Talk:Michael Laucke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Potential source for "Early life" section

Montreal Gazette (1986) here. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, Thank you. Yes, I can cull good stuff from this. ...many things to do on this and other issues. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I listed the above ref in the LDR area and gave it the name of <ref name="early life 1986" /> and already populated the article with it once in the Early life section, where I also made some slight copy-adds and wikilinked the add-ons. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Checkingfax ...good stuff. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.DesautelsTry experimenting with the {{gallery}}} template so they show up as a nice full screen group instead of being a vertical group, or creating corridors around the text. Keep the captions short and about the same number of words per caption so they line up nicely. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax I tried the gallery but I'll have to study its mechanism more; ...wondering if it's appropriate for the present article. Thanks though; looks amazing! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving the article to (Article) space

 Done

Natalie.Desautels:

Go to the Draft article page, so you see Michael;

Click on the Move tab at the top of your screen on the Draft page (it might be on a "more" drop-down tab);

(under "new title:)
Pick (Article) from the drop-down menu;
(make sure his name is in the box to the right (should be pre-populated) you should not see the word "Draft" anymore.

Give the reason for the move;

Check off the *two* checkboxes;

Move page!

Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 06:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The word (Article) is not in the list in my drop-down menu; the name of Michael Laucke is in the box to the right, though. What to do. I can choose "Wikipedia" from the list or (Main); perhaps they changed the database entries that populate this list.

If I could get this to work, would the procedure make the article live? If so, I would rather wait a bit until the article is more perfected. What are your thoughts on this? --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm, it seems that only for pages already in "main" Wikipedia space (i.e. articles), can one choose "(Article)". But I'm not entirely sure ...--Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, The screenshot on this page shows you what I see. (Article) is the very top choice of many choices. I can click on it for you unless you want the glory of the "move". The page will immediately be live. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 07:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Yes, please go ahead and click on it; I will forgo the glory in the interest of progress. I imagine that I will be able to edit as before. Many thanks! (I tried a different machine/operating system and still no 'Articles' in drop-down; ...dont know why.)

Some clarifications on your nice edits: a few errors are due to my French slipping in, to wit, guitare instead of guitar, and the dates sometimes as day/month instead of month/day. Merci de ta patience! (Thank you for your patience!) --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, Yee haw! That was painless. Michael Laucke is now in the main space. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 08:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Wonderful! Thanks for the energie! Adelante (onward)... I have a good idea on how to fix the table - - - tomorrow. best wishes, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done

---

Lead section question - details later in body?

 Done

@Checkingfax:

Question/Opinion request:

Since the lead should be a summary, without much detail, here is an example of what I have in mind as a principle for editing of several sentences.

For example, do you think it would be better to go with this:

1) He studied with Julian Bream in Stratford and Rolando Valdes-Blain in New York City;

instead of the original, this:

2) He studied with Julian Bream at the Stratford Festival (1969)[1] [4] and, in order to pursue his training, he moved to New York City in 1972 to study with Rolando Valdes-Blain;

best, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

...sandbox here --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, How about:

He studied with Julian Bream in Stratford in 1969 and Rolando Valdes-Blain in New York City in 1972;[1] [4]

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I got to get up relatively early today so as to attend to some stuff, so, well, life gets in the way :)

I hesitated to dump into My Sandbox some ideas for a new lead and other material. I say hesitate because in the past Google was amazingly fast to list the sandbox in Google search results and I just wanted these sketches to be kept private. At any rate, I did want you to see what I have in mind while waiting for Changedforbetter to make her recommendations for a new lead of superior quality.

I also dumped material I organized, including English translations, for filling out the Paco de Lucia section; my idea here is to focus on the relationship of Paco and Laucke, and Paco's influence. The bulk material looks kind of disorganized but it's just to have everything in the same place, and in English, and also to know which quote belongs to which source. I may not leave it up long, due to Google search concerns, as mentioned. The English translation is weak in some places and I'll repair this tomorrow. I worked in Word instead of directly in the Sandbox, which would have been much better for the quotes and which of course cant work by doing a paste from Word; so I'll have to re-wiki the quotes.

Btw, I asked a friend about our discussion of capital De Lucia with the examples you gave of Van Gogh. She has taught linguistics and languages for 20 years at Concordia University. She replied that this is an interesting question and that ...she doesn't know! The answer may vary between languages, but at least a sentence has to start with a cap. ....wonder who we can ask; it's intriguing.

So, ..just wanted to keep you abreast as you've been such an incredible help; it is truly deeply appreciated. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, I tagged the top of your sandbox.

The new lead looks pretty solid.

Move fast in your sandbox.

Keep track of your sources.

So far, Cas Liber is giving me co-credit for bringing the 5M article along! He already put it up in the GA hopper. He's done 240 GA submissions already. Some of my edits showed up in the article snippet the UK paper published yesterday along with their feature. Cas Liber (Casliber) is a GA machine. He has a "recipe" for GA. Take care. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

My heartfelt congratulations! ...shall we ask Cas Liber if he might be interested in having a look, when we're a little more advanced? Congrats again, great stuff! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, there was no ping attached to this message so I'm just reading it now. Sorry for the delay. As soon as the Laucke article is a bit more stable I think we should have Cas Liber do a lookover. Hey, Persoonia terminalis made it as a Good Article (GA) already! Cas Liber is the man! Go to the article and it now has a green badge in the upper right hand corner to distinguish it. Cas Liber also found the common name for: P. terminalis: Torrington Geebung (Geebung is an Aboriginal name). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I've developed quite a collection of Wikipedia-related bookmarks and so now I have taken the pleasure of adding Casliber to this list; his accomplishments are no less than astounding! ...when we are ready, as you say. I see he hasn't done any music and may not be interested, but he gives quite a list of names on his user page. ...thanks again! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Anne Delong left a suggestion at WikiProject Classical music that editors there might want to take a look at this article. My suggestions apply to the state of the article at the time of my comments here:

• This article suffers from serious citation overkill which not only degrades its readability considerably, but also contributes to an overall impression of promotionalism. When one good quality reference can support a number of points, use that one only and never add two references that contain substantially the same information to support a single assertion. One is enough. Just one example of many:

Laucke has had an international career spanning 50 years and averaging 150 concerts a season^[1] in major concert halls^[2] in 25 countries.^[3]

That one short sentence, which is typical of what one finds in the potted biographies appearing in concert programs, has three citations, two of which interrupt the sentence and one of which expands to four more (!). The Brownstein (July 14, 1991) source is more than adequate to reference the entire sentence. But....

• The lede should generally have zero citations and be only a concise summary of the main points already referenced in the article.
• Amazon numbers (ASIN) and links to their page selling the item are very inappropriate to use as references, especially when non-commercial sources exist. The discography can be easily sourced from The Canadian Encyclopedia article(s) and OCLC numbers. Use those instead.
• Avoid name-dropping which also gives an impression of promotionalism and actually detracts from the subject's image rather than enhancing it. Just one example, again from the lede:

As director of the Mac AIDS Fund (M · A · F), Laucke has worked globally alongside Sir Elton John, Rory Kennedy and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to support men, women and children affected by HIV/AIDS.

Apart from the gratuitous name-dropping of various celebrities who have also campaigned in the area but have not directly worked with him (or at most appeared at the same fundraising events), the sentence implies that Laucke actively runs the organization, when in fact he does not and is mentioned nowhere on their official site, and certainly not in their leadership section. He may have been an "Honorary charter member of the Board of Directors" when his friend founded it and still participate in fundraising for it, but all the sources listed for that are either from his websites or do not verify the claim at all.

• Avoid cherry-picked "praise quotes" from reviews like the plague and PR-speak like "garnered awards". Simply say he "received awards".
• I'd also suggest having a thorough read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch especially the section on puffery and check this article carefully against the guidelines there. This is a genuinely notable artist, but paradoxically, the article tends to give the opposite impression at the moment.

Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore:

Voceditenore, thanks very much for your constructive recommendations; ...much appreciated and sorely-needed it would seem! Several have already been implemented. Checkingfax, has attended to the lead references issue. And within the next few days at most, I will make sure all is in order, striving for the best Wikipedia protocol. I'm copying the 19 distinct editors who have contributed so they can keep abreast and also send comments for improvement.

So if you'll bear with me, I'll make this as succinct as possible.

• Lead now has zero citations.
• We are working on reducing references; making one good quality reference to support a number of points; ...understood that the purpose of any article is to be read.
• All ASIN numbers have been deleted; I found about 40 of them on Julian Bream and assumed it was ok. Sorry.
• Replaced one instance of "Puffery" (garnered), and did not find others using the "Check words" in section on puffery ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery) . Kindly advise if you find any more.

Director of MAC AIDS FUND (MAF)

"may have been an "Honorary charter member of the Board of Directors" when his friend founded it". To put the facts right , he was director of MAF, and it's easy to prove this.

• Here is a letter from a typical MAC AIDS FUND Board of directors meeting, April 15, 2004; Laucke's name appears as director. Laucke served as director from the beginning in 1994 until Laucke left in 2008 to become honorary director.
• Hereis his present situation, as Honorary director; that's why his name does not presently exist on the MAF site.

I thought to include his contribution, as the facts are solid and verifiable. From what I have read, Laucke suffered the loss of many friends to AIDS, and "gave back" as MAF director for 14 years; the cause seems to be close to his heart. Because the disease got worse, he put in more and more time.

"Avoid name-dropping which also gives an impression of promotionalism". We can delete celebrity references, but through MAF, Laucke, along with the other eleven directors, did in fact work with about 15 celebrities, which helped the cause. Phrasing it this way might add to the article... This sentence is verifiable and true — As director of the Mac AIDS Fund (M · A · F), Laucke, along with eleven other directors, has worked in association with Sir Elton John, Rory Kennedy and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to support men, women and children affected by HIV/AIDS.

Subsequently, Laucke's work, along with the other directors, for the HIV/AIDS cause was recognized by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Anan and actor Danny Glover; that's how Laucke's photos and newspaper articles attesting to these facts came to exist.

Since Anne Delong had concerns about the facts of Laucke performing with Segovia at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, I'll respond on her talk page. Again, reliable newspaper articles are many about the precise sequence of facts of this event.

Thanks for your time and help. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, you should delete all the names in the "Charity work" section because (a) it is pure puffery and (b) none of the eleven references even verify that he was one of the founding directors of the MAC Aids Fund (not "the" director), let alone that "In 2003, Laucke helped coordinate the film Pandemic: Facing AIDS" or that "Laucke's work for the HIV/AIDS cause was recognized by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Anan". Observe (based on the version I was looking at):

• One is an article which doesn't mention Laucke or MAC at all.
• Two is a press release from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which doesn't mention Laucke or even MAC at all.
• Three, is a photo which verifies only that he was at one time photographed with Rory Kennedy.
• Four is a generic link to a book about the Pandemic film. Does the book mention Laucke at all? If so, it needs the exact page number and a quote. If not, it is useless.
• Five is an article which doesn't mention him or even MAC at all.
• Six is a UNICEF page which doesn't mention him or even MAC at all.
• Seven is a photo which verifies only that he was at one time photographed with Danny Glover.
• Eight is identical to Four with the same problem.
• Nine expands to three of the same references above, none of which mention Laucke or even MAC.
• Ten is a press release from MAC which doesn't mention him at all.
• Eleven is a link to the old version of the Wikipedia article Mac AIDS Fund. Wikipedia can never be used a reference, and in any case the WP article doesn't even mention Laucke.

At most, simply say something like:

"In 1994 Laucke became one of the founding directors of the AIDS charity Mac AIDS Fund established by his friend Frank Angelo, the co-founder of MAC Cosmetics."

And even that requires independent verification from published sources, which you still do not provide. Documents hosted on the subject's website do not qualify as verification for self-serving claims like being the founding director of a notable charity. Even if/when verified, the sentence certainly doesn't belong in the lede or in its own (padded) section. Simply work it into the chronology of his biography or add it to the eventual "Personal life" section. I'll be very busy for the next few days and will look in again when I get a chance.Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

PS I just had a close look at Mac AIDS Fund. It is an appalling advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article and referenced only to the organization's websites. Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed it now (more or less). This is what it looked like. Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore Thanks very much for your kind help; much appreciated. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Robvanvee, GrammarFascist, Bgwhite, Vipinhari, and Trappist the monk:@Anne Delong, Checkingfax, Betty Logan, AndyZ, and Bearcat:@Bgwhite, Changedforbetter, DESiegel, StarryGrandma, and Tony1:

--Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, I recommend further pruning of the lead. The details can be expanded on in the body. The lead is a lot easier to edit now that the full references and named references that were there have been moved down in to an [[LDR format]] instead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Checkingfax ...I'll get onto it. best wishes, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Checkingfax, What are your thoughts here? It stresses " Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons. I was reading up on length; Wikipedia sates that one doesn't count tables and lists. The lead as it is now is in correct proportion to the body character count and should have 3 to 4 paragraphs. Do you concur? But I do want to trim it further; let me study this ... --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi yet again Checkingfax, The lead is now only 349 words, 2100 characters - - - fully 1000 characters less than it was recently! au revoir --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, The length is not too far off, IMHO, but some of the technical minutiae should be pruned from the lead as long as it still appears in the body where it's supposed to be. I have not looked at your latest pruning efforts yet. Heading over now. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool Checkingfax, I found some dynamite photos (all rights waived) on Flickr for Early life ...will be ready soon. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Checkingfax Thanks for the further pruning on the lead, especially the technical details.

It has been suggested that we simply work mentions of MAF into the chronology of Laucke's biography; this would also further shorten the lead and give us room to put in more pertinent facts about the music. There are not enough solid, reliable refs.

As Voceditenore says, At most, simply say something like "In 1994 Laucke became one of the founding directors of the AIDS charity Mac AIDS Fund established by his friend Frank Angelo, the co-founder of MAC Cosmetics." --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. Shouldn't the dead links for in the MAF article be removed? --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, I say go with that blurb.

Regarding dead links: Even if a link is dead, it once existed so it is still valid ... up to a point. There is triage for dead links: try to find a live link for the same article. If found post that instead. Or, try to find an archived version of the link and append that to the citation (don't remove the dead link). Or, find something suitable and add another citation. Dead links that have gone through triage can be deleted after 2 years. If the citation is to a book, magazine, newspaper, or other hard media, the dead link referencing that item may be removed at any time. I think I've got that straight. I used to think deleting dead links would be helpful but now I know that even dead links are helpful up to a point. They list facts that once existed. Using a program called "Checklinks" it has a built in search tool that finds dead links, then gives you an in-tool search engine to find live links (using Google, Google Scholar, or Bing) and then you can right click on the an appropriate link, select "copy link address" and paste the link in to a handy box within Checklinks. I start from the bottom up trying to recover each dead link then when I get to the top of Checklinks I click on the save button which chugs away then opens the article's edit window. At this point I scroll down, checking the proposed edits, then I scroll down the edit window and look for other issues I like to tweak. When I get to the bottom of the edit window I click on Save page, or if I'm leery I click on Preview.

If you go to Preferences >>> Gadgets you can enable toolbar tools and there will be a choice under Page >>> Tools for "Check External Links". That's the portal to Checklinks.

Always run reFILL before running Checklinks or you will waste a lot of time and Checklinks will muddle things for reFILL. This I learned the hard way. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Checkingfax! ...excellent information! My Checklinks is activated and I will run it after the amazing reFill. best, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax Oops, I spoke too fast. I was in Gadgets, but couldn't find Checklinks. I'm sure I saw it somewhere. Which section is it in? Find command returns nothing on "Checklinks" --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, Go to Preferences >>> Gadgets >>> Appearance >>> and tick off the check boxes for:

• Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache when followed.
• Add Page and User dropdown menus to the toolbar with links to common tasks, analytic tools and logs. Supports Vector (documentation), and Monobook / Modern skins (documentation).
• Save your changes.

Go to the top of an article page and click on the new "purge" button. This should make the User and Page drop-down tabs show up. Click on the Page tab, click on the Tools link, click on the Check External Links link. That will launch Checklinks. On the User and Page tabs there will now be a ton of functionality. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: ...a ton of functionality indeed! My goodness. Thank you so much for your perfect instructions. I will relish the new tools :) --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels: Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: {{smiley}}

@Checkingfax: --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, you pinged Checkfax again, instead of Checkingfax Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, Now and then all Checklinks wants to do is Upcase "cite" or "dead". If that's the Case, I cancel out of the job. One more thing: When you click on Save with Checklinks on the next popup it might tell you it is going to do nothing but if you click yes it still might go ahead and actually offer to fix some more stuff. Weird. Sometimes it goes nuts cleaning up table code cruft.

If Checklinks highlights any links in red you can click on the "+" sign and it will drop down with that search window then pick Bing as Google does not seem to work >>> hit Search >>> find a suitable hit >>> right click and copy link to clipboard >>> paste the link in to that open field >>> move up to the next red link. If you can't fix a red link, Checklinks will tag it as a "dead link" with a date. Also, Checklinks gives you a chance to enter Accessdates sometimes. You just click on the button and enter today's date and when you save your work Checklinks will fill those in for you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Using scans of photos and documents as references

I have removed some references that were to snapshots and scans of photos and documents which were uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. References have to be to published documents, so photos from people's personal collections can't be used as references. Also, it's likely that some of these image files will be deleted because of copyright issues. For example, the copyright to a photograph is owned by the photographer (or his or her heir), so he/she would have to either upload the photo personally, or provide a formal letter through the WP:OTRS system providing identification and copyright permission. A person who is in a photograph only owns the copyright if he or she has a contract with the photographer which transfers the rights. The copyright to a document belongs to the person or organization which created it, and it can't legally be uploaded at Commons (which licenses all material for free use) without permission from the creator. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong and Checkingfax:

Anne Delong,

Thanks for helping us get rid of some clutter as well as the photos apparently used as references.

Regarding the copyright issue, this issue has been successfully dealt with in Commons here, by User:GrammarFascist.

The outcome by User:GrammarFascist is here , to wit:

It does appear that Mr. Laucke owns the rights to the photo, and that he licensed it in a way appropriate for its use on Commons (and Wikipedia). However, since Commons is populated with many users who prefer to tag images for deletion when there is any conceivable cause for doubt, it might be best to see if Mr. Laucke would participate in creating an OTRS ticket for this image. Having a ticket in place on the file would forestall all but the most ridiculous deletion nominations. —GrammarFascist (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the ruling is as follows:

A photo which is a "work for hire" is entirely legal. This is deemed a work created by an employee as part of his or her job. It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author.

All photos uploaded to flickr by Mr. Laucke, or his company, carry the admonition "Note for copyright purposes, this photo was taken by either an employee of, or by a photographer hired by, Michael Laucke. It is a work for hire, owned and paid for by Michael Laucke. It is hereby licensed under Public Domain Dedication (CC0); ALL RIGHTS WAIVED!"

I was given a barnstar and apology by the user who admitted his mistake of nominating the photo for deletion. All Laucke photos are made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication, and seem to be either a "Work for Hire" or personal photos taken by Mr. Laucke himself, with all rights waived.

As suggested by User:GrammarFascist, it would be good if Mr. Laucke could somehow participate in creating an OTRS ticket for all images to avoid future errors. ...wonder how this can be done...

Thanks again. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. Of course, we are only talking about copyright. We agree that photos cannot be used as refs. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, it's good to have copyright status cleared up, since it's annoying to plan a section around a photo only to have it deleted later. I left you a link in my previous post which tells about the OTRS process. By the way, the article now says "the opening was held at the United Nations". I'm still not clear about what Laucke in particular did in respect to this film, but in any case, "opening" is usually used for exhibitions or buildings. Does it mean that the film was first shown (it's "debut") during a particular event in the United Nations building? Or was it shown during a session of the United Nations as part of a report about something? It's always better to be specific if possible.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong and Natalie.Desautels:, IIRC, WP:OTRS allows an umbrella letter from Laucke to cover any images that come to the Commons going forward. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong and Checkingfax: Thanks very much; I have put aside this precious information and will quickly attend to studying how to best procede with the OTRS ticket. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, if by "precious information", you re referring to Laucke's alleged personal involvement in the Pandemic film, you have not moved it aside. You have simply shifted it lock stock and misleading barrel to the "Personal life" section with all its problems. Please read the section below. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong, Checkingfax, and Voceditenore: ...'precious information' meant the information I was grateful to receive from :@Anne Delong and Checkingfax: on creating an OTRS ticket to avoid (re-)dealing with copyright issues which have already been successfully resolved. Thanks. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal life section is self-serving, misleading and unreferenced

Despite my commentary above on the uselessness of the references for the overblown description of Laucke's association with the Mac AIDS Fund, the misleading and entirely unreferenced material has simply been moved to a new section with virtually no changes. I have marked the following statements with .

• "Laucke was the founding director and is presently honorary charter member of the Board of Directors of the Mac AIDS Fund...". Apart from no suitable reference apparently available, "the director" is misleading. At most, he was a director not the director. It also implies that he ran the organization, when there is no evidence whatsoever of that.
• "In 2003, MAF's directors helped coordinate the film Pandemic: Facing AIDS; by Rory Kennedy and MAF became secondary sponsor while the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation became title sponsor." There is no evidence whatsoever provided for this assertion that MAF's directors helped coordinate the film. Note that according to IMDB (which had been an inappropriate inline external link in the article), one of the many secondary sponsors was MAC Cosmetics, not the MAC AIDS Fund.
• "Subsequently, the MAF organization was invited to the United Nations and recognized by the Secretary-General Kofi Annan, for the HIV/AIDS cause, ..."' There is no evidence whatsoever provided for this. If anywhere, that assertion (properly referenced) belongs in Mac AIDS Fund.
• Note also that according to the Rory Kennedy article, Pandemic premiered at the International AIDS Conference in Barcelona—not the UN. In addition, the sentence "Between 1994 and 2008, the 11 directors worked to globally support men, women and children affected by HIV/AIDS, in association with the Elton John AIDS Foundation" is useless padding and attempts to gain notability by association. If anything, that assertion belongs in Mac AIDS Fund (properly referenced). Furthermore, no evidence is provided whatsoever for this assertion.

Really, this is quite unacceptable and frankly makes Mr. Laucke look silly rather than enhancing his image. Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, I see that you have now referenced that section to a lengthy quote from a radio interview. Is this from a published transcript? Is the audio interview or the transcript online or held in a library? If not, how did you obtain the contents of this interview? Incidentally, I revised your wording to make it clear that these are Laucke's claims, not Wikipedia's. Also you have interpreted the "it" as referring to the "opening" at the UN via brackets: "It (the opening) took place at the United Nations in that room with the name tags of each country on the seats." On what basis did you decide "it" refers to the film's opening? And if that is the case, how can 2003 be the correct date for when Laucke et al. allegedly "coordinated" the making of this film? The film premiered in July 2002 at the International AIDS Conference and according to the UN had a screening there three months later in November 2002, see [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed "Between 1994 and 2008, the 11 directors worked to globally support men, women and children affected by HIV/AIDS, in association with the Elton John AIDS Foundation." from the article. This is pure puffery and exaggeration and inaccurate to boot. According to the MAF's own press release [2], they had no association with Elton John's Foundation until 2001, and there is no indication that the partnership continued through 2008. Do not simply make up dates to make it look like Laucke was working hand-in-hand with Elton John's Foundation for 14 years. I have also removed the 2003 date for MAF's directors "helping coordinate" the film Pandemic which is nonsensical per my comments above. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Voceditenore:

Voceditenore

Maybe we should delete the whole Personal Life section altogether? We've spent a disproportionate amount of time of it. The article is supposed to be about classical guitar, flamenco, atonal music and Laucke. MAF is probably .001% of the article space and seems rife with problems as well. Btw, the date should obviously be 2002, not 2003. The section exists in the first place because I've read and heard that the AIDS cause is close to Laucke's heart, having lost many friends to AIDS. ...thought it would be good to include something on it... but maybe it's more trouble than it's worth...

IMHO, 'According to Laucke' is a good idea, if we don't decide to get rid of the whole section. I guess we could also leave it up with citations notices; perhaps someone can contribute more reliable sources.... Elton John worked for 2 years in close association with MAF, so the phrase "in association with..." should specify this period otherwise it is inaccurate..

IMdb info is not correct when it says MAC is involved in the film. MAC is the cosmetics firm. MAF, the AIDS fund, derives ALL its money from MAC sales. Accounting wise, MAC is not set up to disburse funds at all, MAF is. The money towards the film comes from MAF, the AIDS fund, not MAC (FYI, MAC AIDS Fund is the heart and soul of MAC cosmetics, according to John Demsey, president. It is the same company and the two names are often used interchangeably, but should not be. )

It's long to wade through audio interviews downloaded from websites. The one I referenced came from Laucke's own site I believe. In this interview, since Laucke mentioned MAF, 'it' obviously referred to the film within the context of what he was talking about and that's why the correct procedure is to put it in brackets. But he was talking about the presentation, so "the opening" is incorrect, as you pointed out. ...and 2003 should be 2002. I corrected a few things on Mac AIDS Fund, which needs help. I wonder if we should just close the chapter on including MAF or if anything in this small section is salvageable.

The "precious information" mentioned earlier also referred to lots of material I've amassed on the relationship of Paco de Lucia and Laucke, their sharing a loft in New York, etc. I am eager to advance on that section, and many other items, so it will be good to resolve the MAF issue.

...open to ideas here, naturally ... --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, your sole contribution to Mac AIDS Fund was to add mention of the Pandemic film, with no indication whatsoever why it was relevant to that charity. You made no "corrections". [3]. More importantly, I stated above that at most simply say something like:

"In 1994 Laucke became one of the founding directors of the AIDS charity Mac AIDS Fund established by his friend Frank Angelo, the co-founder of MAC Cosmetics."

I also said to work that sentence into his biography or as part of a "Personal life" section when you have an independent source for that statement. Instead, you did just the opposite, expanding the misleading self-serving claims and massaging dates and the text of the quote to fit in with the with goal of giving his role in that charity importance. As for that interview, if it is indeed on his site, please provide the link to it. I am more than happy to "wade through" it to verify the quote and its context. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

feedback

 Done

I'd take this sentence, "Laucke continues performing and recording albeit at a less voluminous pace." - out of the lead as it's pretty obvious....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax:

@Casliber: That was a very good suggestion, obviously really in hindsight; no one saw it until you pointed it out. Thanks again. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

---

• He was raised by the strength, wisdom, philosophy and love of his grandmother - ummm, comes over as effusive. I'd trim to "He was raised by his grandmother" - and list examples of philosophy if notable

@Checkingfax:

@Casliber: ...very good suggestion, now implemented. What would the correct structure be for "telling his parents he was doing homework" since Mr. Laucke only had one parent? Is "telling his parent" not correct? --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber and Natalie.Desautels:, I replaced a missing word but then I got greedy and added more words and now it is a hot mess again. It's fixable. Sorry. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The Three Gymnopedies by Eric Satie - feedback please...

@Checkingfax and Corinne: I added a new sub-sub-section to Michael Laucke, called The Three Gymnopedies by Eric Satie, here. I am concerned about the English in this section. I think should be improved upon.

I also added a Media section, here for one's listening pleasure.

And, I added the last paragraph in the Style and influences section, here

Hope you will have a moment to share your comments. Merci beaucoup! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Mixed-up sentence

Checkingfax Re this sentence that you worked on: [4]. I couldn't figure that sentence out nor how to fix it but forgot to ask somebody about it. I'm glad you spotted it. Corinne (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne and Natalie.Desautels: Corinne, I think I fixed 90% of it but it still befuddled me by the time I thought I was done with it. Thank you so much for your expert help. Feel free to drop by any time for a tune up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne and Checkingfax: I beleive the sentence on Claude Vivier's letters reads well now. "Canadian composer Claude Vivier expressed his appreciation to Laucke. In his letters, Vivier states that he had..." ..quite smooth I think. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie and Checkingfax Here are the two sentences as they are now:

• Twenty-three of these new guitar works were commissioned by and dedicated to Laucke. Laucke performed each of these works in concert, on CBC radio and on his record albums (see table below).

(a) Does the phrase "each of these works" refer to the twenty-three new guitar works mentioned in the previous sentence or to the twenty-five mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph?

(b) It would be good to avoid one sentence ending in "Laucke" and the next beginning with "Laucke". Depending upon your answer to my question in (a), I will figure out the best way to join these two sentences, probably with "..., who...". (Feel free to make changes, of course.) Corinne (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne and Checkingfax:

Thank you, Corinne, for pointing this out; the paragraph was quite unclear. So,

a) The phrase "each of these works" refers to the twenty-three new guitar works

b) I implemented "who", thus avoiding the awkward repetition.

I restructured the paragraph as follows:

Twenty-five original Canadian atonal works have been written for Laucke, among them the Flamenco Concierto for guitar and full symphonic orchestra by Michel-Georges Brégent. Me duele España by François Morel, Exploration by Jean Papineau-Couture, and Pour guitare, Claude Vivier's only work for the guitar. Laucke performed all twenty-five works in major halls, on CBC radio and on his record albums. Twenty-three of them were commissioned by and dedicated to Laucke.(See table below).

Many thanks once again; ...much appreciated. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"John" Sebastian Bach? - The Three Gymnopédies ? - a rose by any other name? :)

@Checkingfax, Corinne, Mathglot, and Jerome Kohl:

This concerns the title of one of Eric Satie's works, and a possible renaming from The Three Gymnopedies to The Three Gymnopédies. This brings up an interesting point regarding what is permissible in translation. I obviously hear this through my own cultural bias, so I would love to get opinions from native English speakers. I have heard Jean Sébastien Bach my whole life and in French this sounds fine. But in English, John Sebastian Bach sounds dreadful, and is seldom used; we tend to prefer his real name, Johann Sebastian Bach. Titles of musical works could incite a similar debate. I feel that The Three Gymnopedies should remain as such in English, and Les Trois Gymnopédies is best in French. A mixture of both, as in The Three Gymnopédies doesn't sound right to me. But I'm not completely sure. Kindly send your thoughts, as time permits. Many thanks. Natalie, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels I think you are for the most part completely right. I had never heard "John Sebastian Bach" until you brought this up. I've always heard "Johann Sebastian Bach", and I don't think "Johann" should be translated to "John" at all. Regarding the name of the work by Satie, I don't think English and French should be combined, as in "The Three Gymnopédies". Since "Gymnopedies" would make absolutely no sense to [at least American] English speakers, I think that the title should either be left entirely in French or a translation should be found that does make sense in English. Corinne (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax, Corinne, Mathglot, and Jerome Kohl:

Hello Corinne, Many thanks for your thoughts on this. I do agree that English and French should not be combined (Waterloo music Company published these works with a bilingual title, "Three Gymnopedies / Trois Gymnopediés"). I'm at ease using "Gymnopedies" in English, Spanish and German, and "Gymnopédies" in French.

I have heard "Three Gymnopedies" in English Canada, at any rate. The word was one of many invented by Satie, like "Gnosiennes", which are supposed to be slimy little creatures living under rocks by the seashore. Of course, they don't exist, and neither does "Gnosiennes" outside of Satie's imaginative world. I wouldn't look for a translation of Gymnopedies; I guess it would be like trying to translate "his vorpal sword", or "the frumious Bandersnatch" in Lewis Carroll. (I have a French translation of all the made-up words in "Through the Looking-Glass", which is fascinating, but these words certainly haven't been officially accepted into the French...) Cordially, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne and Natalie.Desautels: I actually have something to say here.

Is it: Eric Satie's the three "Gymnopédies"? or ...

Is it: Erik Satie's the Three Gymnopédies? or ...

Is it: Eric Satie's The Three Gymnopédies?

Obviously it is: Satie's "Gymnopédie No. 1", etc and not ...

Satie's Gymnopédie No. 1, etc.

That is assuming that major works go in italics and minor "pieces" go in double quotes per the WP MoS.

I am assuming that the three Gymnopédies make up a work and each Gymnopédie is a minor "piece".

I notice too that Satie was born Eric but used Erik in later writings so now I understand that neither is "wrong" or "right". Finally, the English WP page on Gymnopédies is titled as Gymnopédies. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax, Corinne, Mathglot, and Jerome Kohl:

Hello {{Ping|Checkingfax)). Thank you for the new facts. Here is my further input:

The original publication came out in 1888 in a collection called "Trois Gymnopédies" comprising the 3 pieces, called "Gymnopédie no. 1", "Gymnopédie no. 2", etc

Many English publishers today have released this collection of 3 pieces for piano as "Three Gymnopedies". (not "The")

Laucke's guitar transcriptions have the bilingual title "Three Gymnopedies / Trois Gymnopédies ".

Yes, it is Satie's "Gymnopédie No. 1" since it is a minor "piece" which goes in double quotes as WP MoS suggests.

Yes, the Three Gymnopédies make up a work and each "Gymnopédie..." is a minor "piece".

I've made some corrections to the text in the section "Three Gymnopedies by Eric Satie" in view of this new information. From a broader perspective, my vote for now is that one should use Gymnopedie in the English article and Gymnopédie in my French translation. ...open to suggestions of course... --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

French translation

Hello @Checkingfax:, I would like to move ahead with the French version of the Michael Laucke article, and am reaching out to you, yet once again , for some advice.

• Instead of waiting to complete translation of the entire 6 pages, I am thinking of uploading what I have completed so far, and which I am happy with. Would you use the Languages left-side sidebar to begin a new article in French, or would you go through the Translations feature under the Contribution menu in the upper right hand corner?
• I can upload about 60% of the original English, now well translated. Is there a sort of "Under construction" template, or some such thing, which I can place on top of the French page so that editors or bots don't delete the empty Headings which are awaiting translation
• Finally, should I just continue to work in the sandbox and offline and upload the whole article when the entire translation is finished?

very best wishes, and thank you once again for your precious help! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, I would load the French translated portions in to their appropriate sections. I would then load the English portions in to the remaining sections. Better to have English than to be blank.

To preserve the copyright trail I would then do all future edits live in the article and discontinue sandbox editing. Sandbox edits are hard to dovetail in to the live article copy.

Here is an edit summary you should use on the first copy/paste:

This text was copied from: [[en:w:User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox]]

Here is the URL to get the page started. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your kind feedback; ...much appreciated. I am eager to progress with your suggestions and to finish the French version. Before moving onto the Spanish version, I plan to work on creating the "Flamenco Road" album page; there's lots of sources and I'd like to include a few complete pieces from the album, with copyright well in place of course. But I digress... Good tip about the copyright trail and the difficulty of transferring Sandbox edits, as well as your edit summary. I'll be developing this over the next few days.

In other news, it snowed here! And of course, many are sick with a cold or the flu as usual, including me in the minus zero weather. I trust you are well in sunny California! very best wishes, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, The fr:Michael Laucke article is looking better and better. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

For Robert McClenon with congratulations - GA worthy status for Michael Laucke article

Hello User:Robert_McClenon

My congratulations on your fantastic achievements here at Wikipedia! I have very much enjoyed your interesting collaborations. (I sent you a much deserved barnstar to add to your collection . @Checkingfax: has spoken highly of you.

I created the article Michael Laucke which received 10,000 visitors in 2 months and has been nominated for GA status; ...encouraging to be sure as I have been an active (and passionate) editor for only 1 year. I would be very eager to learn how to help this article achieve GA status and of course to learn of how to improve the article even further.

The article is about classical and flamenco guitar, atonal music in general and on internationally renowned Canadian guitarist Michael Laucke in particular. I very much enjoyed contributing several hundred hours of research and edits. We've made about 1500 careful edits, about half of which are the incredible work of @Checkingfax:, and over 40 other editors have also helped. We used neat LDR (List-defined references), and there are 120, all carefully researched for verifiability.

In the English version I strived for improved syntax and style, smoothness and readability. I am a proud "Polyglot" (multilingual person) and took the pleasure of making French and Spanish versions for now.

I know time is always too short on this our mortal orb . Could you take a moment to give me some feedback; even a quick glimpse would be appreciated. My goal is to make it better and GA worthy, and I love to learn. While we would like to strive for GA status, the "grade" is not so important to me, neither is credit in any way; creating the best an article can be is important. I am a perfectionist from birth, it would seem...

I do hope that this might interest you, that I have piqued your curiosity and that you can point us along the right path to make a GA worthy version.

Kindest regards, et Merci! Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. (The barnstar is at the bottom of your talkpage and says: Congratulations on being chosen Editor of the Week and your amazing Wikipedia work, advancing on chaos and the dark toward "the sum of all human knowledge". Merci! Natalie)

Michael Laucke, various and sundry...

Hi @Checkingfax:.

Michael Laucke: Further regarding the Michael Laucke article, I think I can improve it in the following ways:

1. - appropriate number of paragraphs as per WP:LEAD - article is 95K so I should expand to 3 or 4 paragraphs.
2. - Table of Contents (ToC) may be too long – should consider shrinking it down by merging short sections
3. - appropriate subpages, such as a subpage for all the tables on CDs, Films and Canadian compositions.
4. - another thought on the Michael Laucke page, I was thinking about looking into Wikiquote – out of hundreds of newspaper reviews available plus recorded interviews on his website where more appear every week, I can easily find quotes by and about Laucke.
5. ...would love your thoughts on this when you have a moment.

very best, always, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels.

1. More precisely: Prose size (text only): 20900 characters (3369 words) "readable prose size". Lead size should be two or three paragraphs. Your lead is currently fine as it covers all sections of the article. See WP:LEADLENGTH
2. TOC is dependent on number of sections. Only merge germane sections. What do you propose merging? You can use more subsections then restrict the TOC from listing those subsections essentially shortening the TOC.
3. Creating subpages is a good idea for the items you have discussed. Probably one subpage would be enough. Subpages are not allowed in article (main namespace so they would actually be new articles standing on their own but they can be linked from the Michael Laucke page by using the {{Main}} template at section headings in the Michael Laucke article.
4. I mentioned WikiSource to you a while back. You mean you would add his stuff to WikiSource? Yay!
5. See my thoughts above.

The GA reviewer will suggest a lot of needed changes which we can implement. Also, we can request a Peer Review. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax:. I merged a few small sections into the larger ones; ¿Qué te parece? (How does it look to you? ) For the subpages, I was thinking of one called 'Michael Laucke Discography, Filmography and Dedicated works' if you think it needs it. And I also will do another album subpage on the Flamenco Road CD, with some media uploads. Natalie zzz --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie. You could start a page in the Draft: namespace or you could do it in a sandbox in your User namespace. This time I would suggest making a subpage in your sandbox so you don't nuke your sandbox when you move the page to the Main namespace. Creating a subpage means the page will maintain a clean edit history too for proper and clean copyright attribution. Click on this link to start a subpage and be sure to bookmark it: User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Michael Laucke discography and filmography

You can put the NOINDEX magic word on the page if you wish. I'm not doing it here or this page will noindex.

You can tweak the page name when you move it to the main namespace. Names are supposed to be as short as possible. Your proposed name is too long.

Here is a link for a Flamenco Road subpage: User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Flamenco Road

That will create a subpage within your existing sandbox.

There is no existing page called Flamenco Road so you can keep that name when you move it to the main namespace, but remove all the rest of the name (User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/). You can use a special tag at the top of the page to make the page title appear in italics since it is an album. Pages that are all italics are easier than ones that have partial italics or a title like iPhone. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again @Checkingfax:. ...will respond to all your generous comments above later today. Meanwhile....You piqued my curiosity about WikiSource. WOW! I was poking around there and this is something incredible! I originally meant to cull quotes from Laucke's hundreds of published interviews for Wikiquote, as I have become a little familiar with it. I'll have to spend some time in WikiSource; it seems overwhelming but I do understand the general principal. I've been telling less technical friends for 25 years that when you enter the digital arena, whole worlds open up to you with unbelievable ramifications . And now this, WikiSource. Wow! ...precisely the type of discovery that makes you want to live at least a few hundred years. The first thing I did was search for Shakespeare . ..coudn't find my beloved 29th Sonnet (doesn't matter because I know it by heart) but I found almost everything else! So, once again, I can't thank you enough. I can't imagine how I can contribute to it right now (maybe song lyrics?). I'll have to sleep on it and study up (once my heart stops pounding and I calm down). ...much gratitude, with very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

I have only been able to create stub articles. Congratulations on finding a biography to launch that has a lot of notable sources to cite so you could launch a meaty article.

Is there any data on Michael Laucke's personal life or how he got in to music?

Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 23:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks very much. In my research, I've had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Laucke on radio and tv, playing and talking. Going through so many articles on his music and his life, even lengthy articles and interviews, I've never come across anything about his personal life. I think it doesn't matter really, but it's often something many are curious about. I've read that he practiced from 8 to 16 hours a day for two decades and finds it totally fulfilling, with nothing missing. So he may be what we call in French "désintéressé", disinterested, in that area. I have read that his guitars more than suffice, so that may very well be the case; ...I don't really know ...

How he got into music is an amazing and unique story, but for now I wanted to focus on the music itself in my article. Nevertheless, Mr. Laucke has had lots of visibility in the media, so many are aware of his exploits in various unrelated fields. In fact, it almost seems that he may be slightly autistic; he can acheive the highest international level of expertise in unrelated fields. If you wish, you can read more here, and here. These articles explain how he financed and got into music. There's ample material inside and outside of music - - - on his opening for The Beatles, on becoming the youngest ever North American snooker champion, even, as a kid, on his winning the Montreal yo-yo championship defeating 2000 other competitors. It's all factual and well documented. Still, my goal is to focus on his contribution to the repertoire of the beautiful classical guitar, exciting flamenco guitar and amazingly complex atonal music. What are your thoughts on this?

There's a page on his website where one finds many articles about his various championships and endeavors. An enclyclopedia is perhaps not the best place for this material (although the media love it, it seems), and fortunately there's more than enough material for me to work with focusing on the music itself.

Now I must attend to deleting links to scans that could be in violation of copyright policy; ...seems there are quite a few. Once again, thank you so much for your generous help, encouragement and kindness. Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, Very cool.

Are you citing those audio interviews?

I came across an Editor who is interested in entertainment articles and snooker articles. I'll see if I can steer her your way. Keep on chugging. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 08:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax:Yes, I hope to be able to take some good quotes and philosophies from the audio interviews. I guess it would be in violation to have a small snipet of an audio interview (say, one that aired on CBC) uploaded to Wikimedia?

...entertainment and snooker articles ...sound fabulous! ...hope she can contact me. Thanks again. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, if CBC has a YouTube channel or such you can use their posting on YouTube as an inline WP:RS then readers can click through the ref to watch the actual video. YouTube is only an RS if an RS's posting is referenced. Otherwise YouTube is totally unreliable, like IMDb, or Wikipedia. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 09:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax:...sounds interesting, to be sure. Can you send me a link, an live example so I can study how to use YouTube as an inline WP:RS. Many thanks! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, you reminded me that musician/comedian Tom Smothers is a Yo-Yo performance artist too. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 09:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, Still looking, but here's one video file of Obama that was actually uploaded to wikipedia.org using the upload file link (not to "The Commons"). Do a view-source to see under the hood. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 10:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: ...interesting - I see how it is done. Do you know if the upload permissions are more relaxed with upload file, let's say, than at Commons? --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, AFAIK file-upload is only relaxed for low-res logos and low-res album cover art.

Here are two templates to use for RS videos as citations: {{cite video}} and {{cite news}}. Still digging for examples. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 10:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)