User talk:Softlavender

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 5 as User talk:Softlavender/Archive 4 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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)

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)

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)

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 [1], [2], [3]? 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [4][5][6][7][8]

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)

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, [9] 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. [10] 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: [11]. 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)Template:Z33

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)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Exceeding 1RR on Caitlyn Jenner

Softlavender, as you well know the Caitlyn Jenner page falls under Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions. You have reverted two edits in the past hour. A few weeks ago you reverted five edits within 24-hours.

As for her image, you could have just moved it back up instead of spending one of your allotted reversions by reverting my edit.

The 1RR rule applies in aggregate so once one makes a reversion one cannot make a reversion on any other DS article for 24-hours. Ping me back. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"As for her image, you could have just moved it back up instead of spending one of your allotted reversions by reverting my edit." No idea what you mean by that. You duplicated the image in the infobox in the body text, making it appear twice in the same article. Perhaps you did that accidentally, without realizing that the image was still in the infobox. I simply removed the erroneous duplication -- as you know, images cannot appear twice in the same article. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else should have made a decision about which image to delete, since you had no more deletion quotas left under 1RR. Look at the timeline. We posted at nearly the same time. Since the image had been deleted from the infobox I moved it to the body which was a reasonable thing to do.

And, a couple of weeks ago, you made made five reversions in less than 24-hours when you're only allotted one if that. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Formal notification of Adminstrative Appeal re: Ruritanian romance edits.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding false accusation of edit-warring. The thread is Ursula LeGuin.The discussion is about the topic Ruritanian romance. Thank you.

When I'm wrong I admit it and...

.......offer an apology for not getting it but yes...this does indeed require a formal RFC (Caitlyn Jenner image debate). Specifically, it needs discussion to see if other agree or disagree that Non free content criteria can be met with the specific disclaimer of NFCUUI (see talk page), but this will likely have ramifications on a few rare articles, such as Chelsea Manning.

I am going to seek some advice from another editor I think we are both aware of, who has taken part in discussing these types of issues and the best way to frame an RFC. Let us look at my last thread on the talk page as a straw poll to see what input is given on the subject, in preparation for a formal RFC. I will be sure to ping you when I begin the discussion on how to frame the Request for Comment. Thanks and, again, sorry for not getting your point sooner.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that such a discussion (re: using a recent magazine cover as the image in a BLP infobox) is more the purview of Copyright policies and Image Use policies and legal requirements than it is a discussion (even an RfC) for an article talk page. And since such use would not meet the "non-replaceable" qualification, it would automatically fail. If you like, I can try to contact Jenner's management via IMDB Pro (I have a current membership), and see if someone there will release a photo. Or I could try one of her family members. I don't really know who she is close to or not (I have never watched KUWTK or I Am Cait [and I haven't had a TV for 5 years], although I did watch the Diane Sawyer interview and the award acceptance speech). It really doesn't have to be a professional photo; it can be an iPhone grab. I really would rather put energy into finding another photo than trying to subvert well-known legal policies and then being shot down later. BTW, I have noticed you've been adding to that Talk page discussion but I have been too busy to look plus sometimes I get tired of the endlessness of that talk page. :). Anyway, there's my thoughts for the moment. I can try to contact or figure out some image-copyright mavens on wiki if you like, or where such a discussion/RfC should take place, if you still want to try for the magazine cover, but frankly I don't think it's going to fly .... Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I read all the way through, I saw this and wanted to comment; "using a recent magazine cover as the image in a BLP infobox" is outright covered under what is acceptable in the infobox. I am very familiar with image use policy but that is not the point. There is not issue with using the vanity fair image in the infobox except whether it passes the specific criteria for a living person. It is a necessary part of the discussion. Whether either of us agree that it should be used (don't really care what the consensus determines, just that it be determined by our actual non free content policy) or it just be left blank, but this is not a copyright issue. Vanity fairs logo is not a concern. The fact that it is a magazine cover is not a concern. There are no legal requirements to meet in this issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

" And since such use would not meet the "non-replaceable" qualification, it would automatically fail" No. Nothing on Wikipedia "automatically fails" but outright vandalism. Non free content is reviewed and discussed. However when this is brought up, I will also be pinging Masem, who is perhaps the most active editor at Non Free Content review.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contacting the management of the subject, in other words...contacting the subject..over this dispute is not advisable. It is the photographer that has to release the image not the subject. That can be done by going to flicker and requesting the release of an image. I also would strongly urge you not to involve Jenner's family. Please do not believe I am trying to "subvert well-known legal policies". I kind of find that offensive. Sorry, not trying to be a dick, but I am familiar with the legal precedent called "Fair use" and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as well as the foundations beliefs and support of using non free content within reason. I respect copyright and understand our non free criteria and add input regularly on discussion of image use, non free content and copyright issues. I could go either direction as far as supporting no image or the Vanity fair image, but the discussion needs to move forward and I wish to do so on the same page as you in one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've answered the infobox image-use questions on the article Talk thread. Yes, of course the photographer has to release the photo, but agent/management is how to get a photo (and contact the photographer) in the first place. There are no usable images on Flickr, just a some images illegally uploaded by fans and a couple of non-usable (non-modifiable) ABC images from the award-acceptance speech. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know your level of understanding of this subject and you don't know mine, however...regardless of that...there really is a manner in which this must be done. I am concerned that you would try to contact the subject over this, believing that the subjects personality rights trump that of the photographer. If you believe that an agent or manager is how to get a release, I will support your effort and be happy if you are successful. Unfortunately, my experience in the entertainment industry, as well as my interest in photography, copyright and fair use tell me it is not the best course....considering that asking for a simple change in Creative Commons license from several images is all that is required.

I don't dislike you. While we have recently butted heads over the Caitlyn Jenner Article, I know you to be part of the overall consensus that we have all agreed on. I ask only one thing. Don't let your reaction to me or my opinion control what you support or oppose. Let it all sink in first and then let us discuss the issues, because frankly, I don't know where you are coming from, any more than you understand where I am coming from. A true test of neutrality is how we both accept the facts as referenced and how we move forward on the content dispute itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Grandfather of Beethoven

Dear Softlavender,
You have renamed Ludwig van Beethoven's grandfather from Lodewijk to Ludwig. You may have had a good reason for this, I nevertheless find it unlikely that someone born in Mechelen in 1712 would have been christened Ludwig - in the Church archive in Mechelen you will probably find Ludovicus, and in regular text Lodewijck. The German Wikipedia, in this case, does what it uses to do with all those Lodewijk, Ludovic, Louis... Also Louis XIV is called Ludwig in the German Wikipedia. Are you sure of your modification? Kind regards Riyadi (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Riyadi, you appear to be confusing me with someone else. I made no such edit. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, the edit was indeed made by someone else, just before yours. Riyadi (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI_2

Re: [12]

The article talk page is locked to editors with fewer than 500 edits. I cannot "engage with the editor".--Sanstalk (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

See my post on your talk page. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Might this editor be a sock who was previously involved in editing in this sticky subject area? It definitely seems that way, when their first edit is to ANI to complain about another editor. GAB^Hello! 15:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect storm

Hi Softlavender - thank you for your intervention on the matter of British monarchists qv. Noticeboard, which somehow had quickly developed into an argument with allegations of POV etc, the main perpetrators being quite familiar and who seemingly spend much time quashing neutral POVs and being particularly vocal should there be the slightest connection with Jeremy Corbyn.
Upon reflection and with regards to the point you raise, I am not sure that this category is a good one for Wiki to maintain: most British monarchists are not overtly political so unless there is a hidden agenda it seems to me, especially in view of the recent hostility, that it should be determined what constitutes a British monarchist before proceeding further on what has been made to be a contentious matter. Please advise - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've said all I needed to say on the Noticeboard thread. Please don't post further here on my talk page, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But what is the answer to who constitutes a British monarchist, since it is not a term used whereas, just by way of example, anti-monarchist or republican is used in the UK? Please advise before shutting down the conversation - many thanks for your thoughts on this matter. M Mabelina (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Required notifications

It looks like you forgot to notify the editors who you brought up at COIN. There's a template at the top of the noticeboard for this. Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ducky

You say there are more than "one of MarkBernstein's antagonists, blocked/banned or otherwise"? Like who? I'll do the SPI if you folks don't want to. Doc talk 10:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Ask Mark. I didn't say or imply that he even has any, because I have no way of knowing, but if he does, that would be the logical place to look. Softlavender (talk)

Why isn't he banned yet? It's interesting how someone are untouchable because they have a very leftist/progressive viewpoint. I guess that just reflects the majority of powerusers, bureaucrats and admins. Jørgen88 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Conspiracy

Maybe you should see Conspiracy before you accuse me or others of being a sock. Just because foaming at the mouth progressives tried to protect criticism against Kotsko months back and blocked me without any proof, doesn't mean that I am a sock going after Bernstein (as if I'd waste my time on someone like that). If you have any serious accusations, you're free to take them up the proper way. Also, back when I started to edit the Norwegian Wikipedia years ago, I had a completely different username than the one I made on the English Wikipedia, which means you can't compare my two profiles. Jørgen88 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)