. -- Ssilvers 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The G&S article is a Featured Article on Italian Wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_e_Sullivan

Can we copy anything from the Italian WP for our article? It seems like, at a minimum, there are a few photos that can be copied, either for the G&S article, or for the author's or composer's articles? -- Ssilvers 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When was Dulcamara revived? Can you please add a citation to the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in an interview with Gilbert. http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/other_gilbert/strand_article.html

I'm gonna try to put it in but it mayn't come out correctly. Slfarrell (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of interest to the article. Dulcamara is being revived for the first time in over a century in October. Shall I give you more details or do you think Marc will say it doesn't fall under Wiki guidelines again? Slfarrell (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not go ahead and update the article? - put in the short and sweet version together with a cite to the longer website version. The worst that can happen is that it'll be deleted. If you stick to the facts that you can prove with WP:RS, it stands the best chance of surviving. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "...The Gaiety magazine (which is more of a newsletter like the Palace Peeper or the Trumpet Bray) and "The Sinfonian", a members only magazine. I also have the press releases on the production if that helps." Please note author, date, issue, and page numbers for The Gaiety and The Sinfonian. There is nothing wrong with citing an article in The Gaiety, although I wouldn't bother citing a mere "listing" from the producer. Please send me (even better: put into the article), the full citations and url, if available, for any actual articles. If the releases are your announcements prior to the event, we can't really use those. If you send me full bibliographic information about a Jane Annie premiere, I'll put it in and brave the upshot, be what it may. Please do me a favor and always give the full the citations, so we have something to work with. See WP:CITE. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Nautch Girl appeared in The Gaiety, winter 2004 issue, pg. 27-31. It talks about the production after the fact. The Sinfonian only mentions it as such - "The Royal English Opera Company founded by Scott Farrell, Epsilon Rho (Northern Illinois) '01, presented the North American premiere of Edward Solomon's "The Nautch Girl" on August 7 and 8, 2004. .endquote. "The Sinfonian: December 2005 issue", pg. 17 is the citation. As for Jane Annie, all we got was the newspaper's advt and feature story, and our interview on WTVO's Daybreak, which is on YouTubes.

I am no good at putting in citations but I will try to put them in later next week. Slfarrell (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the site is back up! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what's new on the website? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's got a new layout, a couple small additions, and several corrections. It flows a lot better than its previous incarnation, and is no longer so derivative. It's my own now. Slfarrell (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Don't mean to sound cocky, but by the end of this month, I think we'll have two new pages for certain Savoy operas. As will the Archive. Perhaps. Slfarrell (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been promoted. Thanks for your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the page started, but I've worked for a couple hours and I'm exhausted. Will do more later, so please don't get on me about the edits and links and references. We'll figure those out later. Slfarrell (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Don't you want to put a link to your new website on the user page? You could also mention your book. That type of info is perfectly OK on userpages. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Mountaineers (opera), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on The Mountaineers and TMM! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now, what to do about the other performers who don't have pages? I asked about creating one for Claude Flemming, but a reply has not yet come. Should I get into that article next? Slfarrell (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. I am not overly excited about any of them and have too many other pots on my stove, but I will certainly be happy to review/proofread, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new additions. I was away for a couple of weeks. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Daisy le Hay and Roland Cunningham.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how to respond to this. I have that photograph in my collection and it was not posted on any other website. This photo should be out of copyright by this date. Slfarrell (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info to the image description. It had the wrong license tag, which should be the PD-1923 tag, so I added that. Please review and add anything else that you are aware of. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the page on this guy. It will improve in the days to come. Slfarrell (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about ready to submit Rupert D'Oyly Carte for GA review. Please let me know if you have any comments/corrections on the article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to give any details I can of the Manchester Guardian article you mention on my talk page. - 06:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Later - having looked - it's a smallish ad, so I reproduce it verbatim here: the second and third lines were centred, all others were justified left or right. The bottom line was in tiny print.

Hope this is useful. - Tim riley (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all it says? Well, that could be useful. This wasn't a London newspaper, was it? So Manchester may have been one of the stops on the tour... hmm. Thanks for this and the prompt reply. Slfarrell (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you're looking for? I may be able to find more in the various archives to which I have access. - Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott is updating his book on the final four Savoy operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for any information about the tours of "Mountaineers" and "Two Merry Monarchs." I'd be most surprised if there was a tour of "Fallen Fairies," and an immediate provincial tour of it would explain the absence of most of the Savoy cast in TMM. Anything like the above article can be of use. Slfarrell (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall rummage in the archives and report back with any finds. - Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) - Later: have sent you an email via Wikipedia. - Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim added a good deal of new information to the article. He also questions the death details. See the talk page and the hidden comments in the article by pressing the edit button. The questions in CAPS are mine. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We've been working on Flower Drum Song, and it is at FAC. Would kindly take a look and either comment or vote? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request on facebook: f you need something from the BL, you might want to ask User:Tim riley for help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2013 (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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]