563:
mentioned. That was my first time ever editing a
Knowledge page and the removal of that tag was in my mind an afterthought. As I recall I fixed some dates and names. Since I did not understand how Knowledge worked, I did not know the importance of the tag Voceditenore had placed on the article. BTW 2006-2009 is 4, not 2 years, and in this economy keeping a small company running at all is notable, but I know that is not what Voceditenore is speaking of. There are 93,400 references to "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" on the web according to Google. In searching for references to the company I discovered mentions that I did not even know existed. Are they things that should be included on the page? I am not an expert on Knowledge, but the reasonable person would think that there must be something of substance about the company in 93,400 references. Of extreme note is the history making use of countertenor in the role of Ulrica in
974:
while not signed in as a user. Nevertheless, I am starting to better understand
Knowledge's standards for article notability, and this one clearly does not make the grade, despite Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's valiant efforts. Indeed, this article reeks of narcissism and self-promotion, and I find Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's protestations of Knowledge innocence quite disingenious, considering the fact that a quick google search shows that he is a self described webmaster, computer and IT consultant, as well as a member of a Gnubie circle, not to mention a fair use zealot. This article is being beaten well past its death, and should be deleted before anymore harm is done to Knowledge's excellent model and reputation. I agree that this article could better be hosted on one of Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's simple websites and still receive the google hits he and his cast are looking for. --
572:
the composer, and a new one just submitted for consideration. Also, considering BRO's thinking outside the box on casting where it works (countertenor as Ulrica) I have to say it seems that the company is noteworthy. It is also of interest that the NOMINATOR for deletion of this article was the very person who added the "bogus entries", which were of himself! This necessitated a correction by a member of the company. The NOMINATOR has also been chastised for improper actions on other
Knowledge pages. This may be a pattern. Looks like a witch hunt to me. If the page is deleted it will have little to no effect on the company, but it will mean that a good resource of documentation of the history that the company has made, and is in the process of making will be lost forever.
754:
it, but that is another story. The 93,400 hits were on "brooklyn
Repertory Opera" please note the quote marks. That means that those words in that exact order with nothing else between them will show up. Many of those hits seem to be other companies web sites as we appear in the bios of people who have sung with us and have taken gigs other places. You will note that there is a link to the Brooklyn Borough Presidents Fall 2008 report to residents. This is a PDF of a newspaper that was mailed to every person in Brooklyn. Should it be listed differently than in the external links section? According to Knowledge that was 2.5 million that got the paper and saw the short piece on the company. I have recently added some mentions of BRO on other web sites in the
684:. However, the motivation of the nominator is immaterial to this discussion as is the conflict of interest of the creator and other members of the company who have extensively edited the article. The repeated focus on a private dispute, personal attacks and attempts to reveal the real-life identity of an editor are not helpful. There are several editors participating in this discussion with long experience of editing opera-related articles on Knowledge and participating in deletion discussions. Characterizing this as participating in a "witch hunt" is neither helpful nor accurate.
824:
for several years, but he was not asked to do the review and the member of the company he knew did not get a good mention from him. From this we can infer that either he is biased against that person, or if he was accurate and I think he was, as the lady sung the performance with a nasty upper respertory infection, and was not at her best, he was an impartial member of the media that happened to attend. I am sure if asked he will shed light on the matter.
75:. That will give the authors time to bring the article to encyclopedic standard, and allows for some time until there is more independent coverage. I applaud Brett Wynkoop for logging in under his real name, and for being very reasonable and honest in the discussion here, and I would like to keep him as an editor beyond this one article. To symbolically acknowledge this, I will move the article to
1049:
Delete or Keep it really has no effect on either me or BRO, and some of the discussion here shows that some people are more interested in shaking things up for the sole purpose of feeling important. Since the page is a fairly good brief history of the company I have archived it and you folks can do what you want and I wish you all fun and happiness in your games.
749:
locate it. I do not know if either
Kleinzach or Voceditenore know the scene in NYC, but getting any mention in NYC publications, let alone getting a review in a major publication is almost impossible. It is not like NY is a slow news place as some smaller markets are. There was an article written in
526:
has asserted that there are "three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons". That may or may not happen. There are certainly no reliable sources to substantiate this. But in any case, notability is not prospective. I have argued in the past to keep articles about ensembles that were brought
823:
I just checked out Opera Today and the site is not run by the author of the review listed. The site in fact has many writers it apears. I would have to say the publication is legit and not to be dismissed as it seems you are of the opinion to do. Yes the reviewer has known a member of the company
753:
when Cosi was produced that no longer seems to be on their site. Thanks for pointing out that it can become a user page until "the powers that be" who ever they are think there are enough references in the world to our existing and being real. I did not know that option existed. No clue how to do
687:
The documentation of the company's history will not be "lost forever" if this article is deleted. For one thing, it can be moved to a user page of one of the editors until sufficient reliable sources are found to establish notability, i.e. when the world premieres take place. If they are significant
571:
a weekly that has about the same circulation as my hometown newspaper in middle
America. So, the company is making significant contributions to the art form in the form of world premiers; one in 2006, one currently in rehearsals to be performed in 2/2010, one in the future which is in rewrites by
59:
COI has been an oft repeated argument on the deletion side, and the diffs cited about one of the authors' self-promotion do not inspire confidence. However, these lie over a year back, and the editor has done least 1000 edits since, so we can allow that to come under the statute of limitations. More
1312:
e.g. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." If the above were an accurate summary and taken literally, then any band which gets themselves a podcast on any web site would automatically pass, and clearly they don't. In my view this refers (if
1048:
it amazes me that you know things about me that even I do not know. Instead of tossing about nonsense it would be more useful to stay on topic. If I were really trying to be disingenuous would I be posting under my real name? I think not, I would have made up a name along the lines of
Falunopera.
357:
isn't notable media coverage? The nominator, SingingZombie, has a personal vendetta gainst the company because they have barred him from ever again participating with the company because his behavior was so offensive, particularly to the women of the company. He tried to add himself to the singers
973:
While it is apparently true that Mr. Executive
Director Wynkoop has created a meatpuppet account in order to spend a lot of time and energy concocting a faux notability for this entry, you will notice in its history page that he has made a number of earlier contributions, deletions and corrections
846:
is a self-published website that accepts submitted reviews. A review of performance there doesn't necessarily make a person or organization notable. Also the reviewer did not "happen to attend". He wrote that he attended because he was a friend of the lead singer (and founder of
Brooklyn Repertory
748:
One world premier has happened. I have been searching for a source besides our own web site for that, but it seems that the article about it which was published in a local paper is no longer on line. I may have a hardcopy of the paper somewhere, but I am not sure how that plays into things if I
375:
Very honored that Mr. Scottandrewshutchins has determined that EPOCH TIMES is notable media coverage. We feel vindicated, considering the slanderous wikipedia entry about our LEGITIMATE news organization. Likewise, BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable. THANK YOU MR.
358:
list, but he has never had a principal or comprimario role with the company, only a chorus role. He was in the chorus only twice, and the second time, he showed up at the performances without his part learned (usually either not singing or singing the melody) and his shirt reeking of vinegar. --
1081:
I'm still not sure why companies that perform semi-staged productions with a piano in people's homes are more notable than a company that uses an orchestra, an established theatre venue, and performs fully-staged operas with orchestra and chorus. Wynkoop, could you link that radio interview as a
1082:
citation of the upcoming world premieres? I don't know if it counts as reliable, but it would be media coverage. I also don't understand how being a
Knowledge editor disqualifies me form being mentioned on a page. There are at least three pages where reference to my name is relevant--this one,
562:
which performs in peoples homes with piano and only semi-staged. Yes, they have been around since 2000 as opposed to our founding in 2006. I have never paid much attention to this entry other than to check it for accuracy from time to time. I was the one that removed the tag that Voceditenore
350:
This opera company has three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons, and only two of them are by Susan Stoderl. Who are the "bogus entries" in the "singers who" section? My name was deleted from the article recently (I put it back), but my name is found on the BRO website for every
522:, and searched both. This could have been off-set possibly by significant productions, i.e. world premieres or even New York City premieres. But this hasn't happened. They're a semiprofessional troupe of (as yet) non-notable singers performing shoe-string productions of public domain operas.
589:
93,000 hits on Google does not mean 93,000 references. That just means that Google found 93,000 pages that include the words "Brooklyn," "Repertory," and "Opera" on the same page, in any order, and with any amount of words between them. Google hits do not establish notability.
1321:
qualifies as such. But that's just one view in this discussion, and others may well differ. As it is, (even disregarding the "keep" opinions from the two editors with a clear conflict of interest) this discussion may well be closed as "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". -
1111:. However, you have been editing for three years on Knowledge, and ought to be familiar with these guidelines by now. Once again, how a company performs is immaterial. Notability in the Knowledge sense is not about achievement or "worthiness". I assume you are talking about
1016:
Thanks for your well thought out responses to my postings. You seem to be an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense in the wikipedia world. Your responses are helpful. Many of the other postings in this talk make it clear to me why I generally avoid this type of
52:, criterion #1 says: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." There seems to be one independent non-trivial mention: the Epoch Times article.
314:
The personnel are not notable either (or at least not at this stage in their careers). I'm waiting to hear some other views and/or someone finding more references, but at the moment I'd be inclined to delete on grounds of non-notability.
1118:. As for referencing your name, your creation of this article and your addition of your name as one of the performers is a clear conflict of interest and taken in conjunction with your edits to several other articles, is also spam. e.g.
1262:, etc. The link to the podcast you've mentioned is already in the article. It is up to the other discussants here to decide if it (and the other sources in the article) are enough to establish notability. In my view, they don't.
332:
Quoth the nominator: " page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the 'Singers who....' section" – those are not reasons for deleting an article which has stood since August 2008. --
186:
726:
It's becoming increasingly clear that this is a vanity article by a minor, largely amateur, company. Would anyone be trying to push this page on Knowledge, if the company was anywhere other than New York? I wonder.
883:"Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Knowledge assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy."
1308:. (The original wording was "Notability is met if if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network".) In my view, neither of the versions is an accurate summary of the specific criteria under
758:
section. I am not sure if that is the correct place for those to be or if something else should be done with them. Maybe one you long in the tooth Knowledge folks can advise and or make the proper adjustments.
913:) have been editing the article from the same IP for over a year. The conflict of interest is clear. I should also point out that I have removed two links recently added to the article by this user:
528:
801:
as well as the notability links in my initial comment above. What makes an opera notable, is the notability of its composer and/or the amount of impact/recognition it has received.
180:
798:
141:
307:
opera company that's been performing for only two years, with zero mainstream press coverage and none in the specialised media apart from a review in the self-published
64:, such as "made history", "skilled cartoonist" and "award-winning" (which has rightly been tagged as needing a reference), and lists unencyclopedic information, such as
1116:
673:
418:
here. We also need to remember Knowledge's policies against 'outing' contributors. Frankly the more I read about this, the less I think this article belongs on WP. --
466:
1200:
Wow! A whopping 127 Google hits! I'm not sure how this is more lgeitimate than Wynkoop's citing. I'm sure this isn't considered legitimate journalism, either:
502:
is trivial - simple one-line announcements in the "What's on" sections. The remaining two pieces are as I said, a review by a friend of one of the performers in
114:
109:
118:
1172:
if you don't understand why this is inappropriate. Your past record of attempting to insert your name in a variety of Knowledge articles, most of which
146:
779:
Why do you not consider a world premier of an opera about the most famous and highest paid American newspaperwoman of the 19th centuary to be notable?
622:
101:
76:
217:
Very minor company, page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the "Singers who...." section
201:
1301:
It's debatable but not QED. First of all, that wording is from the "nutshell box" at the top of the page and was changed by an editor
797:
of the opera was a notable person. That doesn't automatically make the opera (or any other work) about her notable. You need to read
168:
498:. I really feel this fails the notability criteria generally and for organizations and music ensembles. The press coverage cited by
291:
are valid reasons for deletion. However, my impression is that the subject does not pass the notability criteria either generally (
1234:, not the web in general, which you must have been aware of but chose to ignore. As can be seen from the Google news link alone,
392:
237:
17:
1292:
Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast over radio, television, Web stream, or a similar medium.
539:
article complete with attempts at vote-stacking in the AfD. None of that makes any difference. But a lack of notability does.
1165:
1209:
1095:
1065:
1032:
596:
363:
162:
1331:
1271:
1213:
1187:
1099:
1069:
1036:
1003:
983:
959:
898:
859:
833:
810:
788:
768:
740:
714:
634:
616:
598:
581:
548:
531:
shows the difference between a small, but sufficiently notable company and the one under discussion here. Incidentally,
477:
453:
431:
396:
367:
342:
324:
275:
249:
226:
83:
941:
850:
The review may have been impartial, but we're talking about notability here. There needs to be more than this review.
158:
999:
839:
612:
604:
338:
105:
1348:
1235:
1112:
665:
36:
208:
1347:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1205:
1156:
1091:
678:
523:
495:, both of which were removed two days later by yet another COI editor with the edit summary "edit for accuracy"
407:
359:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
97:
89:
532:
489:
441:
222:
1327:
1267:
1183:
955:
855:
806:
710:
630:
558:
Yes, I am involved with the company. The company is at least as important in the New York Opera scene as
544:
320:
245:
995:
625:. But the principle is correct. These are not "references", and Google hits do not establish notability.
608:
334:
287:
in both the creation and editing of this article, but neither that nor the addition of "bogus entries"
174:
1108:
1053:
1044:
1020:
979:
975:
411:
388:
384:
380:
1317:
of 3 heads of small NY opera companies getting 8 minutes each to talk about their organizations for
892:
734:
662:
is not about the worthiness or otherwise of the subject. Nor is it about the number of google hits.
425:
269:
194:
1057:
1024:
874:
825:
780:
760:
647:
573:
693:
465:
Based on the Opera Today reference in the article plus other press coverage that can be located:
218:
80:
848:
312:
697:
1323:
1286:
1263:
1179:
1164:
where you publish your cv. In several cases you also linked to your website. You need to read
1083:
1061:
1028:
1012:
951:
851:
829:
819:
802:
784:
775:
764:
706:
626:
594:
577:
540:
449:
316:
241:
61:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1259:
944:. In both cases they were added to to those articles by editors associated with the company
473:
72:
56:
is less specific about the number, saying only "Multiple sources are generally preferred."
353:
1296:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensemblesWikipedia:band
905:
The named account is new (presumably for the purposes of participating in this AfD), but
1309:
1244:
1169:
887:
878:
729:
677:
The "bogus entry" the nominator was originally referring to was the article's creator (
659:
420:
300:
292:
264:
1313:
anything) to a web stream with a notable media company. It is debatable whether this
536:
415:
296:
284:
49:
591:
445:
135:
1314:
1201:
508:
499:
469:
65:
53:
1250:
688:
works by significant composers, there will be coverage in independent sources.
518:
668:(another COI article, that could use some pruning to remove the PR hype) has
567:. While that was not picked up by the CBS evening news it was picked up by
994:: "BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable"? --
1178:
created, makes your argument to "keep" in this discussion rather dubious.
1255:
1298:
since this is about Knowledge rules the only thing left to say is QED.
919:
485:
I was the one who added the notability tag over a year ago as well as
926:
262:
this should be deleted? Is it 'non-notability' or something else? --
909:
supported by Wyncoop's own admission above, indicates that he (and
621:
Yes, it is wrong. The exact phrase "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" has
700:
might conceivably tip the balance to "keep" for some discussants.
1341:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1295:
1155:
added your name, and in many cases attempted to link it back to
1087:
351:
production except A.F.R.A.I.D., Cosi, and Hansel and Gretel.
877:
is a new single purpose account created on 21 December. See
847:
Opera) and "she assured me the rest of the cast was good."
513:
71:
I therefore think the most appropriate resolution is to
1306:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
948:
945:
910:
906:
682:
529:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Family opera initiative
496:
131:
127:
123:
842:, especially with respect to establishing notability.
838:
I'm not saying it isn't "legit", but you need to read
506:, which is a self-published website + a puff-piece in
193:
691:
Having said all that, the recently added article in
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1351:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1107:If you are not sure why, then you need to read
1202:http://www.nytheatrecast.com/episode.php?t=303
60:pertinent is that the article itself contains
512:. And that's it. I have subscriptions to the
207:
8:
672:more coverage than Brooklyn Repertory Opera
468:. COI is not a reason to delete an article.
440:This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing
311:(written by a friend of one of the singers).
990:Is this the same user Falunopera who wrote
698:"Unemployed? Have we got an opera for you!"
799:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
920:BRO is cited as a source on answers.com
681:) adding his own name to the article.
236:This discussion has been notified to
77:user:Wynkoop/Brooklyn Repertory Opera
7:
940:Both "mentions/citations" come from
24:
1290:Thanks for pointing me to this:
1242:) had multiple coverage in the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1166:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
48:. This is a borderline case.
1:
1332:07:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
1272:00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
1230:That link was to Google News
1214:00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
1188:23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
1115:, observe the press coverage
1100:21:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
1070:08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
1037:08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
1004:02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
984:01:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
960:07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
942:mirrors of Knowledge articles
927:WapMedia mentions A.F.R.A.I.D
899:01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
860:08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
834:00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
811:07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
789:20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
769:15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
741:13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
715:10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
635:07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
617:02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
599:09:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
582:08:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
549:19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
478:16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
454:15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
432:13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
397:12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
368:02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
343:14:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
325:11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
276:09:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
250:09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
227:03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
84:03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
911:other members of the company
991:
1368:
840:Knowledge:Reliable sources
514:Highbeam Research Archives
1236:Opera Company of Brooklyn
1149:. In all these articles,
1136:Christopher Slaughterford
1113:Opera Company of Brooklyn
666:Opera Company of Brooklyn
560:Opera Company of Brooklyn
1344:Please do not modify it.
1240:Brooklyn Repertory Opera
295:) or for organizations (
98:Brooklyn Repertory Opera
90:Brooklyn Repertory Opera
32:Please do not modify it.
533:Family Opera Initiative
376:Scottandrewshutchins!
660:in the Knowledge sense
299:) or music ensembles (
1139:The Magic Cloak of Oz
444:). It is listed now.
1109:Knowledge:Notability
416:conflict of interest
414:both seem to have a
285:conflict of interest
1305:without discussion.
1206:Scottandrewhutchins
1092:Scottandrewhutchins
679:Scottandrewhutchins
603:SquidSK's claim is
524:Scottandrewhutchins
408:Scottandrewhutchins
360:Scottandrewhutchins
751:The Brooklyn Paper
694:The Brooklyn Paper
569:The Brooklyn Paper
527:to AfD. A look at
1319:www.nytheatre.com
1315:23 minute podcast
1132:The Last Egyptian
1084:The Last Egyptian
1073:
1056:comment added by
1039:
1023:comment added by
400:
383:comment added by
305:semi-professional
283:There is clearly
256:Question for nom.
252:
238:WikiProject Opera
1359:
1346:
1260:Associated Press
1072:
1050:
1018:
996:Michael Bednarek
895:
890:
737:
732:
609:Michael Bednarek
494:
488:
428:
423:
399:
377:
335:Michael Bednarek
272:
267:
258:Can you explain
232:
212:
211:
197:
149:
139:
121:
62:peacock language
44:The result was
34:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1349:deletion review
1342:
1051:
893:
888:
735:
730:
492:
486:
426:
421:
378:
354:The Epoch Times
270:
265:
154:
145:
112:
96:
93:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1365:
1363:
1354:
1353:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1303:three days ago
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1245:New York Times
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1170:Knowledge:Spam
1075:
1074:
1040:
1007:
1006:
987:
986:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
923:
902:
901:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
815:
814:
813:
756:External Links
743:
720:
719:
718:
717:
702:
701:
689:
685:
675:
663:
653:
652:
651:
650:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
605:patently wrong
552:
551:
490:primarysources
480:
459:
458:
457:
456:
435:
434:
401:
370:
345:
327:
278:
253:
215:
214:
151:
147:AfD statistics
92:
87:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1364:
1352:
1350:
1345:
1339:
1338:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1161:
1160:
1154:
1153:
1148:
1144:
1143:Princess Ozma
1140:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:Michael Nyman
1121:
1117:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1015:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
988:
985:
981:
977:
972:
969:
968:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
943:
939:
932:
928:
924:
921:
917:
916:
915:
914:
912:
908:
904:
903:
900:
897:
896:
891:
884:
880:
876:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
822:
821:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
777:
774:Question for
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
757:
752:
747:
744:
742:
739:
738:
733:
725:
722:
721:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
699:
696:
695:
690:
686:
683:
680:
676:
674:
671:
670:significantly
667:
664:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
649:
645:
642:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
597:
595:
593:
588:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
570:
566:
561:
557:
554:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
525:
521:
520:
515:
511:
510:
505:
501:
497:
491:
484:
481:
479:
475:
471:
467:
464:
461:
460:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
430:
429:
424:
417:
413:
409:
405:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
374:
371:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
349:
346:
344:
340:
336:
331:
328:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
303:). This is a
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
277:
274:
273:
268:
261:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
219:SingingZombie
210:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
156:Find sources:
152:
148:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
91:
88:
86:
85:
82:
78:
74:
69:
67:
63:
57:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1343:
1340:
1324:Voceditenore
1318:
1302:
1291:
1287:Voceditenore
1284:
1264:Voceditenore
1249:
1243:
1239:
1231:
1180:Voceditenore
1174:
1173:
1158:
1157:
1151:
1150:
1104:
1078:
1042:
1013:Voceditenore
1010:
970:
952:Voceditenore
930:
886:
882:
852:Voceditenore
843:
820:Voceditenore
817:
803:Voceditenore
794:
776:Voceditenore
773:
755:
750:
745:
728:
723:
707:Voceditenore
692:
669:
646:in reply to
643:
627:Voceditenore
586:
568:
564:
559:
555:
541:Voceditenore
517:
507:
503:
482:
462:
419:
403:
372:
352:
347:
329:
317:Voceditenore
308:
304:
288:
280:
263:
259:
255:
242:Voceditenore
233:
216:
204:
198:
190:
183:
177:
171:
165:
155:
70:
58:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1147:Elbow witch
1052:—Preceding
844:Opera Today
658:Notability
623:89,000 hits
535:was also a
509:Epoch Times
504:Opera Today
379:—Preceding
309:Opera Today
181:free images
66:comprimario
1251:Opera News
1045:Falunopera
1019:Preceding
976:Falunopera
925:"WapMedia,
519:Opera News
412:Falunopera
385:Falunopera
68:singers.
1285:reply to
1162:user page
1043:Reply to
1011:Reply to
818:Reply to
81:Sebastian
1256:BBC News
1238:(unlike
1128:Hutchins
1066:contribs
1054:unsigned
1033:contribs
1021:unsigned
931:WapMedia
565:Un Ballo
393:contribs
381:unsigned
142:View log
1310:WP:BAND
1105:Comment
1079:Comment
1058:Wynkoop
1025:Wynkoop
992:earlier
875:Wynkoop
826:Wynkoop
795:subject
781:Wynkoop
761:Wynkoop
746:Comment
648:Wynkoop
644:Comment
592:SquidSK
587:Comment
574:Wynkoop
446:DumbBOT
404:Comment
301:WP:BAND
293:WP:NOTE
281:Comment
187:WP refs
175:scholar
115:protect
110:history
1086:, and
1017:thing.
971:Delete
724:Delete
500:Warrah
483:Delete
470:Warrah
442:step 3
297:WP:ORG
289:per se
159:Google
119:delete
73:userfy
50:WP:NMG
46:userfy
1248:plus
889:Klein
731:Klein
607:. --
422:Klein
266:Klein
234:Note:
202:JSTOR
163:books
136:views
128:watch
124:links
16:<
1328:talk
1294:at
1268:talk
1232:only
1210:talk
1184:talk
1168:and
1159:your
1096:talk
1090:. --
1062:talk
1029:talk
1000:talk
980:talk
956:talk
907:this
894:zach
879:MEAT
856:talk
830:talk
807:talk
793:The
785:talk
765:talk
736:zach
711:talk
631:talk
613:talk
578:talk
556:KEEP
545:talk
516:and
474:talk
463:Keep
450:talk
427:zach
410:and
389:talk
373:Note
364:talk
348:Keep
339:talk
330:Keep
321:talk
271:zach
246:talk
223:talk
195:FENS
169:news
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
79:. —
54:WP:N
1175:you
1152:you
1120:Uzo
1088:Uzo
537:COI
260:why
209:TWL
144:•
140:– (
1330:)
1270:)
1258:,
1254:,
1212:)
1204:--
1186:)
1145:,
1141:,
1134:,
1130:,
1126:,
1122:,
1098:)
1068:)
1064:•
1035:)
1031:•
1002:)
982:)
958:)
950:.
947:,
885:--
881:,
858:)
832:)
809:)
787:)
767:)
727:--
713:)
705:–
633:)
615:)
590:--
580:)
547:)
493:}}
487:{{
476:)
452:)
406::
395:)
391:•
366:)
341:)
323:)
248:)
240:-
225:)
189:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
1326:(
1266:(
1208:(
1182:(
1094:(
1060:(
1027:(
998:(
978:(
954:(
933:"
929:,
922:"
918:"
854:(
828:(
805:(
783:(
763:(
709:(
629:(
611:(
576:(
543:(
472:(
448:(
387:(
362:(
337:(
319:(
244:(
221:(
213:)
205:·
199:·
191:·
184:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
161:(
153:(
150:)
138:)
100:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.