User talk:Softlavender

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,[1] [2] [3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello, Softlavender. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

License tagging for File:Codename Kyril.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Codename Kyril.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 28 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)

Hello, Softlavender. You have new messages at Adrignola's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Re:

Hello, Softlavender. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 13:34, 21 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 [4] - (this guy has a lot of SFR stuff) or here [5], 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)

Hans Brinker

Dear Softlavender,

You recently removed an item added to film adaptations of Hans Brinker by me. Could you please clarify why you labeled it as spam? Thank you,

Dustin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.75.124 (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely reply, I can understand why those restrictions are in place :] Once the film is listed on IMDB may I contact you regarding the proper way to list it on Wikipedia? As it stands the film will be scored then submitted to a few festivals from which it will probably be listed on IMDB.

Thank you,

Dustin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.75.124 (talk) 07:30, 20 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)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 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)

Hello, Softlavender. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by August 17, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

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)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited James Cellan Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Gidding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (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)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bill McGlaughlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WCNY (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 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)

Thank you for visiting the Teahouse!

Hi! Softlavender, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here Sarah (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ian Charleson carried in Chariots of Fire.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ian Charleson carried in Chariots of Fire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charleson and Farrell in Chariots of Fire.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charleson and Farrell in Chariots of Fire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)