Talk:Electronic libretto

What justification is there for removing text??

No explanation, text just dropped. WHY? Vivaverdi 14:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, a considerable amount of the text has been dropped by an anonymous editor without any explanation. This explains the history and scope of the system in many opera houses around the world. Viva-Verdi 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism on this page by way of removal of substantiual portions of the text with no explanation. WHEN is anyone going to deal with this?? Viva-Verdi 15:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

5 March 2007: Continual reversions of much of the text of this article

Today I have posted the following on the Talk page of the person who continues to vandalize this article:

==CONSENSUS FROM EDITORS THAT REVERTED COPY ON Electronic libretto IS NECESSARY==

"I have reverted the latest deletion from this article with the following note:

"This is NOT publicity but a history of the evoution and spread of the system. IT IS CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY MANY OTHER EDITORS"

At last, 62.85.192.81, you seem to justify your actions by including the words "removed publicity". This is the first time that you have provided a justification for your actions but, given the number of editors who have reverted your removal of what is clearly seen as important copy, THERE IS A CONSENSUS that this material is valid.

Therefore, 62.85.192.81, LOOK AT THIS HISTORY of the reverts of your text removal and you will see that I AM NOT ALONE. You have ast least 3 editors who support my position.

If you would like to use the TALK PAGE to present an arguement for the removal of this text, we shall all weigh in and establish a consensus (although I would argue that a consensus already exists)".

Therefore, I am asking editors to acknowledge on this page their agreement that the existing copy is a necessary part of the article, in the hope that User talk:62.85.192.81 will see the light and stop behaving in the way that he/she has been.

Viva-Verdi 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition and removal of POV, ungrammatical sentence

I support the removal of this sentence, which has now been done by 2 editors.

Not only is it poor grammar, but it is a point of view in making a judgement about cost.

I trust that the anonymous editor will review this "Talk" page and make any further justifications here before adding anything back in.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what the annon. editor has added is cleaned up and duplications removed, but it still has too many unjustified facts. The references cannot be just a set of internet links strung together but should refer to a specific ENGLISH source via a direct link with the ref. spelled out.

Before removing this altogether, let's see if this annon. editor will do some more work. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)