User talk:Softlavender/Archive 2

Apparent loss of data by WebCite

I didn't realize that Eysen hasn't been active on Wikipedia. I did send him an e-mail using the e-mail address stated at http://www.webcitation.org/faq but have not received any response. I think I had better leave a message at "Wikipedia talk:Citing sources" to warn other editors that WebCite is experiencing problems and that they should be cautious about using the service until the issues have been ironed out. Do you think messages should be left anywhere else? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Moorer

Thanks for cleaning up my sloppy errors! Well done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the star. I was pleased to rescue this article. Nice job polishing it up! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Check out Webster's Dictionary at [1] which shows off-off-Broadway as the main spelling. And so does this website about off-off-Broadway shows [2]. 172.162.149.169 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Please stop making bad edits to good writing. 172.137.109.124 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look at Picnic, The Glass Menagerie, Love! Valour! Compassion!, Lost in Yonkers, Six Degrees of Separation, etc, etc, etc. None of these articles or most articles about plays mention the film version in the first paragraph. 172.137.109.124 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I have responded to your allegations at User talk:LiteraryMaven in order to keep the entire discussion in one place. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Monodrama category

I would suggest that both categories are appropriate for Wikipedia, since they describe different but over-lapping things. I was considering a note to the other editor to suggest that we should only populate the Monodrama category with an article if there is a reliable source that describes the play in question as a monodrama. I seem to remember, for example, reading a piece that described Krapp as such. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the point that you're trying to make. By "Plays for one performer" I believe we understand that the play demands only one performer, not that only one performer has ever performed it. The sense is taken from reference works that list plays categorised according to the number of performers they require, I assume. Is that what you meant? DionysosProteus (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn

I reverted your category edit - as the article makes clear, Felix was not brought up as a Jew - he was thus never converted. His father was a convert. --Smerus (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I take your point fully - if only! I should not care to list all the arguments, er, that is, discussions I have had on WP about Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity - but as I suffer from both myself, I guess it is a cross one has to bear (if that is allowed). --Smerus (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Films based on short stories

You are adding Category:Films based on short stories to articles that already have Category:Films based on short fiction in them, which is redundant. The Wikipedia article for Short story says it refers to "a work of fiction that is usually written in prose, usually in narrative format." Please go to the discussion at [3] to explain why you're doing this. Thank you. LargoLarry (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahler

I think your edit on Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen is correct but can you supply a source as a ref? NBeale (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Music Barnstar

		The Music Barnstar
		For contributions to articles pertaining to music and the arts, I award Softlavender the "Music Barnstar" --Jh12 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikicleaner

Actually, Wikicleaner is not a bot. It's an editing tool. All mistakes made are mine, not WikiCleaner. User:NicoV/Wikipedia_Cleaner/Documentation is the explanation as to what it is. I am definitely not smart enough to write up a bot. :) Wikicleaner essentially gives you a list of pages along with the possible correct articles that the links should go to. You then double click on the article name and paste in the link you want to use and then click on Save. Nothing is automated. In this case, I was actually disamming for another term when I saw the A&E link. I had thought the link was A&E (network) but I was incorrect. Thanks for catching the mistake. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well this tool in particular makes disamming very easy. And if you look at my edits, I try to do "clear cut" types of disamming, like American or Hungarian or pop where generally the right links are a choice of 2 or 3. I get lost on pages like Captain. :) So if it's an easy one, you can plow through them very very quickly with tools like Wikipedia Cleaner. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Basically comes from the fact that a page should never link to a disambiguation page (such as America). Disam pages are for search purposes only. Disamming just means changing the links from the disam page to where they should go. So most links to America should go to either Americas or United States. This page has the pages I disam the most. As you can see, many are language/nationality pages. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to demonstrate how big of a problem this is, I regularly have to fix 10-15 links to American just about every day. English and French are also particularly problematic. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It changed back it looks like. I had it fixed. Hmmmmm. Btw, you just said diasamming yourself. :) It's hard when it's not exactly a common English word. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There. :) Sorry about that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The movement of Scottish_Highlander and its discussion page

After the movement of Scottish_Highlander, the discussion part of Scottish_Highlander is also connected to Scottish_Highlander_(barge). I assume this should not have happened?? If so, do you know how to fix it, or should I take this to a help site? The symptom is that if you go to Scottish_Highlander and click the discussion tab, you see Scottish_Highlander_(barge). If you now click the article tab, you go to Scottish_Highlander_(barge). So, you don't end up where you started. I tried deleting the text in the one connected to Scottish_Highlander, but, of course, that deletes them both. My objective is to save the discussion text connected to Scottish_Highlander_(barge) and to have it connected only to (barge). So, any ideas.... GloverEpp (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Difference of opinion on La Belle Epoque

I see that we have a difference of opinion on the redirect of La Belle Epoque to Belle Époque. By placing the redirect to this site, a user will not have the opportunity to find the La Belle Epoque (barge). I think the redirect should go to the disambiguation page, Belle Epoque. How do we work out this difference? I'll return here for discussion. thanks GloverEpp (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Softlavender: I have copied the above paragraph and the one you left on my talk page to Talk:La_Belle_Epoque. I also opened this question on the help page. I'm done. best to you and yours.... GloverEpp (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "Barge" on my talk page"

Thank you for your advise regarding my pages, I will add (barge) to the titles of future pages I create. Thank you also for your time and efforts in moving pages and fixing links and teaching me regarding the positioning of the La Belle Époque page. I did get confused when the page kept taking me to a redirect. As for advertising, my aim is not advertising but rather to document the history and current state of the barges. It could otherwise be argued that any pages on things with commercial value are advertising. I have tried to keep the pages purely informative though it is difficult to find information not relating to there current purpose as any web or book searches do generally lead to advertising. The pages are all written in the same style and, as the first page was put up months ago, this style has been looked at and approved and adjusted by many editors. If you do have specific suggestions regarding wording on any of the three pages please let me know. I do not understand the problem with being a single-purpose account. The user who introduced me to Wikipedia and taught me how to use it has pages almost solely on the canal du midi. It is only natural that users will have a specific area of interest and expertise and I am surprised that being single-purpose is not more common place. I was not sure where to put this reply so I have put it on both mine and your talk pages.Oliver Barge (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested third opinion on Talk:La Belle Epoque

I requested a third opinion on Talk:La Belle Epoque found [here]. GloverEpp (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've opened a thread on the talk page to discuss the redirect. Could you give your thoughts on Talk:La Belle Epoque#Redirect discussion? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

List_of_British_actors_and_actresses

please have a look at the sorted list, if you like "firstname lastname" or "lastname, firstname" better. (--62.206.18.218 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up my Johnny Rozsa article, well done. Pumkinhead001 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography

• Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography

Per WP:LEAD, the lede of the article should be able to be a standalone summary of the entire article's content. Perhaps you could offer a suggestion of alternate wording as to how to summarize the Reception material, and add it back to the lede? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that dead links does not necessarily affect WP:V. Especially with Internet Archive, not to mention being able to look up the articles in archived news databases. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (ballet) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

• Discussion
• Poll

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" a site?

Dear Softlavender; I appreciate your trying to "clean up" the Riverside Shakespeare Company site, but I see you've deleted a number of photos, including a rare full stage photo of Tom Hanks in my possession (which I took) that documents his only professional stagework in New York, as well as quotations that document the history of the company in which he and others worked. The site had won an award from Wikipedia, and I was invited to the Wiki Conference in Alexanderia because of the careful documentation I had given to this and several dozen other Wikipedia sites that I developed. I've been a champion of Wikipedia to a number of people in academia who disdain the free access that people have. And I've been a careful guardian of several hundred sites. But I fail to see how your aggressive deletion of photos of such value and quotes that are properly referenced are of any value to anyone. I've grown weary of defending Wiki sites to such deletions. It's easy to tear down; but creating valuable sites and adding documentation takes hundreds of hours work. Go ahead and delete the entire site while you're at it. I've grown too weary to continue to contribute and work for Wikipedia. Cheers. Weimar03 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

About deletion of material

I'd also like to point out to Softlavender that, aside from your one critique of the Riverside Shakes site, there was only one other complaint about the read-ability of the site due to the photos. The amount of positive feedback to the site has been overwhelming, not including the above mentioned award. I say this because while I understand the usual disinclination by Widipedia to have many photos on a site, the presumption here is that such photos are available through other media. Many sites, such as those for universities, etc., use photos as information, as was the intention with the Riverside site. Those photos are unique and do not exist elsewhere. They are also extremely informative and not arbitrary; nor do they promote a product (as say, a site for a university might), for the theatre company in question no longer exists. They have been used as research by Shakespeare company dramaturges and researchers numerous times. They have been referenced in studies of "outdoor performances" and "commedia dell 'arte." I also had contact made to me by a biographers of Tom Hanks, Frank Mueller, Anna Deavere Smith specifically because of the rare photos included in the site. I'm not going to fight you on this, because Wikipedia is open to editors, like yourself. But the insertion of those unique photos, criticized by one person in 2008 and yourself recently, is by no means indicative of substantial criticism of the site. Weimar03 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Specials (short films) on List of Christmas films

Sorry about deleting some Christmas specials from List of Christmas films‎ after you added them back in and explained why. I missed that and thought they were ones I failed to delete earlier... Shadzane (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian Charleson

I see you've been doing some dedicated work on the Ian Charleson site and thanks for doing this. I'm sure it's a labour of love. However: It seems a shame you give the information about the Ian Charleson awards in the intro and then include exactly the same information lower down. (cut it from the intro?) And the 'prestigious' Royal High School? It was just a boys' school in Edinburgh. (I know, I went there). Also when you say (lower down) twenty people 'published' a book, this makes me think: either they stumped up the money for it, or it was their idea. Neither of these are true (I know, I wrote the introduction to it) It was published by Constable. They contributed to it? Anyway, it's your baby Ewen B Maclachlan

Thank you

Thank you for reverting that last edit to the Levett page. I've been taking a bit of a wikibreak for the past 10 days or so and just noticed that. Have a lovely holiday season. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat narrator

As per this I'm trying to figure out what we are defining as an "original production" because I've seen productions that were not Broadway that have had female narrators. We I think it could go either way. In the header we have the line "according to the Really Useful Group, more than 20,000 schools and amateur theatre groups have successfully put on productions." Are these considered original productions? Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 17:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves, Oxfordian??

Hi. You recently added category "Oxfordians" to Keanu Reeves. I didn't see any evidence to support that, and I rv'ed it from the article.
Now that I see your user page and edit history, I'm inclined to believe that you had some good reason to include this category, but could I ask you to please add a note to Talk:Keanu Reeves, or cited info to the article, clarifying to the rest of us just what that reason is? :-)
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. I see that I didn't even know the meaning of this term! (Though I guess that a request for documentation would not have been out of order regardless...)
Cheers! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass Deletions

A new editor is deleting mass amounts of material from the Authorship page. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. ----

• User: Smatprt is disrespectfully misrepresenting my attempt to keep the Shakespeare authorship article balanced. It has too many Oxfordian citations and far from being disruptive I have suggested neutral citations. I get the feeling that he believes that he is the only one who is allowed to edit this article. I notice that because he is on the edge of the 3R rule he is trying to use someone else to revert it. WellStanley (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read my response on the Shakespeare authorship question talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Softlavender,

Thanks for weighing in on the BC question. Do you have any other suggestions about how to proceed. I will walk away in a minute if someone provides me with a credible answer to the questions I and others have raised about the proposed deletion. But so far all I see is more throwing about of the brains and party line voting, without much real consideration for the protocols as they exist, even without official sanction. What do you think?--BenJonson (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thiele

Hi. I see the article has already been deleted. Frankly, I think the article was premature. I would wait on actor bios until the actor is more established and has lots of reviews in major media publications about starring roles in major productions. My rule for US stage actors is usually not to write them up unless they have a Tony, Emmy or Oscar, or else a rather long and distinguished resume. The fact that an actor has appeared in a major role in a professional production does not make them notable IMO, since there are tens or hundreds of thousands of professional actors. They need to do something to particularly distinguish their careers. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. I'm sorry that you are unhappy that I commented on the AfD, but I think that clearly the article is non-notable, as well as insufficiently referenced. Why do you care about Sebastian Reid? I tried to state, as neutrally as I could, what the problem is. It is disappointing to me that you do not recognize that the article is inadequately referenced with only a cite to the person's personal CV and an IMDB reference to a movie that is not even scheduled for release this year. The actor's stage work appears to be all amateur or student productions. Heck, I've got a better acting resume than this guy. I really think the article is wildly premature. Even if he does appear in one art-house movie, I don't believe that he would be a good subject for an encyclopedia. If you can't find WP:RSs on google with reviews of an actor's work in major media, then he or she is not encyclopedic. There is no way to write a good article about an actor whose work has not been widely reviewed. See WP:ENT. In any case, you can and should just de-redlink non-notable names. See WP:REDLINK. Feel free to delete this message, but I'd rather not discuss by e-mail. Again, sorry, and best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just some friendly advice: I think you would strengthen your case for retaining this article by not emphasizing the film Anonymous. Your insistence that a forthcoming film role makes someone notable is, I think, a losing argument. Don't worry, I will not comment at the AfD. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

inr your reversions here

While you were welcome to correct any errors I made, the fomat you returned it to is not quite per WP:MOS. For instance, the uncited list in the "training" section is far better if it is set as a paragraph of text in a "background" section. I have always found that setting an artcle into proper sections, even if short, acts to encourage others in expanding those sections, and when working with a long stub or short start class, those short sections, or even an empty section set in anticipation of expansion, are usually for the best. However, and even though I am fairly competent in improving articles in the face of deletion,[4] I will be making no further efforts to bring Antje Thiele into line with style guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help on the Soxred tools

{{help}}

Looks like since the redesign of Wikipedia, one cannot instantly access (from the bottom of a page of a User's contributions) things like the top mainspace articles edited by a given user. There's wording that "User has not opted in." Why has this been changed, and what does the "opt in" thing mean, and is this going to ever be reverted to how it was? It was such a useful tool to have at one's fingertips. I didn't know where to post this question so I'm posting it here. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You can report a bug here. In the meantime I'd just switch back to the old skin. N419BH 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You should probably ask SoxRed himself, now known as User:X!. Basically though, the concept behind this is not new; it is a toolserver policy that information like this cannot be gathered without a user's consent, intended to protect users' privacy. The editcounter has just (relatively) recently been configured to comply with this policy. You can also use the unaffiliated WikiChecker, which is not limited by this policy. Intelligentsium 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

Following considerable discussions,[5] [6] [7] and concerns over privacy of data not easily available without use of the toolserver, the edit counter will now only show basic information unless the user has 'opted in', which you can do for yourself by creating the page User:Softlavender/EditCounterOptIn.js - it does not matter what you put in that page, as long as it exists.

The edit counter will therefore show detailed analysis for people who have "opted in" by making a page - such as myself - but not for others.

It is not related to the redesigned skin.

I hope that this answers your question; if you have further queries, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use another {{helpme}} here, OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello. Chzz  ►  01:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Chzz et al.! Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Argumentum ad populum makes for a lousy reason to decide one way or the other in a content dispute. If many articles are wrong, changing another to match the wrongness isn't exactly a good thing. Now, that's if many articles are wrong. I'm always open to the possibility that I'm off base, and have started a discussion at WT:CYC to figure that out. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems printing out Wikipedia pages

{{help}}

I'm not able to print out more than one page of any given Wikipedia article. This has never happened before these last few days, and I'm not experiencing this problem on any other site. Can someone check this out, and advise? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My first impulse is to have you check the printer defaults - is it set to print all pages, or just "Current page" or a specific page number? Does it just print the first (or last) page, or something in the middle? If you have the "Download as PDF" option next to the "Printable version" link on the left, you might consider doing that - get a PDF of the page, then print it directly. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The above seems good advice, plus the obvious - have you tried turning off and back on?

I will cancel this 'helpme' for now; if you are still having trouble after trying the above, please use another helpme, but please give more information - what operating system are you using, what browser and version, and what, exactly are you doing, ie which page, and how are you going about trying to print it, etc. Good luck,  Chzz  ►  16:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

{{help}}

I'm not able to print out more than one page of any given Wikipedia article. This has never happened previous to these last few days, and I'm not experiencing this problem on any other site -- my printer prints all multiple pages of all other sites I print from. Printer defaults are fine; I've tried turning the printer on and off and "rebooting" the printer, etc. This is problem with printing out multiple Wikipedia pages has persisted for several days. Could someone verify that they can print out a multiple-page Wikipedia article today? Windows XP; IE8. I'm attempting to print in all the possible ways to print, and I still only get one page on any Wikipedia article. I wish to have this resolved, not use a PDF version, Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say 'one page', do you literally mean just a single sheet of paper? Do you get any error message, or anything like that? What type of printer is it? And, if you do click 'download as PDF' on the left, then open and print that, what happens? Sorry to ask so many questions, but it does help narrow it down. I do not know of any known issues, currently; I am also asking around about it.  Chzz  ►  00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

One more; can you log out of Wikipedia, and try to print it?  Chzz  ►  00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How many pages does the "print preview" show in IE8? FWIW, I've just tried a 6 page document and it prints fine in both IE8 and FF3.6.8, either as an IP or logged in. Maybe your IE8 is a little corrupted, not all sites use a different print layout to the screen, Wikipedia does - more than likely by using a different CSS style sheet, so it does not matter which "skin" you use to view, the printed version is always the same - also therefore try clearing your temp internet files, you may have a bad "printer.css" file stuck there.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping by to let you know I've tried printing a wikipedia page today (with multiple sheets) on Windows XP; IE8, worked fine, both for the wikipedia printable version and the normal browser version, couldn't see any settings that might cause your problem, either. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Good luck! Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Final note: I'm just going to give up on it now, because today I ordered a new computer (Win 7) and will probably soon get a new printer as well. Maybe the situation will be fixed on them. Also, confusingly, just now I have been trying the various options of logged in, logged out, new features, old features, and oddly three times I have been able to get a multi-page printout from a Wiki article, but if I try again later wth the same configuration it doesn't work. I'll try the temp file clearing again (I tried that two days ago, didn't help) and see if it helps, but for the time being I'll just use PDF and then try again in a week or so with my new system. Thanks all -- I'll just take the help notice off for now. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cricket

To the lovely Softlavender, Re. Cricket and your kind advice and encouragement: I am at a loss as to how to cite a t.v segment. I have noticed that the particular one in question has been removed from Youtube, due to copyright issues. I happen to be aware of the Cricket segment in the programme because I had it recorded in 1986. I wish I knew a solution to this. I loved Ian Charleson, saw him in Guys and Dolls at the National. He was a very loved and treasured man amongst his cohorts, as you know. ~ Damien in Ireland. DamienSlattery 02:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damslattery (talk • contribs)

South Pacific

I don't have the script. Melanesia and Polynesia overlap, and both are in the south Pacific. I think the children in the current revival are darker than R&H intended, but maybe it helps the production make the point about racial prejudice to modern audiences who would not be very shocked at seeing half-polynesian children. Clearly they are supposed to be half-something. I wouldn't sweat it, although I would be in favor of using the word "half", as Emile is their father. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

South Pacific

Though the island where the story takes place is not specifically mentioned, it pretty much has to be New Caledonia or the New Hebrides (Vanuatu): French settlers, near the Solomon Islands. (French Polynesia is several thousand kilometers further east.)

New Caledonia and the New Hebrides are is definitely part of Melanesia. So De Becque's "native" wife would have been Melanesian.

OTOH New Caledonia has absorbed a large number of immigrants under French rule - today only about 44% of the population is Melanesian. There are some Polynesians.

My guess is that Hammerstein simply didn't know the difference.

The correction on my part was pedantic and unnecessary.

There are also some Vietnamese in New Caledonia. Note that "Bloody Mary" is "Tonkinese" - not a native of New Caledonia, but an immigrant from northern Vietnam, another French colony. --Rich Rostrom (Talk) 23:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

RfD

You seem to be repeatedly placing an RfD tag on Greg Pritchard without a corresponding discussion so that, when one clicks on the link, one is left bemused. Please see WP:RFD#HOWTO. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not my error. The September 12 RfD discussions are not showing up yet on the roster, but they are there. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 12. Please leave the RfD tag -- it was properly placed, as was the discussion, and must stay on the redirect per Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

After Aida:

Please see my comments on the "talk page": Talk:After Aida. Viva-Verdi (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

RMK

Thanks for your expansion of Reichsmusikkammer - I don't have the background knowledge to expand it as much as I'd like (or the time to gain such knowledge), but I think the relationship of music and politics is really important, so I was glad to see someone else take it. :) Roscelese (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Opera related cats

I'm concerned about some of the changes you have been making to the cats in opera related articles. For example, it's our policy at WP:WikiProject Opera to include Category:Operas on all articles on operas, reguardless of opera genre (i.e. singspiel, dramma giocoso, opera-comique, operetta, etc.) This way we have a cat which includes all of these pages together. I am not necessarily beholden to this practice, but you are now creating inconsistancies within the opera categorization scheme that everyone else is following. I would suggest un-doing what you have done for now, and bringing up any changes you feel would be better at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. That way we will all be on the same page again. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, however I'm not going to personally re-add Opera and Operetta to the 150 articles I have subcategorized, because it took hours to subcategorize them, and to add the supercategories along with subcategories violates the principles of WP:CAT as I understand them. Besides, as you say, that convention is not followed consistently — none of the Yiddish operettas followed that, and lots of operas and operettas fall through the cracks — and consistency, logic, and following general Wikipedia policy is always better than inconsistency in my mind. Also, it makes it look like all or some (impossible to tell which, which is a major part of the problem) of the operettas in the Operetta Category have not been subcategorized. Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Baron Golosh

You asked: What language is Baron Golosh in?

English. The piece is loosely adaptated from L'Oncle Celestin by Edmond Audran, a French piece. But Baron Golosh appears to be so loosely adapted that I think it's fair to say that it is a new work with some music by Audran. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Sir George Greenwood was not an Oxfordian. Is there a page listing the notable anti-Stratfordians? If so I suppose he should go there. Someday I think I'll create List of notable Stratfordians, but I'm waiting until they give me a dedicated server. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Operetta

I added some references. I also removed some material that was not only unreferenced but, IMO, either very dubious or just tangential, like the rather long and random list of musicals that was there. That article is terribly under-referenced, and I think it is better to say nothing at all than to keep so much unreferenced stuff in it. I think the English language section and "Definitions" sections are tighter now (and certainly better referenced), and less is more, unless there is some really relevant, well-referenced stuff out there. I hope you had a nice break. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if you delete the Bernstein quote. Sonheim has also said silly stuff about opera/operetta/musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Chart of classical composers

I'm watching Kleinzach's talk page and noticed your question – take your pick from Category:Classical composers timeline templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Heine

You are very wrong about Heine not being a music critic, his writings on music for the journals of the time are extensive. His comments on M's 'naivete' are about over-sophistication, not about his faith - I therefore took out the quote you added re Mendelssohn and Judaism because that belongs to a discussion of M.'s religion, not his music. Could be reinserted when I expand the section on his religion. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, I was going by the chapter in Larry Todd's book, where Leon Botstein states "Heine was neither a musician nor a music critic ..." (p. 352). More to the point -- whether Heine had any skill as a music critic or not -- is his objectivity, or rather lack thereof; as my edit summary states: "is Heine really even a valid disinterested music critic here? He seems to have had a lot of agendas of his own".

To quote Heine on Mendelssohn:

I feel malice against him because of the way he pretends to Christianity. I cannot forgive this man, whose independence is assured by financial circumstances, for serving the Pietists with his great, enormous talent. The more acutely I become aware of the significance of the latter, the angrier I become at its vile misuse. If I had the good fortune to be a grandson of Moses Mendelssohn, I would truly not devote my talent to setting the piss of the Lamb of God to music! ... I write all this to you with premeditation and in detail, so that later you can understand the grounds for my quarrel with Mendelssohn .... ~~ Todd, p. 356. (Botstein goes into six pages worth of detail; this is just one small part of it.)

From such heated vituperations, I would hardly call Heine an unbiased critic on Mendelssohn in general, and on anything Christian-related he composed in particular. Thus my footnote had nothing to do with Mendelssohn's religion, but rather everything to do with Heine's hatred of Mendelssohn and his lack of objectivity, much less disinterestedness, as a critic.

Anyway, I kind of overspent myself on the Mendelssohn article and, having taken a two-week Wiki-break, I don't know that I wish to participate further with it at the moment. I see you seem to be giving it an expansion, so I'll let you do your thing unless there is some input you would like from me (better post it here: I probably won't visit the Mendelssohn Talk page). I'm kind of in the middle of some other stuff right now. Cheers and best wishes, Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this post. It is correct that Heine's feelings were ambivalent vis-a-vis Mendlessohn, and your quote is apposite. However, Botstein (and Todd) are wrong in asserting that Heine was not a music critic. He may not have been the sort of music critic that they would have liked or approved, but his journalistic writings on music were voluminous. But whether you can say that one particular citation of Heine (in this case, the sentence about 'naivete') must therefore have been informed by his personal feelings about Mendelssohn is rather different. The one does not follow from the other. Indeed in the very citation you give above, Heine talks of Mendelssohn's 'great, enormous talent'. I am very cautious indeed about attributing any disparaging comment about a Jew to the context of attitudes towards his Jewishness, unless this is explicit. (See (if you can contain your impatience) my book 'Jewry in Music', being published next year by Cambridge).

I certainly agree however that the issues you raise need to be handled in the artticle, which I am trying piecemeal to get up to GA standard, and I am 100% in favour of raising them in a full context. Thank you for your thoughts, your interest and your pursuit of this point and do please continue any work you have in mind on Mendelssohn. Best regards --Smerus (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Smerus; thanks for the reply. In my opinion, of course Heine isn't going to reveal his motivations in a printed piece (who would?). As far as "explicit", I don't know how much more explicit than "setting the piss of the Lamb of God to music" one could get. The musical review we're discussing is of St. Paul, the only explicitly Christian work (or 'piss of the Lamb of God', to use Heine's words) Mendelssohn wrote (or at least completed).

If it were me, I'd relegate Heine's review of St. Paul to the "Reputation" section of the article, and, if the section is expanded enough to warrant it, note Heine's unspoken antipathy (hatred, really) towards Mendelssohn and his Christian posturing, either in the article or in a footnote.

Congrats on the upcoming book publication! Sounds interesting, and I hope it's a good compilation. You've already let me know (above on this talk page) of your ethnicity and religion; and just because the whole subject of Mendelssohn and Heine and anti-Semitism and so forth can get "tetchy", I hope you did not feel that my initial footnote re: Heine seemed anti-Semitic. I have no religious affiliation (interest in some holiday films notwithstanding), and a brief review of my interests and some articles I wrote most of (Reichsmusikkammer, Leon Jessel, etc.), should assure you that my sympathies lie with exposing or eliminating prejudice of any kind. Heine simply seems to me to have, in addition to his sour grapes, some internalized anti-Semitism towards Mendelssohn. But whatever you want to call it, he certainly, in my view, is not disinterested about St. Paul (a piece I've never heard and don't really care about). :) What I do care about is avoiding overemphasizing criticisms of Mendelssohn's supposed musical "failings", especially so early in the article, and especially when from someone so wildly prejudiced on the matter as Heine. OK, I'm done; I've said my peace and will let the matter lie. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

all noted, and thanks again :-} --Smerus (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW I have now done a lot of frenzied tinkering with the Mendelssohn article and for want of knowing what to do next I have put it up for review as a Good Article. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Opera parent categories

Re Les mousquetaires au couvent (and maybe others), there are special reasons for retaining parent cats for operas, as explained in the Opera Project archives. It's a fairly complex matter so we'd appreciate it if you can leave the cats as they are. Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. As you know, I don't like all these operetta categories and think that they should be deleted. Did you really want me to go to the page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't think so. Happy Holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Em dashes

Regarding your edit at After Aida: please read WP:DASHES on the use of em dashes and en dashes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Image problems

I am confused - see my talk ! GrahamHardy (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's my syntax see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Image server problem? GrahamHardy (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Need someone to edit an IMAGE for me

{{help}} Could someone please edit this image file to remove the bordering (left and right) white space? Thank you. I am unable to do it, even after having read the MediaWiki information. If no one who reads this is able to do this, please direct me to [where I can find] someone who can. Thank you! Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Done - I hope that is OK?  Chzz  ►  05:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Kewl. You rock. Thanks so much. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Pottle

Thanks for the message. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Balieff/ Wooden Soliders/ Tsar Paul I

Hi - Glad to hear you enjoyed the article. That's going back a ways. The reference to Balieff using the legend about Tsar Paul I's soldiers as inspiration can be found in a 1927 Time Magazine here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,731097-4,00.html .

Hope that helps. J. Van Meter (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi. I noticed that you changed all the punctuation at South Pacific to be inside the quotes, calling this "American". In fact, WP:MOS#Punctuation inside or outside requires that punctuation always go outside the quotes, unless the punctuation is inside the quote in the actual original quote. I know that this is not what some other style guides say, but it is what our style guide says (I'm American, btw). Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we should comply with the MOS, because if the article is promoted to GA or FA, the reviewers will likely insist on it. But it's not an emergency. I personally do not like the serial comma (MOS says it's optional), because it adds characters that you don't need, and because some sentences end up having a million commas. No big deal, though. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Let's see what Jean's feeling is about this tomorrow, or whenever she is able to reply. No rush here. I don't mind using the quote without his name, since we can cite BWW. On the other hand, as you demonstrated, there are lots of other sources to mine for a suitable quote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no rush, I just wanted to make sure it the case wasn't closed, and that you two saw my later post. Thanks. Softlavender (talk)

Re:OTRS problem

The worry is that the photo probably belongs to the photographer rather than the subject. Your best bet would be to talk to Adrignola (talk · contribs) (probably on Commons). J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain all this to Adrignola- I only suggested contacting him/her on Commons as their userpage implied that (s)he is more active there. Sorry, I don't really feel comfortable just taking over someone else's ticket like that. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lyric (South Pacific)

I stand corrected. As a pianist and singer of 35 years, you have hit my only pet peeve: Misquoting lyrics and especially SONG TITLES. This is done constantly, even in reveiews (like this one), by a "journalist" who should know better.

Re:No colour on diffs

I agree and the lack of an edit toolbar is starting to get annoying. I concur with your idea that a bug report should be filed but to be honest I don't have a clue about how to report it as I've never had a problem before. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Liri Blues Festival

Hi Softlavender! Thanks a lot for your contribution at the Liri Blues page! I'm not an expert on wikipedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardognunu (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Swiss Family Robinson (1940 film)

Hey there, Softlavender, I am sorry to hear that TCM is no longer offering that DVD and no, I didn't get around to getting one (wish I had now)! I will correct the Wiki page to show that it was previously available. However, you can get one here [8] - (this guy has a lot of SFR stuff) or here [9], but of course it would have been better to get the TCM package - even though my understanding is that the TCM version was not remastered - it was the same quality as what you see on these DVDs and the Disney version's DVD bonus features. Dutchmonkey9000 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein

This might be right up your alley: Someone has apparently thrown in a plot synopsis that is a copyvio. Do you have time to rewrite it (and hopefully to shorten it) to avoid the copyright problem and make a notation on the talk page to indicate that you have done so? I thought this might interest you, since you have edited the page before. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed the Tonys, unfortunately, as I was at a Marathon G&S Sing-out this weekend near Boston hosted by NEGASS: all 13 G&S operas in a row over 2 days. Crazy fun! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha! No, I just stole your excellent idea and said it on the talk page. I could have said: "Softlavender suggested this on my talk page", but I figured it was better to just cut to the chase. Feel free to take credit for it!  :-) I'm going to do a real show with orchestra, sets, costumes, etc. (Pirates - I'm Major-General Stanley) on July 2 at the International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival at the Gettysburg week. Hope you're having a nice summer! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wicked Lady (1983 film)

I have looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) section and I cannot find where it says that only the first-billed should be listed, as you stated. I may have just missed it though, but in spite of that, given the extraordinary list of currently well-known actors who had small parts in this atrocious film, I would argue that it is worthy of the full list (from IMDb) being included. Manxwoman (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gerolstein

Hi. Great work on the article. One small thing: I don't think that it's appropriate to state, in the plot summary, that Gerolstein is a fictional place. That is "meta" information that should be in a "background" section about the opera (which is now the article's biggest missing section). In the plot summary, we are always describing a fictional work, so we don't say that it is fictional. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm satisfied with the way it looks now. But in a musicals project article, the information would go elsewhere. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

References section of opera-related article

Would you please leave the "Ref" section as it is. Based on a consensus of editors from the WikiProject Opera, we have come up with two or three separate sections under the main heading.

The first is "Notes", the second is "Sources" (or, if there are "Cited Sources", especially books - see WPO on that - the full name of the book with ISBN, etc can appear under that heading of "Citated Sources" and a simple "Author's last name, p. X" appear in the "Notes".

Here's where you can look up the guidelines: Wikipedia: WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats.

And here is the discussion on it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats

Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with Reliable Sources

Could you help me with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3aOxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Enlighten_Me please? Trying to ascertain whether or not Brief Chronicles would be a RS. Thank you for your help! Knitwitted (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous

Thanks for your kind note. I have seen many situations where a film or show was cast, but before it actually was released or opened, the situation totally changed, often without any reason being given. Sometimes the fact that a casting change was made remains of encyclopedic interest, but usually not, especially in the case of marginally notable actors. Believe me, I have had this conversation with many editors in the past - it's hard to resist the temptation to jump on new information. Wikipedia has some very wise policies that work well together, like WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE - so, if something hasn't been reported by a major news source, then reporting the information early is likely to result in its being given too much weight, and maybe even being just plain wrong. We have the luxury, if there is any doubt, of being able to wait and verify the facts. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Chariots of Fire

Hi. Regarding this edit, "excess detail" may be a fair criticism, as I'm not very familiar with the guidelines for movie plot summaries. However, I don't see how your edit "restores sermon quote" when in fact it only removes the extra line I had added. Nor do I see how the text I had added was "opinionizing", as it seems a very straightforward description of the quoted passage.

My thought was that the first part of the passage (about the "nations") is highly relevant to the sacrifice Liddell is making at that moment, and that the juxtaposition of what Abrahams and Montague are doing while Liddell is in church reading this passage is important to the effect of this scene, which is arguably the climax of the movie (I certainly wouldn't suggest every scene in the movie be described in this amount of detail). Again, I am willing to defer to a reasonable argument from an editor such as yourself who is more experienced in this area, but I would appreciate a bit of clarification on these points. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good work on sourcing content for Father Damien. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Hi! thanks very much for editing my article on AFC ...GOD bless you and your family... QuecyKeith (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

By the way, could you please also edit my article for submission USeP - College of Development Management to make it more encyclopedic? thanks and GOD bless you...--Michael Padada (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Silly me (?)

Hi there Miss Lavender, VASCO from Portugal here,

regarding this situation here (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.87.7.19), i just saw today that person seems up to no good. Cannot believe i was gullible enough to have replied, especially after finding 99,99999999% of their edits was only that, giving barnstars away...

My technical question is: could my computer be in harms way for having sent that troll info when i replied their message? One can never know, and i'm an absolute duffer when it comes to computers :( Question 2: do those IPs and User:Commander v99 have any relation? It seems like it, i could be just "seeing things".

Attentively, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

AN/I IP Editor

Hello, Softlavender! I just wanted to clue you in on this, as I (along with many, many others) have encountered this editor before. I used to give him a ration of shit, thinking he was an "IP-hopper", and he is: but he's a very skilled editor that enjoys being anonymous for whatever reason. Well, "semi-anonymous", as most people who've seen him know who it is when he opines on an issue. He has made many assurances that he's not a blocked or banned editor, and I have no reason to think he is, especially seeing how others recognize him when they encounter him. He's been around a long time and has used countless IPs, which is not against policy. Just thought I'd explain a little more here rather than AN/I. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Do you think I am making this up? I'm trying to clue you in. You do not recognize the editor, and I've already explained the situation. You can ignore it if you want to, but it's best that you listen to me. If they are in hiding, as you say, they do a really terrible job of it, because... we know who it is. Drop by WP:Reference desk/Computing sometime, and see how quickly the editor is chased away. And your statement, "Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry." is 100% wrong. You may need to seriously rethink your opinion of anonymous editors as a "group". I know I did. Food for thought! Cheers... Doc talk 10:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to second Doc9871's comment about IP editors. There's nothing wrong with editing from an IP, and you should not think any different of them. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Noted, but I disagree. He's edit-tracking and passing judgments on the editing patterns of an editor who has the courage to use an account and has edited widely and fruitfully for many years, while he himself is using an account he has never edited on. I'm not interested in discussing this further. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record, claiming a user with a dynamic ip address "has never edited" is not the safest bet. Also, using an account does not take "courage," and is arguably more anonymous than editing from an IP that can be looked up easily by anyone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I said he's never edited on that account, the account he's cowardly hiding on. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus AfD

I read your comments regarding the deletion of the Seamus article, and I fully agree. I believe that if people actually

Kay Burley

Regarding this article: please note Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, which says that unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people must not be added to Wikipedia. All negative allegations about living people must have a reliable source; and YouTube is not a reliable source by our standards. Removing such BLP-violating material is not vandalism. Thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is something you should take up with User:Star-one, not me. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

David Gaines - radio person

Please see this change, as you originally added the category. If you wish to reinstate the radio presenters category or the new Category:Classical music radio people, please include an explanation in the article. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! I noticed you editing a few articles on Nichiren Buddhism and I was wondering if I could ask you for some help. I was just cleaning up the references on Risshō Kōsei Kai and they are overwhelming the organization itself. Do you happen to have anything we could add to that article that might be more neutral? I know little to nothing about Nichiren and various associated movements and I thought that if that was more in your wheel house then this might be something you could assist with. If not no worries! Helpsome (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Black Count

Hey there. I don't think we've every crossed paths before. While I enjoy working collaboratively with other editors, I can't honestly say that I understand your rationale here. Going to someone's work in progress in their userspace and moving it to the mainspace is not only inappropriate, but disruptive. Honestly, I am stunned. From a personal perspective, I just had major surgery on April 15th, the same day the Pulitzers were announced. As part of my recovery process, I chose this article to focus on, only to discover that another editor usurped the work in progress. Stunned. In the future, if you have a question about another editor's draft work, please take the time to make a simple inquiry on their talk page. Please note that I have userfied the draft to my subpage for continued work. When I create an article, I don't move it prematurely. While I am certainly aware that the book was honored with the Pulitzer, keep in mind that there's no rush on Wikipedia. I will continue drafting the article and most likely move it back to the mainspace within a couple of days. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. With all due respect, best regards, Cindy(talk) 05:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates on editing bar not working

Hi, I can't get the "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. What to do? Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

If you are too confused, you can always manually add the parameters and the template. See {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} to check for the parameters.

But I suggest using either ProveIt or cite tool on your edit window.

• To use ProveIt, enable it first [Preferences-Gadgets-Editing-ProveIt]. Then click on the fourth (yellow and black P) button in your editing window, and select "Add a reference". The rest is easy.
• If you don't want to use Prove-It, you can also use the editing window. Just click on that Template menu you are talking of, and click on any of them. A pop up window should appear (If it does not, you might want to check some settings. I'm not sure but javascript might be disabled for you.) Then you simply fill the fields, and insert it.

Hope this helped,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• To reiterate, I can't get the Cite "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. Why is this happening? All of the other editing-bar buttons are working but the Cite Templates are not working at all. Please help. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It should work when you click it. Might be a problem with your browser. Mkdw^talk 04:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• To reiterate, I can't get the Cite "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. Why is this happening? All of the other editing-bar buttons are working but the Cite Templates are not working at all. Please help. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Works when I do it. Click the cite button in the edit screen and it should expand the bar below with a bunch of fields. If it's not working for you, it's likely a problem on your end. You could try reinstalling your browser on your computer. Asking the same question repeatedly won't necessarily change the outcome of why your own browser is not working when others are. Would you like me to record a video of my desktop using the ref tool to show you it's properly working? Mkdw^talk 04:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Mkdw, please don't respond further. You are not even understanding the question, much less responding to it helpfully. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• To reiterate, I can't get the Cite "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. Why is this happening? All of the other editing-bar buttons are working but the Cite Templates are not working at all. Please help. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Hawaiian Music Album

The see also section should be in alphabetical order, per Wikipedia:See also#See also section, so I ahead and made the edit to the article again. Thanks for adding the link to the section--I was not familiar with this award! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)