Talk:Frank Crumit

message: note to Infrogmation - thanks for locating this and pointing out that it was copyright. However, in future you might adopt a less accusatorial tone. I posted the information in good faith; it was sent to me as public domain. You might also be more careful when undoing one edit not to undo others at the same time, which I have now had to redo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.138.149 (talk • contribs) 
: Hi. If there was something you wrote that was not a copyright violation you'd like to re add, you can find old edits in the article history.  I reverted your edits as a whole as the main change I saw was addition of substantial material that seemed to be a copyright violation, and a quick google search on a sample found the source.  We have to take copyright violations seriously here, as they are both contrary ot Wikipedia's goal of creating a free content encyclopedia and can open the project up to legal challenges.  Check out the links I left on your talk page for some more tips.  If you decide to stick around, you might wish to choose a user name and log in.  By the way, I think you'll find from the original 78s that "The Prune Song"/"Song of the Prune" was issued under both titles (and I know he recorded it more than once).  Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I reverted your edits as a whole" Only one of the edits involved copyright violation. There were no grounds whatever for reverting the others, other than your own laziness and arrogance. You need to familiarise yourself a bit better with Wikipedia policy before you go pontificating to others.217.42.13.130 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello, please don't take things personally. Wikipedia needs to be a bit agressive in removing copyright violations, and if you add material containing material I easily verified as containing violations I don't need to sort through it sentence by sentance to see if there is any non-copyright material before reverting.  I assume putting in copyrighted material was a simple new user mistake. Once you understand the importance of not violating copyrights here, you are welcome to put back contributions which are your own words. My invitation for you to stick around, log in, and help improve articles was and is sincere; just please refrain from name calling. Sorry if I sounded curt with you; if you don't understand an action of mine in my interaction with you, feel free to ask. "Laziness"? Well, this is a collective effort and you are welcome to add your industry to improving it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gracyk Biography

message: The new recording method was able to capture the rich tenor sound of his voice
Apart from the fact that he is not a bass, is there anything much encylopaedic about this sentence? His voice doesn't sound "rich" to me but that's entirely subjective. And is such "richness" impossible to capture by other methods, compared with any other qualities a voice might have? Sounds like waffle to me. Flapdragon (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out because it, like much else in this article, has no source for the comment. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: If there is some info that is directly informative about Crumit and his voice that you can give a reference to and you think would improve the article, I'd say go ahead.  (Of course the style of singing was different when the new electric microphones came in as well.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. This info is all over the Internet: http://www.bing.com/search?q=frank+crumit+rich+voice&form=APMCS1. I don't know who first termed Crumit's voice as "rich," but it certainly couldn't have been anybody who heard his recordings. Pleasant, maybe, but not rich. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rich" voice 

message: Hello folks, wary of the info posted above re the Grayk crumit biog I don't want to infringe any copyright issues, but I am aware that facts of themselves are not copyright. I cannot see where the info came from RE Crumit meeting Julia Sanderson in 1922 comes from because the reference used requires a US library card to access [and therefore prevents quite a proportion of the world from viewing it.] This reference must be wrong, partly from personal knowlege and also reading the recording log from the recording company which issued songs from Tangerine, the musical, they must have met in 1921, when the stage show started, even if they were not romantically involved at that time. As a new editor is it permissable to edit and add this info? I can cite the record company log as source, or the Vaudeville old and new book by Frank Cullen.
thanks - Matt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalesmatt (talk • contribs) 14:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, enter your new information, with a source. If you don't know how to do the citations, just enter the source in the body of the text; somebody will fix it for you. If your new information does not raise any objection, it will be kept. If somebody objects to it, he or she will ask you for more info on the Talk Page. I will check the info when I get home and have access to my library card number. Thanks for your interest. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was an Associated Press story that stated: "It was in 1922 that he met Julia Sanderson, then a musical comedy star." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content editing facts