User talk:Softlavender/Archive 4

Hello

Sorry if I caused you any edit conflicts. I'm done there now. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  13:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched, I'm scratching my head over this a bit, because I don't recall anything close to any edit conflicts on any space we have mutually edited recently, not even the hymn, so thanks but not necessary ... (I just want to make sure you posted that message to the correct editor in case you were thinking of someone else. ....  :) ) Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll check, ... hang on. — Ched :  ?  00:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

OK ... the talk page, .. 13:07ish .. about 3 or 4 overlapping edits - I didn't realize until I was done that you were editing at the same time. Glad I didn't mess ya up then. Carry on. :-) — Ched :  ?  01:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, kind sir <doffs hat>. When ever I write a long post in a busy space, I copy to clipboard before hitting "Save", and even if I don't it's easy enough to scroll down on the edit-conflict page and copy my post again. Honestly, I think you are taking WP:CIVIL to insurmountable heights. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

hymn and settings

A good idea, to compare to other articles, if only to achieve a certain similarity for the readers! - However: "Amazing Grace" is a great article, but that English hymn compares in almost no way to an early Reformation hymn and its use. "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is a mighty misunderstanding, dealing rather little with the German text. (We had a similar discussion on Der fliegende Holländer and FA Richard Wagner: you can't say Wagner wrote The Flying Dutchman, nor that Luther wrote "A mighty fortress".) - Perhaps I misunderstand "arrangement", - I understand that it means something like Busoni's arrangements of Bach organ works for piano. What Bach did, creating Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott from the hymn, is something much more substantial and creative. How can that be described? Please look at his chorale cantatas and compare cantata to hymn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, even though the discussion is getting long and even a bit unwieldy, I think it's best to have all of these discussions on that Talk page, because that keeps them all organized rather than scattered, plus it keeps the record intact, and also other people can view and opine. Hope that makes sense .... Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I see but thought this was for your personal understanding, not the others'. I don't like to get personal on an article talk, and I don't like to say there (in some public) that I think a certain other article is not a good example. Some day I will write "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott", as I wrote Mass in B minor structure ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I just used those two hymns as random examples (any good hymn articles none of the participants has written would be useful to check out) -- they are probably the most well-known hymns in the world, and I didn't want to spend time thinking of other titles and checking articles; I assume there are many more suitable articles to look at as well. I do think it's best for everyone to refer to articles none of the participants have substantially contributed to, to maintain objectivity. I hope you did not think the wording of the post was directed at you (it wasn't!); if anything, I was trying to neutralize the tension which seems to sometimes crop up there, and get the focus onto a larger field. I hope that makes sense. :-) Last night I took the two articles I had been endlessly discussing (one of which was that one) off my watch list, just to clear my mind and re-focus. I may check back in. Cheers and best wishes! Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(PLATE LUNCH)

What you did on the plate lunch wiki page was wrongfully edit those things which I scoped through, detailing the wiki page what was in the article while putting stuff that wasn't a direct quote into a good set of words. Quintessential is not commonly known and I changed it to a better word flow for that reason. I had to look up its definition and so did likely others. Meat and threes are not an every day word and you must put restaurants or food establishments as I did after it or people won't know wtf a meat and three is. I will be repairing it Again and I don't think you looked it through well. ---Ferretsrock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferretsrock (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ferretstock -- discussions of this sort belong on the article's Talk page, not on a user talk page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we are being trolled. "Quintessential" has been a common SAT word for many decades and is still in usage.[1] I have a very difficult time believing that this person is an honors student. Also, the term "meat-and-threes" is regional, and is rarely used outside a certain part of the country. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello there again, Softlavender (and Viriditas, as I can see here). Just wanted to say that I obviously stopped editing the plate lunch page as I felt if you really wanted to keep it that way that badly, I didn't want to argue anymore as well as possibly get blocked for "edit-warring". But I can assure you I was not trolling, and to be honest that was offensive as well to be said that I am (was, since I am no longer in school) an honors student. I feel that just because I was trying to use a word that I believe is more understandable for the average every-day person and saying that I am/was an honors student without knowledge of the word "quintessential" does not mean that I am lying, and I feel that accusing me of lying and being a troll is very offensive. I did not take the SATs due to having to leave school to become homeschooled and did not require to take the SATs in my position. I left school without planning due to becoming very, very sick with a progressive, life-threatening illness that I have obviously still to this day being 20 years old and graduating H.S. in 2012 (a year early due to being homeschooled, graduated with honors and such). The point that I brought this up was that just because someone doesn't know a word and suggests choosing a more understandable word (you don't have to be dumb to not know what quintessential meant; in fact, a survey I took out of 100 random every-day people showed that only 24% knew what quintessential meant) doesn't mean they are lying about being in honors classes. I apologize for taking so much time trying to change it and obviously I won't do it anymore as I lost interest and it doesn't really matter much anymore to me, but I did just want to clarify that I did not troll nor did I lie about honors classes. I still have a higher IQ than the majority of those that I know who took IQ tests, I aced every spelling test 100% that I took throughout school, I graduated with honors and even got 1st place for a difficult multi-county regional competition in a website development competition with FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) when I was sick but still in my private school), with a website I created all solely while extremely sick in the hospital. I just wanted to say that we are of all kinds here and it's not nice to make judgments on someone based on what you read about them online. Thanks a bunch, have a nice day. Ferretsrock (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Following you from here to here, I am WP:Pinging Viriditas so that he sees your above reply (that is, if this talk page is not on his WP:Watchlist). Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

-That was really awesome of you to do that Flyer22! <3 Thanks a bunch. Viriditas did see my reply thanks to you pinging him. Now I'm WP:Pinging Flyer22 (you) so that you see this reply <3 Xoxoxo Ferretsrock (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, ‎Ferretsrock. Keep in mind that WP:Pinging doesn't always work, though (and that it only works with a new signature); you can see its talk page for problems it has had. Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And, yes, I was aware that Viriditas got the message and responded on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for the info again. =) Still fairly new to the intricacies that come along with being a Wikipedian (like pinging and such) and appreciate the tips people like you can give. =) You've been super gracious and helpful, Flyer22. =) xo <3 Ferretsrock (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Ferretsrock, that ping you just attempted above did not work (notice the redlink) because you linked to Flyer's talk page rather than to his username. Correcting it manually will not make it work either: You would need to create a brand new post with a correct ping and manually sign again with four tildes. The manually typed four tildes is what activates the ping. One more tip: typing {{u|Flyer22}} creates a ping, and is a bit shorter to type if you don't want to copy-paste. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Glengarry Glen Ross RfC

Hello Softlavender,

How are you? I happened to notice your recent comment on the RfC of Glengarry Glen Ross (film), and wondered if I might solicit further input.

You state that the RfC was not a "proper" RfC. I was wondering which steps in particular you believe were not correctly followed. I am a relatively inexperienced editor, and this was my very first RfC, so this is a learning experience for me.

As you will see on the talk page history, this RfC was reviewed by administrator RegentsPark on March 11, who commented that the RfC appeared to be well formed. That administrator review was apparently precipitated by the fact that a user had prematurely closed the RfC while edit warring, claiming that it was poorly formed. That user was subsequently blocked by a second administrator for -- among other reasons -- misrepresenting WP policy on RfC's. The second administrator also commented ([2]) that the RfC was valid.

Nevertheless, I would like to learn more. (Note that the RfC template was automatically removed by the BOT after 30 days. Is this what you were referring to?)

I also notice that your post appears to include an oblique accusation of canvassing. While publicizing this RfC, I took extensive measures to avoid any appearance of CANVASSING. As a first precaution, I sent a neutrally-worded standard notice to almost every user on the Media & Arts Feedback Request Service, to avoid any possible accusation that my "random" selection was not actually random. Second, I sent the same standard notice to any user who had participated in the conversation prior to the opening of the RfC. Finally, I did not send any other notice to any user who wasn't on the Feedback Request Service List, to avoid any conceivable accusation that I was either spamming or vote-stacking.

As an inexperienced editor, I would not know whom to canvass anyway. Nevertheless, since you have made a public accusation, I take this seriously. Please respond at your very earliest convenience, so that I can better understand your reasons.

Best, -Xanthis (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xanthis, yes, the lack of a template was the worrying thing, and indicated to me that this was just a makeshift non-public RfC. I somehow arrived on the page immediately after the bot had removed the template. I had come to the page because I saw your notice about the RfC on someone's Talk page, so I did not realize it was 31 days old. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I see! I am glad we could clear that up. Do you have any remaining concerns that I was canvassing?

I feel that accusations of canvassing are particularly serious, because they ascribe a dishonest intention on the part of another user to game the system, rather than engage in the editing process in good faith.

If you have no remaining concerns, I wonder if you will consider removing your comment. According to WP:CIVIL, ill-considered accusations of impropriety should be removed on request of the affected user. -Xanthis (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Softlavender. Take care!

Best, -Xanthis (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing title of bundled footnote

Hi Softlavender, I was puzzled by one of your edits described here.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

. . . and further perplexed by a reversion here without previously participating in the talk page discussion of the topic. Your views would be appreciated, here.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

	Happy Easter
	Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

How very adorable, Hafs. Thanks so much! Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Google doodle

I once did what you did, remove the google doodle as trivia ;) - That was on Kafka's 130th birthday, and it made the article the so far most successful TFA ever, - look for Kafka on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done, Gerda! That looks like an awesome article! (Maria Callas, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired. But it's such an immense topic, I can't even fathom attempting to give it such an overhaul. I guess at best I'm just trying to hold back the tide of nonsense. ;-) ) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail x2. - NQ (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NQ. Very curious. :-) Thanks for letting me know there were two -- the second went into my spam folder for some reason, even though the first didn't. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary

Hi - it's nice to meet you. We seem to have much in common, and I'm always glad to meet someone of similar demographic here. I saw your comment at Village Pump about Hillary Rodham Clinton and responded there, but wanted to reiterate here. Most major publications continue to use Hillary's full name on their first mention: the one she uses, the one on her book covers, the one in her signature, the one she prefers. See The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many many others. Tvoz/talk 05:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; it's as simple as that. Please don't post here further on the subject; this is not the appropriate venue. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on having a protracted debate with you here or anywhere - just wanted to make contact directly, rather than leaving it in the sea of comments that any discussion of that article's title engenders. No need to overreact, or to lecture. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

about this, it would be wise to soften the claim you make there, as the SPI case is still open. also Peterkingiron has been editing here for a long time - i don't think that user is part of the mess. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Missed Peterkingiron, thanks, I will exempt him. Not going to change the rest; I'm far more familiar with this farm than you are. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Just so you know: In response to your edit summary from the reversion of content back into the article, it's not that I "don't like it", it's that I thought there should be a little more time given before to wait for other article contributors to weigh in. The article is pretty well trafficked by other editors, and I just wanted to see what others thought. I'm not completely convinced the content should stay out, so from my end, it's not about seeing my preferred version stand, rather, it's about hearing from everyone/anyone who would want to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text in Alexei Navalny

Hi, Softlavender. Would you mind explaining me why it was deleted? I checked the policy, and while it does not say this is good content to have in such notes, it doesn't say the opposite, either. I do not happen to realize why this is not okay, but I am open-minded on this, so would you explain that to me? Thanks--R8R (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi R8R, hidden comments are not the place for notes to yourself. Please do not place notes to yourself inside the article. Place notes to yourself on your own user page, your own Talk page, or on your own user subpages. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see that written in WP:HIDDEN, but, after having given it some thought, I can understand why someone would want notes like "I stopped here" not to appear within the article. However, I believe that if some text is missing from the article, one should be allowed to state that. Such a note would not be just a note to self: I believe it would be an improvement for the article regardless who added the content. The rules do not prohibit that. Am I right in assuming such notes are okay?--R8R (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No. If you want to address something that you feel may be missing from an article or that you feel needs to be added to an article, start a thread on the issue on the Talk page of the article. That is the correct place to discuss such matters and to alert other editors, who may be able to address your concerns. Softlavender (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll try to get used to that.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghosts

Hello, I added a section on the talk page for Ibsen's play Ghosts (play) that mentions you. StBlark (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for the heads-up; that's a good solution. I've copyedited to remove the unnecessary scientific WP:OR, and to quote all of Eyre's explanation, which seems relevant and important. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RfA

RfA is a gauntlet. It's unpleasant, stressful, and it's not something most people want to put themselves through. RfA candidates are already subjected to a large volume of "optional" questioning as it is. In my opinion, it's disingenuous, unhelpful and inconsiderate to ask not just one but four additional questions after already clearly making up your mind and casting a !vote. It's as if you're adding more hoops for the candidate to jump through just for sake of doing it, rather than actually trying to form an educated opinion about the candidate. Things like this are exactly why more people don't even want to give RfA a shot. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, per se. You have the right to ask questions of course. I'm just offering my personal opinion that given your stringent fixation on your already-cast opposition, your additional questioning was excessive, not remotely necessary, and not cool. We're all living, breathing people with real lives and real emotions here. Let's try to not make things difficult for each other. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Great Stink

You appear to be warring. I reverted you per WP:BRD so it is for you now to discuss on the talk page. The primary author SchroCat is an approachable fellow and he would be only to willing to root out a reference for you, but he won't take too kindly to Banksy style tags being plastered over an article which he has spent a great load of time and bother on. Yes, tags serve a purpose and I'm fully aware of the rules on using them; however, there is more than one way to skin a cat and this issue can easily be resolved on the talk page rather than ruining the appearance of an FA in order to get your point answered. Cassianto^Talk 10:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

One revert, with a very detailed and policy-quoting edit summary, is not warring. I did not place a tag requesting a reference, nor did I place more than one tag, so I'm wondering whether you actually looked at the edit before you reverted. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read BRD. You were Bold, I Reverted, you should Discuss. It's very simple and quite easy to grasp really. Cassianto^Talk 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I know BRD, and a tag for missing information is not vandalizing, which you accused me of, so I replaced the tag with a detailed explanation. You have also accused me of warring, which it wasn't, and of wanting references (twice), which I didn't, and of having "plastered over" an article with "Banksy style tags", which I didn't. So please stop the false accusations. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your knowledge of BRD clearly has a different understanding to mine. You might think it's ok to drive-by a featured article and plaster stupid tags on it, but I happen to think that this is vandalism as it offers no benefit to anyone and looks ghastly in the process. This is my analogy and I'm sticking with it. A simple request on the talk page does everything a tag does, but in a more mature manner. This, in my opinion, is half the battle on this project. If more people were to communicate with each other rather than rely on pinning unsightly tags all over the place in the hope that someone will come along one day and fix it, then we might be able to resolve things a lot more quickly and strike up good working relationships with one another as a result. You, I fear, may beg to differ. Cassianto^Talk 12:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are still making false accusations after I asked you to stop. I did not "drive-by", nor "plaster stupid tags", nor vandalize, nor make anything look "ghastly", nor "pin unsightly tags all over the place". I don't waste my time in repetitive discussions with those who make false accusations, so this is my last comment. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) May I ask you - for my education - to explain. Am I right that we talk about the little question "by whom" in the lede and no more. (Did we get very general over this?) - To my understanding, the lede is a (normally unreferenced) summary, so if the body explains sourced by whom, it does not have to be repeated in the lede by whom, and if it's missing in the body, the request should be made there. - I would also think that this little "by whom" is not an "unsightly tag" (such as saying that inline citations are missing, or POV, etc), and one is not "all over", - nothing worth arguing about. - I would further think that WP:BRD is for content, not such a question. - Learning? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your inability to hold a constructive discussion in this matter is illustrative as to why I think you should carry on adding tags in the future. Cassianto^Talk 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ARC

In this year, sock puppetry took place only when from 5 March on the article in question.[3] But I was clearly unhappy with the results, because these accounts were used for years on Ban discussions, AfD, deletion review, page move war, etc. Since there was more sock puppetry on this article, I accused Zhanzhao for it,[4] because he was the last person to abuse multiple accounts policy on this article, and they all were clearly supporting each other. My later findings would prove that these 3(from 23 March) accounts/IPs were also sock puppets, they just belonged to a different master.[5] There are no issues with Zhanzhao, there was proper resolution to that issue, he is now restricted to one account. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

...

I just want to apologize for being abrasive and rude to you when I first started here and in general - I know you mean well and were trying to help. As you have guessed by now, this whole situation has a personal stake for me and I have been on edge for the past couple of months. Sometimes tone is difficult to process through the internet, and certainly more-so in a semi-anonymous forum such as this. But thank you, I do appreciate all of your help and insight.Ladysif (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Ladysif, and thank you for your kind words. It is always a temptation, especially when we are busy and trying to be efficient, to be abrupt to new or newish users and forget how it was when we ourselves started up on Wikipedia. :-) I find the whole Sweet Briar thing outrageous and frankly upsetting, which is one reason I stopped Googling it to find new info, and stopped adding to the article.... I am also baffled by the fact that the national media has ignored the issue for so long. I feel the activities of the president and the board to be criminal. I hope things work out well. Who knows. It is all beginning to seem like a film script ... Anyway, all the best and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty unbelievable situation to be sure and I hope that some investigation happens... The VA Supreme Court is meeting by the end of this week to presumably discuss the injunction appeal so hopefully (crossing fingers here) some good or much better news will come of it. Same to you!Ladysif (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Saw the spat at the Randy Newman navbox. You may want to check to see if that same editor has edited the policy/guideline cited and then gone in and changed a bunch of articles. I ran into this individual doing this before, see [6]. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Advice pages .. the actual guideline on the matter....--Moxy (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the editor in question in a nutshell... Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

SunEdison

Hi, thanks for helping with my edits to the SunEdison page. I wanted to update the page to include Claire Broido Johnson as a founder. I want to make sure she receives proper credit. Here is a link supporting that history - http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-arent-there-more-women-in-leadership-in-the-cleantech-industry. Let me know how to fix it to make sure she gets proper credit. Best dmhirsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhirsch (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it has been a week since I sent the message and haven't heard anything. I am going to update the page unless I hear otherwise. 216.39.17.10 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)dmhirsch

Please don't re-add that inaccurate, self-cited, and promotional text to Wikipedia. The article is correct as is. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion or self-promotion. Thank you for your cooperation. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Category: Love stories

Hi! I am researching this topic and adding famous couples to Category "Love stories". How would you suggest to do or to name that? Married couples, Duos already exist but do not fit. Maybe to rename category it "Heroes of famous love stories" ?

Hi Fivetrees, you can't force things into Categories when they don't fit. What you are trying to achieve is not wholly workable, at least not in that category format, except for the stories that already exist as love stories and have articles, like Romeo and Juliet. You could make a List of famous couples article {not Category), if that's what you are trying to put together. But you can't add individuals to a category about couples or stories. Hope that makes sense! Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you Softlavender for reply! What if rename to "Famous lovers"? I'm writing a book and resaerching material like this top 20 most famous love stories in history and literature fivetrees (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, can't do Category: Famous lovers because since you can only list single articles (not couples) in a Category, that could mean people who were good in bed. The best format for this compilation is a list article, because a Category can only include single individuals or single publications, whereas a list can join the two members of a couple. The trick is how to title the list article: List of famous couples, or List of famous lovers, or List of famous love stories, or whatever. By the way, speaking of John and Abigail Adams, if you haven't already I strongly suggest reading Irving Stone's Those Who Love, one of the finest biographies ever written (and sadly out of print but available in used book venues online). Good luck with your own book! Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I see! Thank you very much! Your reply led me to few new discoveries in the lists and the book you recommended! fivetrees (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Um... you don't own the Taylor Swift page....

...so what gives you the authority to judge what pic should or should not be in the infobox? Eric Cable  |  Talk  03:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric, this discussion belongs on the article's Talk page, not here; and per BRD, you need to gain consensus on the article's Talk page if your change to the status quo is challenged. Please read and follow WP:BRD, and post your comments/discussion on the article Talk page, not here. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So how do I delete the image? If it's not going to be used, then there's no point in it being on Wikipedia. Thanks Eric Cable  |  Talk  03:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You already know, and you already requested speedy deletion of the file six minutes before you posted the question above. Again. please don't post here on my talk page; this is not the correct venue. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure I was doing it correctly. Jesus. Eric Cable  |  Talk  04:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK

Please note that I did not add that text yesterday. I restored it as it had been removed without prior discussion about 6 weeks ago. It had previously been there for approximately 5 years. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: L. Wang

Hello Softlavender,

I've asked Drmies more than 1 time in a conversation with him to help me with the changes, or to view them before I post them. But he suggested I post them and if it was not ok he would correct it. But you're immediately change things, so there's no time for him to make a better suggestion if I place content that is not completely in line with the rules. About the youtube channel: it's not with illegal content and the link is also accepted on the Dutch wiki so I don't understand all the fuss. If youtube discovers illegal content it will be removed by youtube. I cannot provide a source for that, youtube is the source. I have placed all of the videos on L. Wang's youtube (or most of them) and she has written permission to use them. Most of the bookfilms are mine actually, so for that part I am the source.

Marion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleyntje (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you really need to be having this conversations on the article's Talk page, and you must learn to use, and must be willing to abide by, English Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and best practices. Please read the information I provided to you on your Talk page. Please sign your Talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Your say-so does not make it OK to add a promotional YouTube channel with copyrighted videos. You need to gain consensus on Talk:Lulu Wang to re-create any edit or addition that has been challenged or removed. Please read WP:BRD, which explains this. If instead you edit war on Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hymn 2

I remember that you said "Hymn is not a genre", and agree. For hymns with titles that don't show that they are hymns, you can now use para=type, and for the person mostly associated with a hymn para=composer. (Someone writing a text is also a "composer".) Both (or one or none) show above the image, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I haven't looked too closely at this, but the problem is a hymn is a song, not a musical composition. Musical compositions do not have texts or lyrics -- if they do, they are instead songs or operas/oratorios (or masses, which have set texts). Any infobox for a hymn should have its two main (top) parameters as "Text" and "Music" (and in my opinion those should be bolded as in the old version), and the word "by" should never have to be inserted for clarity (that in itself is the mark of a very poor infobox template in my opinion), nor should the word "by" appear in the infobox itself. I realize you pinged me a few days ago regarding the infobox, but I didn't pursue it because at that time I was busy, and in addition because in my opinion the deletion of the infobox hymn and "merging" it with infobox musical composition was a gigantic mistake which caused irredeemable problems. I can state all of the above on whatever discussion thread is at hand, if you like. In any case, love to you; I hope you are doing well. :-) xx Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer to use infobox song, why not. - I believe nothing should be bolded in an infobox but the title, therefore disliked the infobox hymn design. - Do you say that infobox opera is a "very poor template" (where the "by" comes from, compare Don Giovanni)? - The "by " was also supported by Smerus who argued - convincing me - that we can't say "Chorale" and then have the name of a person, - the same goes for "Text" and "music". - I had an idea about Luther's songs which I like even better: linking right on top to the list of his hymns (would you prefer to call it List of Martin Luther's hymns, to avoid "by"?) - I am fine and out of prison under parole, - more precisely: I was fine until this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Too much noise on your talk. Do I have to explain that I was fine until I saw your edit. I have spent too much time of my life on AE, "gebranntes Kind" as we say in German (literally: burnt child.) Andy was cited there for improving an infobox, I was cited for a third comment (which had not even to do with the topic tried to be restricted), Eric made a comment on his talk, - in the first case, three noticeboards were busy for weeks. WHY all this waste of time? In all cases, it could have ben just ignored. - Jimbo Wales never answered my summary. (Excuse us, Softlavender, please) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, I simply disagree with you. The old hymn infobox worked perfectly, and perfectly clearly. There is no need for "by", on a song template, hymn template, opera template, or chorale template -- all of those have text and music (or music and libretto in an opera, as the importance of the two is reversed there), and with those at the top and the names bolded (and colored, as in the old hymn infobox), it was and is perfectly clear what they represent. I don't like the new opera template either because the old one was so much better, had much better features (like preceded/succeeded, or a list of operas), and preempted edit wars about what random and confusing image would be at the top of it. Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am probably too new here to know "the old opera template", but we can also simply disagree ;) - From the Bach cantatas I know that "preceded" etc would be difficult to determine because some dates are uncertain. For Luther's hymn: you have a sortable list, now linked from the top, where you can sort by date and know (with the second click) the sequence of his writing of all of them (as far as know and added, it's a work in progress), not just a next before and after. - I like {{Mozart operas (horizontal)}}, showing the sequence at a glance), only it should get a better name --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The old opera template was as recent as August 2014. It listed the composer's other operas as well, and had the composer's image at the top. (Non-opera infoboxes are not relevant to this.) For operas, having the full linked list of operas (unless over-prolific) in the infobox was very instructive, and having the composer's image preempted confusing and highly random images.

I hope very much that you don't mind my saying so, however I personally think you may be overly focused on the articles you create/edit and specialize in, and are influencing infoboxes according to your personal or idiosyncratic desires or tastes on the specialized areas you are editing rather than the project as a whole, when it comes to music-related infoboxes. I may be wrong about this, but I think even you will admit that your personal specialty is, well, very specialized, and that you perhaps like to oversee that field and to "play with" infoboxes to bend them to your needs. Perhaps there should be a separate "Gerda infobox" that had many many and varied parameters that you could play with at your pleasure and whim. I think that might work better than conforming site-wide infoboxes to your desires when a given template may work best across the board differently than you like for your specifics. I hope that does not offend .... I'm happy to opine at the infobox discussion(s) if people want me to ... I was bothered by how my initial foray (which was one post only) into opining about them went down late last year (or early this year? in the merger discussion), and subsequently have been disappointed by the changes that have been made (even though I hadn't gone back to make my case). In any case, we do often agree on some aspects of infoboxes, but I don't think we currently agree on some of the ones related to music. ... C'est la vie ... la vie Wikipédienne .... Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I would learn something if you could make me understand why you would prefer the side navbox (which you called the old opera template) to the one on the bottom. I confess that at I looked at operas for years without even understanding that if you click on "show" you see something, - you see how to navigate away from the article which you just entered). - Hymn: You could still put everything you want to see bold in the name parameter, as was explained in the merge discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The old opera infobox gave the operas upfront, where the reader wants them and can see them. It also gave a relevant and coherent and immediately comprehensible image, not subject to whim, edit-warring, or image-availability. No one sees or looks at the opera navboxes at the bottom (unless they are experienced users, and have also somehow managed to read to the end of a 40,000-byte opera article and found it buried under three or more other navboxes), and they are hard to read and cluttered with all kinds of irrelevancies. In terms of hymn infobox, I have bolded the relevant information (see I Surrender All), but they are not highlighted in color like the old infobox (in fact there is no color at all in or on the infobox now!), and also I had to remove all of the other information to keep those parameters together as they should be. Hymns cannot exist without a text, therefore the author of the text should be first and top, as it was in the old infobox. It should be immediately followed by the composer, since text and melody are the two paramount factors to a hymn, as with any song. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I - as a reader - at first did not even see that it offers anything (and I was not the only one). I - as a reader - do do not want to see the same face of a composer (always same age) on all his works, while there are good illustrations of works. I - as a reader - do not want to get away from an article as soon as I enter it. - I - as a reader - want to see first glance when and where to place a subject in history - opera or whatever. I suggested at some point to link from the infobox to the footer navbox but found not enough support, - "no navigation" was the argument. - In the infobox for hymns, you can assign colors for script and background to your liking, - we just got away with the automatic blue behind the title (termed "like it was written by teenagers"), happily so. De gustibus - enough for today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Like you I have no desire to discuss this endlessly here. I need to point out that having the operas conveniently listed in the infobox is not "getting away" -- the list was right there in the infobox. What is getting away, or navigating away, is having to search and somehow find an article on the composer's works or operas, or alternatively scrolling to the bottom in hope of finding a navbox -- which only experienced readers would even know might be there. Having the date of the opera was part of that navbox -- that gives its place in history. There is no way that I see to add color to the infobox hymn as it currently exists. It's just white. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify that the side navbox is NOT an infobox, - it has no argument-value pairs, thus a date there is fine for our eyes, but nothing for other languages, nor for search functions comparing. - I will always find works by a composer looking up his or her article, - no need to waste space for such a thing in a prime position where people expect to receive key facts about the article. - The template is neutral without colors on purpose, which is best for people who can't see, following WP:ACCESSIBILITY. - YOU are, however, free to color and embellish to your liking ;)

To repeat, I see no way to add color to the hymn infobox, nor does anyone else trying to use the template -- there is no indication whatsoever about that on Template:Infobox musical composition. And I consider the old template at the top of opera articles an infobox, as it held that position and function (and in my opinion better than the current one) and in effect was nothing like a navbox in my personal opinion. Technically, the term for it is sidebar: see WP:SIDEBAR and Template:Sidebar/doc; to me it was much more an infobox than a navbox. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You could add values with colored script, as I colored "color" above, you could define background color, - only blind people don't see any of those which I respect by not using it. - A box with no paired attribute-value items is not an infobox in the sense I - and most I know but I may be mistaken - use it, - from the lead of our article: "It is a structured document containing a set of attribute–value pairs". Happy reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to make the font colored -- that would just add a new level of reading difficulty. I want colored bars/fields, as the infobox used to have. There is no indication of how to do that on Template:Infobox musical composition. Can you clarify what you mean by "only blind people don't see any of those which I respect by not using it"? Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Color, any color, is a feature that doesn't serve the blind, which is why my table St Matthew Passion structure looks boring to some, compared to the German model, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see -- by "only" you meant "however", not "solely". I thought you were maybe calling me an idiot and blind because I didn't notice something. Glad we cleared that up. :-) Lastly, before we close this long discussion (I believe this is the longest discussion ever on my Talk page, probably because we ended up talking about two kinds of infoboxes -- hymn and opera -- rather than just one) -- Is there any way for me to add a colored bar at the top, or on the Text/Music items? If not, that's OK -- I'm just asking. Thanks Gerda, Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about my language, glad we cleared that! - "Idiot": I hope that I never said anything negative to any person here, - if you catch me doing that let me know. - We talked about infoboxes in general - vs. side navboxes which are no infoboxes ;) - For technical additions, perhaps ask at the village pump, or on a template talk, for example {{infobox musical composition}}, or look up how templates do it which have colors, for example {{infobox church}}, seen here, thank goodness the image matches ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ps: I think I got rid of all genre=hymn yesterday, - I was in no mood for creative writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm

Why would you quote me to support your argument, knowing that's not what I meant? I hope, if the opportunity ever arises, I won't show you similar disrespect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I actually thought that was what you meant. I wasn't sure though (hence my wording) -- I haven't minutely followed the case from beginning to end and have no way of knowing on what side you fall, and since that was the entirety of your post on that AE, there was no way for an outside observer to know exactly what you meant by it. No disrespect was intended, and if I had thought you intended it to mean something else (the opposite), I would have said it differently -- I would have specifically worded it to indicate that you did not mean it in the the way that I did, but that conversely it fit my point as well in my view. I hope that clears it up. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GEMS Education

Hi Softlavender. You have removed a large amount of material from this page in a significant re-write that goes beyond simply re-organisation. If you are making corrections, or adding balancing material, or identifying policy breaches then you of course have every right to do that, but you need to justify individual edits, not just replace the whole article in bulk. Your re-write reads like a professional puff-piece rather than a neutral wikipedia article. (Wikipedia:PROMOTION) Wiltingdaffodils 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wiltingdaffodils, the appropriate place to discuss this is on the article's Talk page. I will start a discussion there. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:REDACT

If you would like to change your comment after a reply has been given, could you please clearly indicate your changes as part of your revision? Not doing so has made it appear that part of your comment was ignored or glossed over, when in fact that part did not exist at the time of the reply. Alternatively, perhaps it would be best to simply make a new comment to raise your new point, even if you had intended to include it originally. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary

You write, I dislike parentheticals and think them non-encyclopedic ... You are a lady after my heart! I always try to remove any I come across too. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Me too. There are few things I dislike more, at least on Wikipedia (I once cleared Mendelssohn of thousands of such things, back in 2010). In my own interpersonal writing (emails, forum postings, and such), I am however apt to use so many parentheticals that I double and triple up on them and it is impossible to see where one clause ends and another begins LOL -- that is, assuming I've actually remembered to close each parenthetical, which is not necessarily likely. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha,ha! BTW, on M's Talk you wrote, "I've been AFK for two days ..." I have no idea what that means. Is it similar to AWOL? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeez Louise G, why do I always have to explain internet slang to you? It means Away From Keyboard. I took two completely tech-free days. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good to take a break. I love it when you scold me. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

While I have finally learned most of the internet slang I too was at a loss when it came to AFK. the best I could come up with was "Away from komputer" (groan) Well at least I was in the ballpark. As to parentheticals I agree that they are unnecessary in articles. OTOH, like you S, I wind up using them on talk pages and emails (they are like asides to the audience in a play for me - heehee) Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hopefully helpful: Urban Dictionary definition of AFK and other Internet slang. Prhartcom (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR

I noticed a comment just now that you made regarding Kavebear as a resident of Hawaii and that I am not. Excuse me, but no. Kavebear does not reside in the islands but I am from Oahu and have Native Hawaiian ancestry. You can certainly ask this but the last time I looked he had identified as living in the mainland US. I believe he is not of Native Hawaiian decent.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Specifically I do take issue with the following: "My experience with Mark is that as someone who does not live in Hawaii, he relies on certain specific available published sources when in fact the reality is often very different. The fact of the matter is that Hawaii is an extremely non-literate place, and its culture, traditions, history, and current reality are largely oral and visual. In addition, Hawaii is the remotest archipelago in the world. For those reasons, one cannot get a true and accurate understanding of Hawaiian history, culture, or current reality without actually living here, and living here for a large number of years." My first memory is of Hawaii. I will not give you a blood quantum but I am Hawaiian, or more precisely Kanaka Moali (no orthography there). Living in Hawaii gives absolutely NO perspective of Hawaiian culture of history unless you know Hawaiians. Most academics do seem to agree that if you wish to better understand the Hawaiian culture you have to ask one of the families. They will know the sources for their recorded history as well as the recorded chants (almost all chants have been recorded although many have been lost) I believe you live in the islands> If this is correct than you may even understand some of what I am saying.

I have two siblings born in Hawaii, as was my dad, his parents and a line going back to the Hawaiian Royal Family. I have no bias as I only learned about this in the last two years and precisely because I am Hawaiian and someone began research before me and another had just completed their full genealogy with all the primary source documentation. But I discovered more than genealogy but a very rich history not yet covered on Wikipedia. Most of the history is linked to the aliʻi families. I am not trying to compare myself and KAVEBEAR here but that made my just a little uncomfortable.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• "specific available published sources" I am not sure what you mean here, that as someone not in Hawaii I can't possibly have the information available? Well, that is somewhat true, accept that there are other editors available to do the Library checks, Viriditas was very helpful for one document only available on Maui that helped greatly with Brick Palace. Also, I have access to out of print publications shared with my by ohana in the islands. There is also a vast database of Hawaiian history and listing in the Native Hawaiian newspapers online. Some require translating, but they can be used as sourcing. I do not limit what I use for my research by what is available in the mainland and I can demonstrate that. It was a very positive experience.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• (added) I forgot to mention my confusion on this: "My experience with Mark is that as someone who does not live in Hawaii..." What experience do you have with me specifically "as someone who does not live in Hawaii"?
• "Your understanding might be inaccurate and incomplete, through no probable fault of your own. I have a suggestion or two: If you reach an impasse, either post on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii, or call in a Hawaiian resident like Viriditas". This completely baffles me. Are you suggesting that to better understand my own culture and the land I myself lived....I have call on someone else to ....what? Get the accurate truth? I mean, I go to Viriditas often and yes he is very helpful, but is the suggestion that just because an editor lives there, they will know more about the culture?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Softlavender as far as I can remember we have gotten along and I have no recollection of any interaction between us in regards to my not living in Hawaii as a resident today. I think you may not have known that I am Hawaiian and from Hawaii (although originally born in Japan), but I was a little offended by your comments. You see...this is exactly what I have been trying to get across to KAVEBEAR, that he is using "specific available published sources" and that he does not understand the culture, the caste system or even how to be sensitive about the culture around Native Hawaiian editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I am seriously trying to engage you here. I hope you will take a minute to address my concerns, some that I feel are BLP issues since you made direct comment about me that I feel you could address. Not trying to be a problem so if you wish to e-mail me, that would be cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Mark, thank you for the clarification that KAVEBEAR is from Oregon. My understanding from your talk page is that you have never been to Hawaii (someone made the comment on your talk page [or somewhere] that they hoped you would get here one day). Certainly no offense at all was intended. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry, I'm not 100% familiar with how the ANI exactly works, as I act on impulse when I feel that someone is acting disruptive or uncivilized. The ANI post has been retracted at this time to avoid shooting myself in the foot...--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Chris

LOL, probably a good idea. ANI is only for longterm behavioral problems that have not been resolved by the relevant other means. It's not for content issues or for one or a few lapses in civility. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bohnett

You read the article. He attended both schools. MBA at Ross and BS at USC. Both categories are appropriate. Brush up on reading comprehension. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, you contributed much to this article. You should know this about him and that you sub categorize whenever possible. Two words of advice before you make edits: due diligence. When you are ready, I will accept your apologies for your hasty changes. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Postcard Cathy, then why do you keep removing the correct category that was already there [7], [8], [9]? Please replace it, since it is accurate. I do not want to revert you a third time. You yourself admit that he attended both. Perhaps you are confused as to what you are deleting or why. Softlavender (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension needs significant improvement. You subcategorize whenever possible. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? The Marshall School of Business iS the USC Business School, which you yourself stated he attended. This is the correct subcategory. You can revert as often as you want but in this case, I am correct. If I had any doubts, I would cede to you but in this case, I have no doubts. So revert all you want, but I will keep undoing it until there is no proof anywhere he attended the USC Marshall School of Business. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Postcard Cathy, he did not attend the Marshall School of Business. I do not know where you got the idea that he did. You are contradicting yourself all over the place, both here and your edit summaries. Please read what you just posted above: "He attended both schools. MBA at Ross and BS at USC. Both categories are appropriate." Please also indent your Talk page posts so that they nest correctly under the post you are replying to. I have done that for you above. Please also reply on the article's talk page, where I have asked for a verbatim clarification, from the article, of your edits. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Requiem (Lloyd Webber)

Hi,

You wrote: “rm Placido Domingo navbox -- we do not include the navboxes of performers who have performed a musical composition, or else we would have dozens of performers' navboxes on the articles of every musical composition.”

I understand that and agree. However, this was not the reason I put the navbox up in the first place. Many articles on wikipedia about musical compositions (as well as folk songs and standards) also essentially serve simultaneously as pages about the main recording of those compositions. Domingo starred in the Grammy-winning full recording of this Requiem (Lloyd Webber won the award, but Grammys are given in response to recordings, not live performances or published scores). Domingo and only three other people are mentioned in the lead section of the article for their participation in this performance/recording (and only one other, Brightman, has discography links to recordings in her navbox—so what were are talking about is potentially two people, not dozens).

So, here is my question, do you think an additional page should be created for this singular recording of the piece? It makes more sense to me and seems in keeping with a fair number of other wiki articles simply to beef up the discussion of the recording in this article and have it count as an article about the full recording of the composition too. Of course, if that’s the case, then it only makes sense to have all the Domingo related links to his recording of the Requiem go to this page, including the one in his navbox. If that is so, then it is also perfectly reasonable to have his navbox on this article too—and that would naturally have nothing to do with putting up navboxes for everyone who has ever performed anything from the piece (and please remember, this article is about the Requiem as a whole and not specifically Pie Jesu, so we are not talking about multiple recordings here but only what’s on the title at the top of the article—which is of course the same name as the recording with Domingo and Brightman and only that one). On the other hand, I’m not entirely against creating a new page just for the recording, since it is a fairly important one, but this is not Aida with dozens of recordings instead of a single key one, so why not deal with both the composition and its only important recording together? Would you care to weigh in on this? Rmm413 (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for explaining your dilemma. My objection was due mainly to the fact that if any single navbox should be on the article, it should obviously be Andrew Lloyd Webber's. Or a navbox of (major?) Requiems. Do you see my point? To have only Domingo's there, and in the expanded state, is confusing and fairly misleading, since he didn't compose or write the piece, and was one of an ensemble of singers. The other items in his navbox are almost exclusively solo albums and the well-known Three Tenors albums. Also, there is no navbox for Sarah Brightman on the article. My preference would be: If we could somehow get the Requiem added to the Template:Andrew Lloyd Webber, and put that on the article, that would be the best thing (might have to change the viewable title to either "Andrew Lloyd Webber compositions" or simply "Andrew Lloyd Webber", if the template people object that it's not a musical; it's obviously a major composition and needs to be in his navbox). Then the Domingo navbox would be less out of place and it could possibly be placed below that. The other option would, as you say, be creating an article on the recording/DVD. (If such an article got objected to as a fork, and got voted to be merged, then I guess we'd need to have this conversation over again.) BTW, we can move this conversation to the article's talk page if you like. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As for a navbox, I agree that performer's navboxes (which I never met so far) would overcrowd the articles of pieces. - I am surprised to see no mentioning of Domingo in the version I see, but "Other recordings", - a strange header anyway. - To add the Requiem to the navbox, the template should be the composer in general - as the title suggests already, not only musicals, compare {{Anton Bruckner}}. I could do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, please feel free to do that and add the ALW navbox to the article. I personally agree with you about performers' navboxes on musical composition articles. If Rmm413 still wants one on this article, I suggest they start a discussion on the Requiem (Lloyd Webber) Talk page as to whether we should post Domingo and Brightman navboxes onto the article. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do the navbox now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Done what I could easily. His article is a mess, but I am not too interested. I love to sing his dad's music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thank you. He has a dad? Could have fooled me. (Hey I have some bragging rights here too: I created Template:Lloyd Webber and Rice, which I think I will add to his article and Tim's.) Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

re: this

I had withdrawn the proposal 7 minutes before you commented that. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 08:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Our posts somehow crossed each other. I took a long time typing mine (finding the link and copying the text), but did not get an edit conflict notice when I finally posted it, and your post was not there when I clicked "Save page". I actually don't know how that happened, since it was in the same thread, but it's not the first time two "overlapping" posts have occurred when an edit-conflict should have occurred instead. If your post had been there before I started typing, or if I had gotten an edit-conflict notice and had had to re-post, I would likely either have worded it differently or would not have posted it. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Edited to add: You can tell that your post was not there when I clicked "Save" by looking at that diff -- diffs include text above and below any added text, and there is nothing below my post except two lines of blank space. Again, I have no idea how this happened, but sometimes ANI runs slow and posts that have been saved take a while to "register". It's a mystery. I also notice that at present the "updated since my last visit" views on the Edit history of ANI are not being properly updated either -- I've viewed the ANI page several times in the past 45 minutes, but the "Revision history" tells me that I haven't seen the last two edits even though I have. *shrug* Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Final thought: This may have something to do with that very annoying "Loss of session data" message that I and apparently everyone else has been getting lately when we are editing. I get the message even when I am making very quick edits, and I have to re-click "Save page". There are posts about this on the Village Pump.... Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of COI tag

hi SoftLavendar! just asking for a response to my query on the Brice Stratford talk page - what are the remaining issues with the article? 63399896enrique (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Grace

That looks good. If anyone ever expands this article to include a background/inception section, the info about the writers' experience can be moved there. The show is selling only about $200,000 per week, which cannot cover its running costs. I suspect it will close soon. If you feel energetic, you could check the casts' articles and see if the show has been mentioned in each of them. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachlan Foley, is he already back with this ip?

I dunno but these edits look like his. Carliertwo (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Softlavender,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hi Softlavender,

Your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you haven't claimed your account, I'm removing your name from the list of Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account holders. You are welcome to reapply if you want access in the future. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sailors

	Boats in a Storm
	Boats in a Storm, sorm storm storm Hafspajen (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Che belle ! Those certainly look apropos. From what I understand, though, the "storm" has been permanently laid to rest. So: Fair seas and following winds to you, Haffy! Love, Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! Hafspajen (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your revert at WP:RFA

Hi, I wanted to ask you to reconsider your revert of Tomstar81's MFD nomination of WP:RFA--I suspect that he, being an admin himself, knows what he is doing, and that his nomination should be given a chance. Everymorning talk 01:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also, you should really archive this page, it's very long. Everymorning talk 01:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly tell me the problems with the page...

Thousands of Wikipedia pages are stubs and are so poorly referenced that they don't actually have a right to exist.So what was the problem with the page. Why do you guys always have a problem with newbies... OKAY YOU ARE A SENIOR EDITOR AND I TOTALLY RESPECT THAT.

AND I ADDED REFERENCES TOO

AND IT WAS NOTABLE IF YOU DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE TOPIC PLEASE SEARCH FOR IT ON GOOGLE

IT'S A TYPE OF FABRICS CURRENTLY IN USE BY MNC'S AND FASHION HOUSES Themessengerofknowledge (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I will answer this on your own Talk page, where I began the discussion, in order to keep the discussion together. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

or maybe you prefer this or this?

• Hm, awful lot of good pics, why don't we use them in the article? Hafspajen (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Thanks for the lovely images, Haf! I will review and see if I want to re-do any of them. They look (and smell) lovely! Softlavender (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Aren't 1, 8 & 12 depicting the same place?  — Sub-editor — 08:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't you have something better to do? Softlavender (|talk) 08:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly! My dog is waiting to be taken for a walk. Don't worry! I am not obsessive, I assure you! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply ASAP on Performance fabrics

Please clearly justify on how you questioned the subject's notability And thanks for destroying the links I added to the page from many other pages...

And please just do a Google search on the subject 'Performance fabrics'

Themessengerofknowledge (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

About that prod...

I think my Organisms for Deletion result was very unfair. I'm pretty sure all the trilobite voters were sockpuppets ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha! LOL. Glad you took it all in good stride, though. Happy editing! -- Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Please stop reverting my edit please your wasting my time in editing Weisenstar (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Weisenstar, you have done little on Wikipedia except to add copyrighted images to articles, often claiming them as your own work. I urge you to stop doing this; if you do not, you will eventually be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

OK I want to ask why this websiete not aaccept an image from other like Google why?

Weisenstar (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The answer is, if you actually took (photographed) an image you are uploading, fine. But you have uploaded several images that have appeared on other sites and do not seem to be your own, even though you claim to have taken (photographed) them. Also, the Metadata on your uploads does not indicate that you photographed them. You have also added several obviously copyrighted images to various articles. Lastly, when you add an image to an article, you need to use correct capitalization, and avoid typing like a ten-year-old. When you add messy captions full of misspellings and non-capitalized words that other people have to correct, you make Wikipedia worse, and you make more work for other editors. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not your own personal website. Do not add copyrighted images to articles, and do not add captions unless they are correctly spelled and capitalized and in correct English. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding ANI

Hi,

Sorry to bother you. I was looking at the ANI on The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, and I am indeed suspicious. I think the only three possibilities are:

• A sock, which you brought up.
• Someone who edited as an IP and/or familiarized themself with WP policies and procedures. (This is what I did.)
• An unusually fast learner and somewhat-overzealous user.

I think these diffs may be illuminating: [10][11][12][13][14]

I'm personally not too sure, although the extreme activity brings up a real red flag. I think it's worth looking into. It may be benign, but thanks for bringing this up anyhow.

Thanks,

GAB^Hello! 15:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings!

Very pleased to bump into you chez Cote d'Azur. There was some talk, last year, I think, of our working together to get the Richard Strauss article up to GA/FA. Are you inclined to pursue that? Pray consider and let me know. Absolutely no rush. – Tim riley talk 22:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe sometime next year? I just don't feel like it this year, and in point of fact I never got around to obtaining the materials I said I would. There are a number of other materials I would like to examine as well. Strauss is particularly difficult because everyone effing disagrees about him (the "Enigma" factor, plus his longevity). And prior to only two short decades ago, everyone painted him as a collaborator. Frankly, I'd be happy to merely get the article into a "decent" or "B" shape, never mind GA. There's just so much out there on him, so much to wrap my head around. And so many years to cover -- he was 85 when he died, and composed some of his best works in his 80s.

Thanks for asking though -- I need something to read and the Kennedy book might be something I'd enjoy. Also, I need to scold you about the tag you placed on Metropolitan Opera radio broadcasts, an article I have on my "front page" (userpage), just because I was proud to create it. As you can perhaps see, I initially simply copy+pasted most of it from Metropolitan Opera, and it is that article where most of the lack of referencing occurred. Would you mind putting a tag on that article (or the corresponding sections therein) as well? Maybe then someone would bother to cite all that early years stuff. Also, the horrible problem here though is that approximately 5 or so years ago the Met gutted their website and removed everything -- everything -- from its archives and so forth. It's criminal. The point being, it's going to be hard to dig up information on those early years. The information on current stuff is simply common knowledge to anyone (like me) who listens regularly and has done so for the past several decades. Maybe posting the problem on WikiProject Opera would help matters along. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, and I shall put this on my to-do list. I have been the beneficiary in London of countless Met broadcasts relayed by the BBC on Saturday afternoons over the last four decades, complete, when I was a young man, with interval quiz elegantly chaired by the courtly Edward Downes. Tim riley talk 20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the Met article and made the necessary adjustments to tags and class. Tim riley talk 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks Tim. I'm afraid however that tag is just going to get lost in a sea of what almost appears to be tag-bombing by whomever. *sigh* I don't know what to do about all this because at present I don't feel like I have the time and prioritization to go on a wild goose chase for early Met broadcast info now that they've gutted their site. I do have Volpe's book which has a good deal of Met history, but I don't think it has much on the broadcasts. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hi softlavender i see you reverted almost all my edit without any prior i know my edit is helpful to an article please before revert edits say why you revert it ok thanks and i ask theres any place to report an admin like you you use reverting in a wrong way reverting is only on vandalism as i know ok leave me a message Weisenstar (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have left you a message, which you deleted. You are still doing those things I mentioned in that message, which is why you are still being reverted. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, stop using wikilove messages for your talk page posts which are anything but. If you do that in the future, I will delete the message. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus and Edit-warring

You are violating consensus and encouraging edit-warring. Don't do that. Doc talk 06:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Poets

My fault entirely. He's listed under Category:Male Shakespearean actors, which is deep under Category:William Shakespeare, which comes up whenever I do a search under "poets". I have to remember that and exclude the category whenever I do the search - that's all. Sorry about that. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

K, thanks Ser. That was a head-scratcher. :-) Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Required notice; I quoted one or more of your diffs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding incivility and related user behaviors. The thread is Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:DIVA. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Section closures

Remember to put the archive top after the section headers. Thanks for the help though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no actual need to that I can see, or rule that that has to be the case. I usually do, but when the post shouldn't be there in the first place, I place it over the whole thing. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lo Mein AfD

Hello, thanks for your edits on Lo Mein (book), I'm wondering if I can ask for your input, I don't know how much of the AfD your read, so I summarize.

I am the paid editor who wrote the article and I'm finding that the notability guideline, WP:NBOOK, is woefully inadequate. The author's article, Robert Eringer, is virtually untouchable due to his notoriety. My thought was to create a collection, two books, one fiction one non-fiction (Draft:Ruse (book)) for the author under WP:BKCRIT #5. Lo Mein also has two glowing reviews from two college newspapers, (the University of Washington and Notre Dame), so the book also appeared to pass WP:BKCRIT #1. With two glowing reviews, I thought that not providing other reviews would be pretty awkward for balance.

The AfD nominator is representing that (all?) college newspapers are not RS and that a WorldCat count of 11 is inadequate, other editors appear to agree. At this point, I'd like to see the guideline edited to reflect the opinion of Book Project so that other editors do not make the mistake of writing, or worse, defending article based upon the inadequate guideline.

For completeness, my latest revision of the article is here, [15] but as a paid editor, I'm not welcome to edit articles in the mainspace. Please forgive the intrusion, I contacted you because your username is not a repeat from the other AfD I've been through and your background. I realize that the project does not want these articles and I'm not here soliciting a vote on the AfD, but would appreciate your input on modifying the guidelines. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• The article appears to be a lost cause, because none of the reviews meet WP:RS standards (those college reviews do not meet RS per most editors' agreement), and the book is insufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article; it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, as several people have noted on the AfD. The best-case scenario would be expanding mention of all three of these novels on the author's wiki article. In terms of the notability guidelines themselves, you are free to ask questions on those guidelines' talk pages. Lastly, there are no guarantees on Wikipedia, and by posting on Wikipedia you are automatically agreeing to have the content edited or even deleted by other editors if Wikipedia as a community agrees that is appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response, as I've mentioned elsewhere, editing the author's article (Robert Eringer) is contentious, he's had a running feud going with Putin and Prince Albert for a few years now. I was actually hired to add balance to the bio, which was a one-sided hit piece, every edit was met with opposition. The claim to notability here is WP:NBOOK #5 as a "discriminate collection" supported in (WP:DISCRIMINATE). Eringer's non-fiction is notable in Carroll Quigley Bilderberg/secret group genres, but he writes fiction now, so a fiction article in the collection would be representative. I have dug up a few items (guidance on college newspapers etc.) and posted a closing statement in the AfD. [16] Thanks again for your input, I trust it, as you don't appear as a regular on the deletion squad. ~~ Cheers ~~ 009o9 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

your ANI closure

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_fork_issues... was a discussion you closed by stating I should look at the top of the page to find where to go. Well, the reason I didn't know where to take it is because the issues on the pages fall into several categories:

• Two pages with similar names about the same topic - content forking board
• Apparently started as POV forking, and there's an edit war three edits in on one page - dispute resolution board
• A page was moved, deleted, and apparently written over - admin needed move board
• Two distinct histories - history merge board

I see four potential boards, and if I knew where to go, I would have gone there. Now, I've contributed here for about a decade, so I generally know my way around, but I'll let the insinuation you made that I don't know what I'm doing slide. So where in particular should I go with this, if you're convinced ANI is not the place? I don't want to be bouncing around to four different boards, either, mind you. If you don't have an answer, I'd appreciate you reopening the ANI thread. MSJapan (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ANI is not for content issues or questions; it is for recurring behavioral problems that require administrative intervention. If you look at the top of the ANI page, there are several venues you could take your issue/question to, both in the "Page handling" and "Other" categories. Merges do not require administrators, but this isn't even a merge situation. The situation you describe is not a content fork issue, but a duplicate article issue (the two articles are identical). The merge should go to National Grand Lodge, as the duplicate article (Prince Hall National Grand Lodge) was created only three days ago. To effect the merger, you need to start a merge proposal at WP:MERGE, and follow those instructions to the letter. It is not anyone's place to worry about what may ensue. The edit histories do not need to be merged -- only the content, as with any merge proposal. As far as the actual name of the article, that's a separate issue, and if editors believe it is mis-titled, that is a matter for WP:RM, and a public discussion would have to be opened there, following those instruction to the letter, if someone desires that the article be re-titled. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC); edited 07:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: MSJapan, since this was a clear case of article duplication for no reason, I have redirected the duplicate title back to the original article, and alerted the admin (Anthony Bradbury) who took care of another duplication of the same article two days ago. If someone wants to re-name the article, they need to go through all of the very precise steps in WP:RM. Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! MSJapan (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Softlavender. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the mystery continues

Now this is very interesting. I wasn't aware that there was any such thing as "Wikipedia staff."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.14.115.38 Ladysif (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

IP tracks to West Chester, PA, Stern's Twitter location is in West Chester, PA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysif (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, those posts are pretty odd and self-contradictory. I'm not sure what they allege or who they purportedly contacted (there's always WP:OTRS and WMF Legal). At least the article has been tagged. Anyway, thanks for bringing all this to light in the first place .... I also left a comment on your talk page -- I do agree with the info an unrelated IP added to the Jones article. Softlavender (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• shrug* I liked the part where they turned from unintelligible English and threats to an attempt at sounding professional. Ladysif (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it really belongs in the Sweet Briar article, maybe JJ's, but whomever edited that article before did not do a very good job of it- if you read the actual "FBI letter" none of it made any logical sense and all of his claims seemed to just be using the "terrorism" buzzword in order to advance his own political campaigns. I agree with the idea that something malicious was underway with the former admin, but I don't think that someone who moved immediately to an attack on Herbalife (and had been publishing similar investigations on LinkedIn for some time, albeit the "FBI letter" about SBC and most of them have now been removed and I don't have time to pull up the archives) should be taken seriously? His allegations don't really belong anywhere else but his own page. Sweet Briar should not be affiliated with any politician, with the unfortunate exception of Mark Herring, though his assistance did lead to the prevention of the actual closure.Ladysif (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at the WP:RSs and see what should go where. In terms of Herbalife, that organization is apparently a dangerous fraud as well. I have a very sensible, serious, and circumspect (overly so) acquaintance who on Twitter posts almost nothing but environmental opinions and Herbalife-scandal updates, and if it gets him riled up, then there's definitely something to it. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh I know Herbalife is illegitimate but I don't think belligerent "anti-terrorism" letters are going to amount to much in the end. Like.. when you title your "investigations" with things like KILLER TERRORIST FRUIT I don't know how any reasonable person could take that seriously. Which is maybe why they're all down now. Who knows. Ladysif (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think my point is mostly that accusations with no immediately available proof don't fall under neutrality standards? Ladysif (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Briar College

@Softlavender: I noticed your edit.

1. Please take a look
2. misleading edit summary ??? I beg you pardon, complaints should be addressed to the reFill tool. Thank you for your time.

Lotje (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Lotje It was a misleading edit summary. reFill only does references. You had to change the image size manually on refFill's result page. Only do references with the reFill tool.

The image policy for removing px sizes is relatively new. Not all of us old farts either know about it or have a hard time doing it. I'm still correcting people who do fixed sized reference columns or list columns. It's been a couple of years since those were changed. If you are removing px size in images, best if you say why in the edit summary, atleast for several more months. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tod und Verklärung quotation

Actually, the horn does state the "transifiguration" theme as the soprano is singing (or at least the first five notes of it). Of course, a more complete statement does occur after the soprano in the violas/English horn. I have always wondered why the focus is on the complete statement after the soprano sings. I find it interesting that little is said about the horn statement of the theme in counterpoint to the soprano "ist dies etwa der Tod" as well as the premonition of the end of the theme (E-flat, D-flat, C-flat) that is heard in the violas and sung by the soprano at "Wie sind wir wandermüde." It is almost as if there are glimpses of the afterlife as the soprano passes into death before a complete statement can occur - but that is too much purple prose for Wikipedia, right? Profbounds (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sorcerer's Apprentice musical example.

I respect your desire to prevent clutter with too many musical examples. With the one remaining example, would it be better to change it to the more familiar bassoon statement of that motive or leave it as is ( the motive's first appearance in the work)?Profbounds (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Profbounds, these sorts of questions or comments belong on the respective articles' talk pages rather than on user talk pages, so that others may also view and/or participate, and the reasoning behind decisions and consensus may be seen. Thank you! Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your fan's handiwork

Is this your dog groupie's handiwork? If not, probably was the evil Hafs doing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. Wikipedia is all about blame and block so by all means blame and block one of them. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom: You may be interested

Hello, based on past interactions at Syngenta and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Grins

Hello S. Thanks for this revert. I think the IP was thinking of the sequel Brideshead with a Vengence :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Apparently. I haven't caught that flick yet. I hear the villain isn't as good as Alan Rickman though. They should probably use actual German actors for those roles. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So true S. OTOH this wonderful commercial speaks to why Hollywood goes with the Brits. I'm sure you've seen it numerous times but I like this full length version. Speaking of Rickman I recently re-watched The Barchester Chronicles. One of his early TV performances he displays many of the talents that make him such a good actor. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't obvious, I have watched the first three Die Hards -- I was just playing along witcha.... Something crappy has happened to my computer and for the past four days the audio doesn't work -- it's all chopped up and I just hear blips and blops. I don't know who to ask about this; my old computer guy has moved and I haven't felt like chasing him down with a call; and the two times I took my computer to SuperGeeks here they made things worse. Does anyone know what to do? I don't know the cause -- the only thing I had done differently is I listened to the opera Saturday via headphones rather than speakers because I had my doors open. *sigh* Anyway, thanks for that full-length clip -- I'll watch it when this gets fixed. I don't even recall hearing about The Barchester Chronicles, even back then. Rickman is an interesting fellow. I have learned a good deal more about him in my researches of Ian Charleson; they coincided at the RSC, and even then Rickman was a very creative, non-conformist type, and is more or less responsible for Ruby Wax's (another RSCer) career: he insisted she start giving comedic mini-shows back then and directed her in them (is evidently a talented director). Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't say for sure without actually seeing or hearing it, but initial suspicion is that the connection between the computer and the speakers is loose, or in the wrong port. Try pulling it out and plugging it in again, making sure you have it in the speaker jack and not the headphone (or microphone) jack. If that doesn't work then it's possible your computer never switched from headphones back to speakers, in which case you'll need to go to Control Panel --> Sound and manually switch it back. Third possibility is that there's something wrong with the sound driver, in which case you'd need to uninstall and reinstall. That'd take a bit longer to do so I can describe how if it becomes necessary. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks J. Just FYI, I plugged my (Walkman) headphones into the headphone port on the righthand speaker itself, rather than into the CPU. And the speaker cable was and is still in the "green" port on my Dell (I had re-checked that yesterday). But just now I decided to plug and unplug every possible cable connected to my speakers (waiting 20 seconds before re-connecting each), and that seems to have done the trick. I don't know if one of them was loose or what (seems like the power connection plug was wobbly on my APC UPS, as it's not perfectly level), but the sound is working now -- I hope it stays that way. I also noticed the top of that righthand speaker is very hot -- I've never noticed that before. Anyway, thanks for your help -- it sparked my taking action to test and fix it. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, to MarnetteD, thanks again for the full-length clip -- most fun. I noticed that whats-his-name (what is his name? I'm blanking) pronounced the word "Jaguar" in a manner somewhere in-between the British ("jag-yew-ar" -- ick!) and American ("jag-war") pronunciations, I guess since the promo was attempting to appeal to non-Brits ... or at least was attempting not to offend potential American buyers. LOL. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is Mark Strong. I go all the way back to Prime Suspect 3 with him. He has played several baddies over here in the last decade. He is part of a marvelous cast in Stardust (2007 film). Speaking of casts look at the lineup in Our Friends in the North. This serial is among the my all time favorites. Unfortunately it isn't available in the US. Getting the DVD set for my library was one of the things that spurred me to get a region free DVD player. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Prime Suspect 3 ! The one where Peter Capaldi plays a drag queen! I nearly pissed myself when I read the closing credits on that two years ago, and I had to go back and watch the whole thing over again! :-) I've had Our Friends in the North on my to-watch list for fucking ages, but I haven't found a free or cheap-ass way to view it. I think at this point I'm mainly remembering Strong from his two recent major 'international' forays: TTSS (which wasn't a patch on the original miniseries) and The Imitation Game. I'll keep your reccie of Stardust in mind; thanks! Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Pete's performance is amazing. I forgot to mention something - a habit with me. Regarding your Ian Charleson learning if you can find a copy of this you will get a chance to see a few clips of him onstage along with some memories of those who acted alongside him. There are also tons of other clips as well as live performances by actors old and young. It becomes a "how fast can I recognize each person" game. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I do have a copy of that, and also the companion piece which I can't remember the name of which also has mention of, and I think a clip of, Ian (might be one of those two DVDs). Since the pissy BBC iPlayer for TV isn't viewable in the U.S., at the time those two things were airing, I sent out a plea on Twitter, and a Brit who I had literally never said a word to ripped them for me for free and sent them via DropBox. Lovely to see the mini-clip of Ian and Lindsay onstage; would have been a dream to watch their Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. My favorite performance or clip of the night though was Andrew Scott in Angels in America (clip here) -- mesmerizing, and blew the whole tiresome HBO miniseries out of the water. Nice also to see Judi Dench onstage and also the talented and underrated Penelope Wilton; and everybody else! A couple of clunkers, but mostly an incredible compilation. I may go ahead and get the DVDs, now that you mention it, thanks .... Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• To any Brits listening in: [17]. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that you have seen the National Theatre at 50 special. The second disc is a documentary produced for the Arena (TV series) show. You are right about the AS in AiA clip. You are also right about Penelope. As a fan of hers I hope that you have seen the 1977 TV adaptation of The Norman Conquests where she is part of a wonderful cast. This ia another "behind the scenes" show worth seeking out - if you haven't seen it already of course. Tick-tick-tick getting close to new Who :-) MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the Arena broadcast is the other thing I got. Might be more convenient for me to have the official DVDs. Right now I keep getting messages that my DropBox is full and I've been too lazy to burn those things to discs. I actually didn't become a true Penelope Wilton "fan" till I saw her on that NT at 50 show -- so riveting onstage, and so different from her (also very good) Downton persona. I have not seen The Norman Conquests; added it to my watchlist. Theatreland looks good but I am so totally over Waiting for Godot (I mean, seen/understood it once, seen it all ...) that I'm not sure I'd be into a lot of it. BTW, lately I watched two miniseries that included identical eras and some of the same historic characters: Jennie: Lady Randolph Churchill (trying to write a wiki article on it because it was James Cellan Jones's major success) and Lillie (partly a re-watch) .... As a major contrarian I have never watched a single Dr. Who episode, and tho by dint of over-exposure to its fans I know what a Dalek and a TARDIS is, that's about the closest I'll probably ever get to the series .... I wouldn't know where to start anyway, and might end up with a dud series/episode. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have both the series you mention. It is interesting to compare and contrast the writing and the casts of the two. We sure get to learn about "Professional Beauties" :-) Lillie is an all-time fave. Francesca Annis is a long time crush for me. DYK that she first played LL in a couple episodes of Edward the Seventh? The makers of that series were so impressed with her performance that the wrote the second series to expand on Langtry's story. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Lillie is a longtime fave of mine, and in the 1980s I even read the spin-off book, which goes into a lot more detail about various things such as her relationship with Sarah Bernhardt, etc. ... Peter Egan is my favorite Wilde ever. Also, I really love the portrayals of Bertie in those two miniseries. And yes, Edward the Seventh is one of the very best historical miniseries ever -- so very well done, so informative, and so enjoyable! .... Round about the same time as I recently watched Jennie: Lady Randolph Churchill and Lillie, I watched a brief related factual series called Million Dollar American Princesses, wherein I learned about Consuelo Vanderbilt, who is now on my watch list. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC) PS: I am in love with Warren Clarke as Winston Churchill in Jennie: Lady Randolph Churchill. I kept wanting him to be onscreen all the time. And for him to have his own Churchill movie or miniseries. I loved him in that even more than in Dalziel and Pascoe, which is quite something. So sad that he passed away in November, right after his death scene in Poldark. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have the book too! Back then the "doom and gloom crowd" liked to say that TV would bring an end to reading. For me it was the exact opposite as each new Masterpiece Theater would send me to the bookstore to buy the source material. I still have most of them in a box somewhere :-) Egan was superb but, since I was lucky enough to see Vincent Price in his one man show as Oscar more than once I have to let them share the honors as the best. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 11:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again S. If you saw Prime Suspect I hope that you also watched Robbie Coltrane in Cracker (UK TV series) back in the 90s. If you did I think you will get a kick out of this. even if you didn't you might get a grin or two. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, that's great. Yes, Robbie Coltrane is one of my favorite actors ever (by dint of that show), and Cracker likewise one of my favorite mystery series; I was most disappointed when it stopped airing .... Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Template that might be of use

Hi again. I saw your note on Montanabw's talk page. If you can find a place for this template

User:X!/RfX Report

I think it will help you when more than one AFD is going on at the same time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Superstar

I've unwatched the article again, but if you need my help again in the future, let me know. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks Ssilvers for your help on it! I'd probably do some further tweaking of it myself, but I haven't listened to it in 30-odd years, so in order to go further with it I'd have to do substantial research, mostly via those somewhat costly books. Thanks again, and for the heads-up. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that with a modest amount of Google research you could supply some of the missing links which is, I think, the most urgent thing that the article needs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could add to my statement above that my current level of interest in the subject is rather low. :-) It's an oldish and rather passé musical, and an article I simply wanted to remove problem stuff from. In terms of supplying the missing material, I lack interest and prioritization at this precise moment. :-) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Of note

I don't think he has ever edited that article before, as far as I can tell. But it is my top edited article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BRD

I believe you are misapplying BRD in your latest reversions to the applicable article. Specifically The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D" - reverting during the course of the discussion is very much *not* part of BRD and is, in fact, contrary to the guideline. If you're going to use that as your reason for reverting, you've missed the point. Risker (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted because in all of his blatant and persistent edit-warring 7 removals against consensus, despite repeated reminders of policy (BRD and CONSENSUS), IDHT continued to replace the FA status quo ante with his desired version without the least bit of discussion on his part. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no exception in BRD for FAs or any kind of "status quo ante". In fact, quite the opposite. The entire point of BRD is to discuss after the first reversion, and specifically NOT to return to the status quo ante. I don't know what principles you're using (edit warring on FAs is also unacceptable, especially for matters that do not affect the content of the article), but they're not BRD. Risker (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BRD says Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante).. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Finish the quote...."but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." That's what you were doing. You were edit warring (you aren't alone in that). BRD does not condone this. Risker (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have also seen WP:BURDEN applied. But SL, don't go over 3RR - not over this. I've been amazed at your kindness and support throughout this, and I am grateful but don't get yourself in trouble on my account. (Risker, you ned to know that my RfA is pending, and at the moment, getting a lot of !oppose.) Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that, Montanabw; I've pretty much walked away from RFA because of the WP:OWN behaviour of some people who participate there. Risker (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

But the point is that I'd like to see the accessibility policy in question here, I'm open to changes, but where they are claiming there is a box with a gray background and I don't see a gray background (only a gray line around the box), that's an accessibility problem I can see with my own eyes. The edit warring is an issue, but not one I can effectively address right now. We both strongly suspect he's baiting me by editing now at the article I have the #1 most edits on to see if he can trigger my alleged "ownership" issues and "battleground mentality." Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several recommended colour testing processes for accessibility in the guideline; give them a try. The colours you are using would definitely fail; they're practically hallmarks of bad web design (okay, not as bad as fire engine red, but still far too dark and saturated). Pale colours are usually recommended on white pages. Risker (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think color and accessibility discussions should all be on the article talk page (where anyone can view them); perhaps they can be copied there, and if need be create a separate sub-section on these matters. My own view is that if policy does not specifically exclude or deprecate them, I pretty much genuinely liked these colors as they are; at the same time, we could test slightly paler versions if desired .... I think a side-by-side view, or posting color options on the talk page, might also be useful. Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with that, post compliant lavender and green shades there an we can talk! As we now know, my monitor isn't real color-sophisticated, so what looks "normal" to me might well be "neon" to someone else! Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong.

Prove that it isn't. This too can also go a different route. The Only Material uploaded on that page has been the same tracks. Ive subscribed to the page since about 2012 or 2013. Your "week" old theory holds no water.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho's transgender sister Juliet

Her brother transitioned to a female and changed her name from Jacob to Juliet. The Condran ref (footnote 8) notes that Jackie has an older sister now. Here is Juliet's Twitter account (note Jackie in the rear in the photo): https://twitter.com/j_evancho_ Jackie even made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmmSYvShuCc All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ssilvers, I totally read the sequence of revisions wrong, and recently reverted to the wrong version. I was trying to uphold whatever you had added, knowing you have been carefully curating that article for quite some time, but I got it wrong . In order to avoid reader confusion, I believe it would be best to state that her brother Jacob transitioned to Julie, or to list her sister as "Julie (formerly Jacob)". After all, Jacob sang on Songs from the Silver Screen (and is credited as such on the album and mentioned several times in that article), so we can't just obliterate the name Jacob from Jackie's article. And that other editor is correct -- there needs to be a citation about the transition and new name. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's discss on Jackie's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing/Edit Warring on Phil Driscoll

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Don't template the regulars, Red, see WP:DTR. Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Phil Driscoll

After two weeks of full protection there was no productive discussion of the issues on the article talk page. I let the protection expire to see what happened. The edit warring started back up. I have been asked to fully protect the page again. I do not want to protect the article from all editing so I have decided to try a different tactic. First I am going to restore the article to the version that I had protected, I know, it is the wrong version. Now, you are warned that if you edit anything in the article concerning the tax evasion conviction without first getting a consensus on the talk page, I will block you. I recommend trying some form of Dispute resolution. If you question my actions you can discuss them at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- GB fan 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

My sincerest apologies for being melodramatic in response to your balanced appraisal at the ANI opened into my behaviour. I was allowing my ego to override what should, by now, be my dictum as an experienced editor.

P.S. If you're not a cat person, feel free to lob a whale in my direction!

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Iryna Harpy; the IP was a douche and Drmies made a good call. I think it's often in the nature of WP to be dramatic, especially when called up on dubious charges on ANI lol. PS: Unlike some Wikipedians, I am not allergic to cats and love kittens, thanks! Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Being Harpy by nature, I do feel compelled to call in a Greek chorus to make moralising noises in the background from time to time. Give the kitten a tickle from me. What a little bundle of cuteness... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't revert my edits

You will be blocked. Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:Notnow did not apply for my RFA. Thank you. Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI discount books and DVDs

Hello S. I hope that you are well. Based on out past talks about Brit programs I wanted to make you aware (unless you already are of course) of Daedalus Books They are a discount seller of books, CDs and DVDs. I have been able to add several UK series from the 70s onward to my collection at remarkably reasonable prices. Of course they don't have everything but different old programs become available all the time. The books and CDs on offer are a great prices as well. At this time of year they also have fun little knickknacks and calendars and I am able to get stocking stuffers and other gifts in a one-stop-shopping place. If you are interested it is worth getting on their mailing list. If not no worries. Have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Marnette! I looked at the DVD prices, and they are very cheap! I bookmarked the site, and I'll look into the finer details a bit later. BTW, since we're trading information, my one-stop shop for books (both the best prices for any book whether in print or not, and the most exhaustive inventory even of extremely hard-to-find OOP books), is Bookfinder.com. It's a clearinghouse of all booksellers, so it's the only place I need to look. If you forget, it's on my userpage, under the painting. It has saved me hundreds of dollars, and also hundreds of hours of fruitless searching. The prices include shipping to your location, so it's easy to figure out the best deal. (PS: Since booksellers often input data variably, the least amount of relevant info input into the search field, the better -- i.e., omit initial "The" or "A" and subtitle; if adding author only use last name, etc.) Thanks again! Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A big thanks to you for the link. Looks great. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Caitlyn Jenner family of articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Hopefully by now this is water under the bridge but if you have questions, please contact me directly on my Talk page:

Checkingfax (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender for arbcom?

Wise words on Figaro! For background, read the Wagner discussions (May 2013, "I am certain that an infobox would damage the article"), or - if that seems too long - Joseph (opera) where an arb repeated what you phased much more elegantly. Softlavender for arbcom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Gerda, you are too kind. Not the first time you have praised my Solomon-like wisdom. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am selfish and want people for arbcom who can say something simply. Miss Floq who could. Makes me think I should not ask candidates 3 questions but: how can you say something simply? - Had you heard before that an infobox damages an article? We came a long way from that statement to a mere "otious" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I miss Floq too and hope he comes back soon. (I miss Malik Shabazz as well, but am less sanguine about the likelihood of his return, at least anytime soon; and by the way, he also had an excellent, succinct, and always fair way with words.) It's been a weird year for excellent admins. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My sad list is long, I was only referring to arbitrator. How would you have answered my 3 questions? Missing Dreadstar dreadfully, Laurence Olivier talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes on the first two; the third would of course depend on the context and the merits and the facts. But I'm not running for ArbCom; I don't even want to be an admin (not that that is a necessary prerequisite). Just being a civilian on WP is distracting enough without other stuff on top. (BTW, I think Malik would have made a good Arb.) Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes to a question of what you see in a diff? (An arb saw a reason to ban in it, DYK?) - Sad but acceptable that the people who would be good are not running or even left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I answered the three questions I saw at the top. If you want me to answer the three questons at the bottom, it may have to wait; I'm in the middle of a couple of things .... Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions at the bottom: (1) A strange collapsible "Metadata" template/navbox at the bottom right of the ELs, which was a hidden infobox in disguise, was moved to its correct placement as an infobox at the top. (2) If that was the only reasoning, I'd say that was absurd, because it was a definite improvement to the article. (3) Again, if that were the only reasoning, banning would be absurd and I would !vote against it. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Be very careful! By these answers you show solidarity with someone whose disruptive editing was considered so obvious that no (other) evidence seemed to be needed, which makes you (again without further evidence) a person who needs "to better conduct themselves", like me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you or whomever should edit that infobox template so the parameter field looks like the film infobox. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All requests to change it should go to the template TALK (linked twice from Figaro). Keep in mind though that it was a compromise reached in tough discussions, - study archives of project opera, where you will find what will happen if I mention granularity one more time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you mean this repetitive "by" after every parameter, I won't go for it. Example |chorale= in {{infobox musical composition}}: sometimes the exact hymn (perhaps even with a link) is known enough to be shown, sometimes we would rather only say "by hymnwriter", especially since most often Bach didn't pick the first stanza of a hymn. Example pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about, and no interest in finding out. Not going to discuss unrelated infoboxes or fields. I'm talking about the "Based on" fields both in the film infobox template, and also the one currently in the opera infobox. I'm not interested in discussing any other fields or infobox templates. Softlavender (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that enlightenment: {{Based on}}, will use that! Had no idea it exists! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)