Talk:Daniel Rodríguez (tenor)/Archive 1

message: As I looked through this article, this article looks so messy for me because nobody organized this article, and hasn't been improved since this article is created. Could somebody help me to improve this article? Thanks in advance. There should be informations on his background.  Daniel5127 <Talk> 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think somedone already arranged them, and add informations on his background. Daniel5127 <Talk> 20:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve this article. 

message: Daniel5127:  Thanks for your suggestions.  We are working on cleaning up this article and welcome any more suggestions and cleanup support provided.  We are doing our best to continue to clean it up to conform to Wikipedia's standards(UTC)User:JournalSquareNYC
: Oh, and authors, please use the preview button - you don't need to save after every single change. -- RHaworth 12:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Improve Article, background information was added to Daniel Rodriguez's background 

message: This site needs to make verifiable links.  Data needs to be verifiable and traced back to reliable sources. Cardinalez 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No verifiable links? 

message: Thanks for the feedback Cardinalez the article is coming along great as is,
is my observation, but all feedback is welcome.  Thank you.JournalSquareNYC 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is coming along fine 

message: Thank you Daniel5127.  You have been helpful with your support and professionalism.JournalSquareNYC 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re "Nice Job In Cleaning Up Article" 

message: We've had a lot of feedback from visitors who do not like to be taken down the page to have to click once again to be taken to the articles that have been listed as verification of information. I would like to remove the "ref". Many say that they get lost and confused when they have to do this extra step.. I agree. I also check on a few other sites, such as Placido Domingo.. They do not use a seperate list for the references, but allow the visitors to view the article or other off site information directly when they click on the foot notes in the page. Please let me know if I will be violating any hard and fast rule by making this change on the Daniel Rodriguez page. I feel it is a necesssary one. thank you, Operadog 09:55, 27 Dec (UTC)
:Again, please read WP:CITE. The external links within the article are not the proper way to cite these items. Who is receiving feedback from what visitors? I see no such talk here. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 00:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very few hard and fast rules on Wikipedia. Are you in some way related to this article's subject? Who is collecting information for you yet not editing on Wikipedia? There are still items that need citations. I will work to reduce the size of the list while keeping the citations. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change links from reference to direct viewing

message: It says he was on duty; was he actually on-scene? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 03:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what the point of saying he was on duty is if we are not going to clarify it. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 

message: Who first called him this? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 03:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have removed this. Can find reference to this only in PR material. Nothing says who in the media gave him this title. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Then all we have is that his promotional materials — for his speaking engagements, for his albums, for his concerts — all refer to him as this. I have yet to find a news article that calls him that. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  America's Beloved Tenor 

message: Was he an NYPD-designated anthem singer before or after 9/11?--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is verification enough; we just need the details of the actual article now. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYPD anthem singer 

message: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/DRMedia/message/21
 Singing a Nation's September Songs
By Patricia Brennan, May 26 2002
Washington Post Staff Writer
Rodriguez first caught the attention of his NYPD supervisors when
he sang the national anthem at his own policy academy graduation.
They assigned him to the NYPD's ceremonial unit, making him one
of several officers who sings at funerals and city functions. And
because he is an operatic tenor, he also became a favorite of then-
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an opera buff.
These have all been added back for reference. I also would like to know why the list of Presendential and Capitol performances were remomved. They were all referenced and verified and important part of this entire entry.  We would appreciate if you would please put them back? Operadog 13:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: I've rolled back the changes made this morning that effectively reverted the cleanup I'd done last night. This article needs to be written as an encyclopedia entry, not as a public-relations bio. Statements like "Daniel Rodriguez, an operatic tenor from New York, became widely known for his stirring renditions of God Bless America at memorial ceremonies after the attacks on the World Trade Center" are not acceptable unless they can be clearly verified, which they weren't. We are not here to praise Mr. Rodriguez (or to bury him, for that matter), but to describe him in impartial terms. I also removed the lists of Presidential and Capitol performances as well beyond the scope of Wikipedia; please review What Wikipedia is not to get a sense of what we do and don't accept here. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, also, Yahoo! Groups messages do not qualify as a reliable source, and may not be used to verify content. All material that relied on Yahoo! Groups postings as references has been removed. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations from his booking agency () are absolutely not acceptable as sources here, nor is that link you just provided and called an "article," which is nothing more than a press release by his representatives. Please review our guidelines on acceptable sources before adding this type of material to the article again. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This one doesn't pass WP:RS. I'm asking you again to please review that guideline, which makes it very clear what is and is not a reliable source. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style and content

message: Here is a long article from the Puerto Rico Herald.. is this credible to verify all this information?  Please advise on this article and if it works, please return previously deleted information, would be appreciated.  Operadog 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that article's information to this one, including removing a . | Mr. Darcy talk 16:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Longer article

message: Pardon me, but I see much has been removed and wonder why. I see somewhere one pointed out other sites, where they are allowed to include material that has been removed here.  Tenor Ronan Tynan's page for one example. He is allowed to have his Presidential appearances listed, but not on Tenor Daniel Rodriguez's page? Also on the Mario Frangoulis page, there are many examples of Opinion and bias writing.. without any verification.. Can you explain this or should this clearly biased editing by the staff, on this particular site, be taken else where? SincerelyGreekvoice 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the graf again. Wikipedia is not a PR service. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I just went through the history and can't find any posts of yours that were deleted. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: inconsistancies

message: I have been observing and I must say I completely agree with Greekvoice and Operadog on the fact that yes, an Irish Tenor's article can reflect his Presidential performances, yet the article of an equally well respected, Hispanic Tenor, who also has an illustrious background, cannot.  I also follow and support Ronan Tynan and the other tenors as well.  I am not a PR person and I do wonder (and I say this with all due respect), if this type of 'cleanup' might have something to do with some other reason (personal bias maybe) other than Wikipedia guidelines?  This does not make sense at all and yes, absolutely, there needs to be clarification that makes complete and absolute sense as to why other articles can feature important performances and yet others as is evident from this discussion clearly cannot.  I also  agree that a mediator who possesses an excellent track record for objectivity (and an equally verifiable record) as a Wikipedia editor is necessary.  Additionally, I agree, why is someone so cleverly deleting the posts of "newbie" editors of this page.  That IS vandalism at its finest, not to mention 'sneakiest' form.  Another all important questions is, with the editors/administrators who are cleaning up this site being "sharp" in their command of editing style and the English language and enforcing useage of the Wikipedia "guidelines" upon new editors of this article, why then, have they not been "sharp" enough or enforced guidelines also in place, by making an effort at getting down to the bottom of who IS deleting posts to talk/discussions of this article or finding out why the posts are being deleted in the first place.  It is unfair, disrespectful, appears to be done out of discrimination and IS a form of vandalism.  I apologize if this comes across as rather strong, but I couldn't sit by in silence any longer.  I agree that mediation is absolutely necessary, please and thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.66.26 (talk • contribs) 05:47 30 December 2006 (UTC) — 70.107.66.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
:No comments have been deleted. And I find it interesting that you, Operadog, Greekvoice, et al have edited virtually no other articles but this one. | Mr. Darcy talk 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree with Operadog and Greekvoice whoever these people are 

message: I am the original designer of this Daniel Rodriguez page/article and have edited the previous memorial day and other presidential information and placed back into this article in a less PR style. I hope this resolves the issue and we can continue to improve this page and add more backgroud information as was suggested,earier by one of the editors. Leah01 11:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've removed it again. Lists of individual performances don't belong here - and the article still reads too much like a PR bio. I would strongly suggest that those of you with personal or professional connections to Mr. Rodriguez review Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest and leave this article alone. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: addition

message: I hope we can all work together to add more information to this terrific article (and not remove any valid material) and not worry about who else has what on their pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, and especially not about who is editing what and where.  Lets get this back on track for the sake off all.  Peace and good will in honor of the subject of this article and the fair and good reputation of the editors and all contributors to Wikpedia Leah01 12:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: back to business to make this a better article with added information

message: Next I am working on removing the Heading for discography and putting this into text form, with information about each of these recordings that should be included. How do I put an "Edit in progress" on this page? If anyone can do this, that would be fine. thank  you. Leah01 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. When you're finished, remove the line  from the page top. However, discographies in bulleted list form are the standard for Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: next editing

message: I am the Creator of Daniel Rodriguez Article and I had stopped editing in order to let others continue to edit this article, but I applaud Leah01 on her persistence in following the guidelines despite her not having enough clarification.  Helpful suggestion:  In the future a friendly approach toward guiding new users is for administrators to better clarify terms, assuming that new editors are not all completely familiar with terms like "resume format", but thanks Mr. Darcy, we realize we're all still learning in the process.JournalSquareNYC 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, wait, you're the creator of the article ... but so is User:Leah01? Are you saying you're the same person? | Mr. Darcy talk 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: An article in "resume format" is an article that looks more like a resume than an actual article. Any article that looks like it came from a magazine, newspaper, directly from another website, or looks like a resume; must be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards. Acalamari 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In future better clarification, on things like "resume format" 

message: No Mr. Darcy, I have my own ID and I am not doubling as Leah01.  Thanks Leah01 for clarifying who I am.  I have my own legitimate ID and I don't double as Leah01. Getting back to productive and positive feedback, I thank Acalamari for exercising wisdom and guidance without ego, or resorting to making accusations.  This is the kind of professionalism that Wikipedia needs.  My work was done here already.70.107.24.148 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am a legitimate ID 

message: You're doing a great job Leah01.  I along with many users who have done the sink or swim thing.  I usually sink more than I can swim, but you have such a great spirit in being persistent in trying to objectively follow the Wikipedia guidelines. I'm just another user though so I'm my work here is done.  All the best to everyone and Mr. Darcy.  See you on another article someday.JournalSquareNYC 21:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great going Leah01 on the edits 

message: Thanks for your kind words JournalSg. I've added my work for today and running out of time, and don't see how to remove the "Edit in progess", so if anyone can do that, I would appreciate it. Checking back in a day or so.  thank you all. Leah01 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Done. I removed the 'wip' and 'like-resume' tags from the top of the page, but I meant to sign this post!  It's so easy to forget to. Thanks for understanding JournalSquareNYC 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed your IP Address and your messages that were above this one, as there's no point in having the same message three times. I also did it to avoid having people see your IP address when you are a Registered User. Even though we are not supposed to remove Talk Page message, I believe this is an exception. Acalamari 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have restored the  tag, as the article is more resume-like than it was before, and reads far too much like a bio issued by an agent or a PR firm and not enough like a Wikipedia article. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In reading the new information in the article now, and the comments by editors, I have to wonder if you want more of a story, and less concentration on the actual career events. Or do you wish to see like they say, "Just the facts maam"  Do you want to see more about the difficulties that he went through,  that threatened his future, but which he overcame, or is that impossible to verify?  I've read interviews, but how to prove this?   And not sure if this is what makes it less like a resume?  I think some more quidelines of what specifically is needed, would help? I also would like to contribute, but not sure if my ideas are the direction that WIkipedia wants.  I read others and am still not sure. Editors, can you let us know and perhaps one of these contributors can get what is needed to get the banner off the front page. Greekvoice 11:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just here for a quick check and I have to agree with Greekvoice, that I didn't think you wanted to have a story written here, but more just facts that can be proven and verified?  Or am I confused?  Do you want more information from his personal interviews that we might not be able to prove, other than finding something in a media article?  I had felt that this is exactly what you do NOT want?   Please let us know and if this is what is needed we can perhaps head in the right direction. I won't be able to do much until Monday or Tuesday, but perhaps someone else will be able to, and hopefully next time I check, we'll have a bit more precise advice on how to get this more neutral and more encyclopedic, and Unconfuse me.  Thank you Leah01 12:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Edits

message: Hello folks,
I wanted to post a list of verifications (and a sentence or headline from these) of the use of this title for the subject of this article. As was stated at the beginning of this project, this has become his title, that is fact, and there really is no one out there who disputes this. Below is just a short list, (there are more), articles and press releases, etc. that use that name as commonly as his given name.  Please take a look and consider allowing us to simply place a sentence in this article, that  Rodriguez has become known as "America's Beloved Tenor. Thank you Leah01 01:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are all publicity/marketing links~, including the Puerto Rico Herald link which is a PR Newswire press release. They are not reliable sources. Let's focus on making this more encyclopedic, rather than turning it into a hagiography of Mr. Rodriguez. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: verification of the use of "America's Beloved Tenor"

message: Ok editors and friends, does this page still need more cleanup and edits?  Seems like much as been done recently.  It looks very encyclopedic and professional, and thanks to all who worked on this.  Would be nice to know how to futher improve or have those warning boxes removed?  Can that be done anytime soon?  or does this need to be requested?  thanks, Leah01 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page certainly looks much better than it did, but it still needs some work. I am glad that sections have been added to the article. However, there are parts of the page than continue to look like they came directly from a biography/autobiography, rather than being writen according to Wikipedia guidelines. Acalamari 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! If you can point out specifically which paragraphs, I can sure try to improve them. But as you know I'm very new at this kind of writing, so please assist if you can. Or perhaps someone else will be able to help also.  thanks so much. Leah01 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Early years" part is the area that needs the most cleaning up. It needs to be written more according to Wikipedia guidelines. "Early years" still reads like it was taken directly from a newspaper, biography, etc. Acalamari 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on this over the next few days. Unless someone else beats me to it. Thank you for the direction! Leah01 21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is more clean up still needed?

message: Hello, I have two more references, in my attempt to find verification that will be accepted to show that our subject is in fact, known as "America's beloved Tenor".. this is fact and in almost every media article or write up from the cities and venues, he performs in , it is used.  However all my previous verifications have so far been rejected.  So here are two more. Please check these and see if these pass, and that we can include this fact, back into the bio. where is rightly belongs.  Thank you, Leah01 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All press releases and event announcements, as usual. Please review WP:NPOV to see why we don't put marketing phrases into articles. The fact that Rodriguez bills himself as "America's Beloved Tenor" is irrelevant to Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here are some guidelines that will tell you what can be used, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources.  Daniel Rodriquez is at least well-known enough to earn a more careful biography than the one currently provided by this article.  Wikipedia is not a parking place for press releases.  Facts are independently documented and verifiable before being placed as such on Wikipedia.  If no one outside of his press releases is saying it about Mr. Rodriguez, then it's not a fact, it's self-promotion.  There are all sorts of places on Wikipedia to go to find out about writing articles, they will let you know how to prove it, and how to write it well enough that it is usable by our audience of readers, you might start with the WP:Community Portal and the links that MrDarcy and I have provided.  KP Botany 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of title "America's Beloved Tenor"?

message: March 29, 2005 Wynonna Honored With The Spirit Award by the USO
Jose Antonio Vargas. The Washington Post
Daniel Rodriguez, a former New York City police officer, became "America's Beloved Tenor" for his patriotic performances after Sept. 11. He belted out several songs during the evening. 
http://www.wynonna.com/?em621=22854_0__0_~0_-1_12_2006_0_0&content=news
Leah01 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: and finally from a Washington Post reporter

message: I removed the mention of Miraslov convincing subject that he was a tenor and not a baritone, since the early fact of his appearing at Carnegie billed as a 17 year old Baritone had been removed and now it doesn't seem to make sense to leave that in at all. If the editors think it (either statements) should be returned, they can do that of course. Or not. thanks, Leah01 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: tenor or baritone mention

message: I have read and tried to understand much of the information guidelines but this is very difficult to grasp. I understand better by seeing examples and being able to compare. I ask again, if any of the editors could please take a look at this site, that I feel is the perfect exampe of what I cannot understand how it is permitted, with virtually no verification of anything, in that lengthy article.  No footnotes or references. Mario Frangoulis.  If someone could please explain why on the Rodriguez page, every single detail has to be verified, or it is Promtly Deleted,  and on this Frangoulis page, nothing does. At least there are no warnings on the  front page, as in the Rodriguez page. It seems to be a huge double standard and that something is not right here.  What am I missing.  I ask with all due respect that someone can explain in simple layman terms.  Please?  Leah01 23:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one's picked up on it yet. Thank you for notifying us. I'll add citations. Acalamari 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I just tagged it. On Wikipedia, we don't use the standard that says "Article X has this flaw, so others should be allowed to" - all articles are held to the same standards. The problem is that often articles on obscure topics aren't noticed, and so they end up looking like the Frangoulis article - which, right now, is a mess: no sources, raging POV issues, and lacking an encyclopedic tone. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it as well. Acalamari 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: question for an editor please

message: Now that I seem to be the lone ranger leading the charge to finish this article, can anyone tell me if we are even getting close. I think I've done everything I can figure to follow the guidelines and get everything cleaned up, etc.  Are there places that still need more serious work? Again, any help would be much appreciated.  Thank youLeah01 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next please?

message: There are a few interviews such as the one from Classical Singer magazine from May of 2003, that the subject discusses almost everything in his career and early years. My question - Is putting a footnote at the bottom to cover some of these points that are included in this bio, enough verification, or is it reguired to have a clickable link where the readers are to read the original source of all this information. 
That article of course can't be put on this site. However in books and mag's footnotes only show where that source is, not the actual information that is being verified or given a source for. Is this the same thing? 
It seems that I am totally confused, after reading the guidelines as well as checking various sites, most of which have NO references again, such as Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo, etc.  I try to look at those pages to learn how to better contribute to this one.  They haven't had to verify every single point in their article, as has been required on this page. ..again, is it simply a matter of those pages not being noticed yet, as was the case with the Mario Frangoulis page?   Or can this one source from Classical Singer Magazine be used to omit some of those in that long list of articles/references that we have on this subjects page?  
I read the guidelines and I just get more confused. Can you help clarify again please? I've been asked to help someone else open up a page, and I don't even want to go there unless I understand a bit more. Help please? Thank you.Leah01 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mario Frangoulis page is awful, and this is being dealt with.  Thank you for bringing it to people's attention.  Please feel free to put notes about issues and add fact tags to any unsourced comments in all articles you come across.  There is no "another article is really poorly done so I get to do it poorly also" policy on Wikipedia.  Doesn't Mr. Rodriguez deserve a better article than the one given to Mario Frangoulis?  Do you really want his article pasted all over with calls for verification, the poor spelling and poor sentence structure of the Chelsea Opera Company article, nonsense like Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Raincoat in the article?  Or does Mr. Rodriguez deserve a high-quality encyclopedia article about him?  If you can't help someone else start a new page, then don't.  Simpy refer them to the pages given to you.  If you're confused about a specific guideline and how it applies then post that guideline, the prose in the article at issue, and your question.   KP Botany 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And instead of spending your time, if you are time pressured, on seeking other bad articles to show what others have gotten away with, you ought to go to the Main page and look at a Featured Article and follow all the links to learn about FA.  You also, all of you, really need to work on your prose.  Please, read your sentences out loud, they just need too much work, and are not the caliber of writing that should be used on Wikipedia.  Almost every sentence needs heavily edited for grammar, pose and/or spelling.  Can you at least spell check before you post?  Please tag all bad articles you come across or post them on my talk page, and I will be glad to check them, also. KP Botany 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on footnotes/verification

message: I also am unclear and unable to find specifics in the quidelines, that help in knowing if some of the details of Rodriguez's career need to be removed to make it less like a resume. (and which ones) It appears to be a good bit of information that is nicely footnoted. Is this still an issue, or are there other reasons for those notes?  Any specifics that can be cited or explained here, might be of great help, as I would like to try to assist. Broadwaydad 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please copyedit.  Look at this section, for example, "In 2005, Rodriguez donated copies of his inspirational album, to began a personal project called "Songs for the Soldiers" [17], to provide the gift of music for USO care packages. He makes regular charitable appearances with groups such as ArtAID[18], The Jimmy V Foundation, [19]The City of Hope, [20] and the USO."  Use the full and proper name for everything, searching Wikipedia will help.  "The City of Hope" is not its name if you mean City of Hope National Medical Center for example.  All names must be the official and correct full name of the organization, and linked, if possible.  This part, "to provide the gift of music for USO care packages" is totally spinned.  Try instead, "a personal project called 'Songs for Soldiers' providing CDS for deployed troops in USO care packages."  Look these up, get their names correct.  If you haven't used USO fully before, do so in this instance.  Link every thing to an article in Wikipedia if there is one, so readers can learn what these organizations are.  KP Botany 03:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifics

message: I'm confident I've done all I can see to do,  adding just most important career info. footnotes, and removing less noteworthy,. Is there a way to ask to have this all checked over and if anything needs more work, that it can be noted here. Or this automatically done? Thank youLeah01 16:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may formally request peer review.  However, the article still needs serious copyedit work.  The problem with articls written entirely by one person is it is almost impossible to correct your own mistakes.  I personally make so many that I have a group of 4 editors who watch all of my botany articles to correct my mistakes.  Every time one of them does this, usually within 5 minutes of my creation of an article, I think, well, next time I won't do the same thing.  This is seldom the case.  I suggest that you print the article out as unformatted text and read it out loud for starters, to a couple of friends, make corrections, then read it out loud to someone with a good ear for English, then get a friend or, preferably, an enemy to copyedit it for you.  After you have done all this, bring it back here and ask for a peer review.  And, by the way, you are the editors.  The editors are the writers of the article, that means you.  We're other Wikipedia editors, the ones who have not written the article.KP Botany 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To the editors

message: More footnotes have been added.  This page appears to be fully documented and sourced? Perhaps making a note of anything missing would   assist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.54.109 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is well footnoted

message: *He has been a serious student of music since he was 10. [1]</BR>
Copied almost directly from source without quotation marks:</BR>
"Rodriguez has been a serious student of singing since he was ten"
*He was inspired early on by the singing of Mario Lanza especially after seeing the movie, "The Great Caruso." [3]</BR>
Information not mentioned in cited source
*At age 25, he began producing his own concerts and organized a group of musicians called Broadway Magic who still perform today,[4]</BR>
"Broadway Magic" is not mentioned in the cited source</BR>
There are other problems that need taken care of, but I will leave you all to find and clean them up on your own.  </BR>
KP Botany 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the source does indeed mention Broadway Magic, it does not support the sentence for which it is used as a reference: At age 25, he began producing his own concerts and organized a group of musicians called Broadway Magic who still perform today. While I believe you what you or others wrote in the article is true, that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. Readers have to be able to click on the reference (or read the book, whatever the case) and say "yes, that's what the article said". Everything here is supposed to be verifiable. Jeffpw 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please sign your post and check the entire article so I am not accused of causing your family more stress by doing the checking and editing myself as I did before.  KP Botany 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy disputed and sources without quotation marks. 

message: I was asked to come here by one of the contributers to this article, to see if I can help, which I am more than glad to do. I have read the article, and found it quite interesting. That said, it does need some serious work.
*The references are overused and not formatted correctly. References go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. Thye also need the appropriate internal format, so that the title of the web page is readable, and not just the URL code (These are minor points and easily fixed}.
*As KPBotany pointed out, some of the references either don't support the sentence where they are placed, or seem to be placed verbatim in the wiki article. We want to avoid questions of verifiability and plagiarism.
*I would also suggest not using all of the references. You have some excellent ones, and some that are little more than press releases. Pull what info you can out of the good ones (eg: NYTimes, Washington Post, etc) and save the other ones to use if you are asked to cite a particular assertion. Not every item needs a reference, only the assertions that you feel could be challenged. A good rule of thumb is at least one reference per paragraph, and additional ones for assertions likely to be challenged.
*I would name the other albums he released, and include the label. That seems important (to me,anyway).
*Why was he given those Humanitarian awards? I would like more info about that.
I don't have time to check every reference now, or reformat the ones you have (I will reformat the first one or two, to let you know how it should look), but I will do some work on this tomorrow. I will say though, that you have written an article here that made me want to know more about the subject--that in itself is a sign you are on your way to something good here. Jeffpw 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments and criticisms

message: I have two references to the Humanitarian-Dis. service award, he received at Disney, both have it explained a bit differently, would it be possible for you to look over and see which would be the one to use? I have the first one, the Mouseplanet.com/ on article now.
I also don't know if all those footnotes are needed for ArtAid, Jimmy V, and City of hope? If they are needed for verification, where to put them?  All together at end of sentence?  or somewhere on page in a different form? Leah01 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the two, I would say The Laughing Place tag works better as a reference, since it has a clip of the actual; award. I have to mention, though that it is a weak reference. I googled the terms "Daniel Rodriguez" and "Disney Distinguished Service Award" and got nothing at all. Broadening by only entering Disney got more hits, but not many more unique ones, which leads to the conclusion that it is not a particularly notable event. I am not denigrating the accomplishment at all, just saying that it's a pity there are no hard news articles about it. Jeffpw 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure which footnote

message: That's the nicest thing I've been called around here. It sure beats "rogue editor"..lol.. I do aim to please. But I must again tell you how thrilled I am and I know others will be to see your magnificent rerwrite and everything you've done. I've noticed the log of hours you've spent on this and all I can say is WOW and THANK YOU! Bob 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to do it, Bob. Mr. Rodriguez seems not only a talented vocalist, but an admirable human being. As such, he deserves the best Wikipedia article we can give him. I am going to start ion the lead paragraph now--it's been bugging me all day! Jeffpw 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wonderful

message: Just some things I would lilke to say now, and is as good a time as any. When I first discovered Wikipedia, and had to get assistance to even learn how to add information to a page, I did try to read (and make some sense of) some of the many pages of information of how to do things here, but it was way over my head, just too much to absorb... so as I said some time back, I just jumped into the deep end without knowing how to swim.  
As I began, I would add information to the Rodriguez page, than a few hours later would come back and to my astonishment, it would be gone, or some strange things had been done to it. I didn't even discover that there were "discussion" pages or logs of who was doing what on this page, until many days into this project. 
I had NOT a CLUE that there were Wikipedia editors who were the ones making changes. I assumed it was some kind of valdalism. I do remember that term being used, in my early attempts to read the Help page and others, as I initially tried to learn a bit of what was involved in putting a page on here.  But again, I was truly in a fog.  If there had been a way that those early Wikipedia editors could have made sure I realized that they were necessary actions, and WHO was making all those changes, it would have prevented my feeling that I need to bring in reinforcements, more importantly, it would have prevented me from removing all their corrections, citations, etc.. etc..  
One of my partners who helped me initially get started, talked with me, and that person also being totally in the dark about how things work here, were absolutely convinced as I was,  that those early removals of information were some kind of prejudice!  As ridiculous as it sounds now, it's absolutely the truth.  We just could not imagine.  and had not figured out.  why things were being deleted over and over. That person even took the time to write some long complaints, as I recall.. 
To make a long story short,I admit it was my fault, and my ignorance, or inability to take in all that early information of the basics of being an editor here and working with (and not against) the Wikipedia editors, made for a much more difficult and stressful adventure, than I ever could have imagined.  
I was simply trying to share a story of a somewhat, IMHO, remarkable man. But I felt that I was preceived as some kind of conspirator and was labeled as a "rogue editor". all not true!!!!!    All due to my not grasping the basic's, I admit, but I have to believe that I'm not the only one who has taken this journey, and been absolutely misunderstood or even gave up in frustration and ignorance.  It's a daunting place to enter into,  and at times overwhelming thing to come in cold and to learn what is needed.  I did nearly throw in the towel several times.  So Jeff,  I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart,  for coming to my rescue and assuring that Daniel Rodriguez, does indeed have a place here that honors him and Wikipedia, as well. I'll say "job well done also", even though I'm sure we'll be doing more as time goes by. Bob 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record

message: When I complain about something I do always try to offer a solution or better way of doing something. So, I must say that I just wish there had been a Very Short and Simple page that said something like..
When you place information here, it will be read and checked over by one of our Wikipedia Editors and they will make changes that are needed to conform to the site's requirements, or they wil make notes within your article. In the form of "citation", etc..   They may also write an explanation of why they took those actions and what you need to do, to fix them. This can be found in the "Discussion" page.. please click on that link at the top of the page, and also click on the "history" to see what changes were made.  etc.. etc.. 
I also did not realize that Everything is saved. I was making copies of every page, and every bit of informaton,  as I "saved it" . 
Maybe I missed seeing something in the Help pages, that was indeed this simple and to the point, that might have made things a whole lot easier, but I didn't see it or didn't recognize it as I got a bit lost, navagating my way throught the dozens of pages that are available in those early attemtps to figure out how this site works.   So there you have it.. my reflections... my journey into the unknown.. coming through that dark forest and finding light at the other end.Bob 08:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: final thoughts to above

message: Jeff or anyone, just curious for my own amazement, is there a way to bring up the total number of hours, or one editors total number of hours on this page? I've checked out that section but don't find this exact item being able to done? Bob 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: total hrs. logged?