User talk:Softlavender/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Charles Reed Bishop

Thanks for expanding the article. Would you also mind adding inline citations? If you need help, let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 11:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I'll be happy to help out with the inline citations. If you want to cite a documentary film, you can cite it manually using the Chicago Manual of Style. However, I recommend using the {{Cite video}} template for ease of use. If you need help, let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 11:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

Yes, take a look at Wikipedia:Subpages. You can add the subpages to your user or user talk page merely by starting any article within a namespace with a slash, like this: /Sandbox. Clicking on that link would create a new artilce named "Sandbox" in User talk:Softlavender. Subpage creation (like the wiki page explains) applies to article talk pages too (useful for temporary or archival subpages) but not articles themselves. —Viriditas | Talk 07:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Work Out

Please quit warning me that I will be blocked for something that I did not do. I would appreciate if you looked over the rules of Wikipedia and re-read the page about biting newcomers as well as what vandalism actually is. No deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia's integrity was made. Also, if you would look at the "six reverts" (which I don't count six, nor were all made by the same person), you will also notice yourself reverting. Please read the three-revert rule and the edit war description to make sure that you are not partaking in either. 150.135.66.36 (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Merle Oberon

Thanks for adding references to Merle Oberon, but http://biographybase.com can't be used as a WP:RS source since it's a 2004 copy of wikipedia itself. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Biography_Base. Quale (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hung Huynh

I have posted on the Hung Huyhn Talk page that if you have read the ariticale in full and or watched his audition tape that in the aritcale it mentions that Hung is Bisexual and in the video his friend who is filming it asks what do you prefer guys or girls he says that he goes both ways so it is not irrelvant just put he is Bisexual but dont put he is open about it cause i dont think he is open about it but anyway he is Bisexual just to ;et you know --Spiderman2351 (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Spiderman2351

Fixing title

{{help me}}

How do you fix the title of an article? The Annie Proulx article is currently titled "E. Annie Proulx" which is incorrect according to Wikipedia naming guidelines. Thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If the title of an article is wrong, then you can click the tab titled "Move" which can be found next to the History Tab at the top of any page (N.B. This tab only appears to users that are considered "Autoconfirmed" a status that is automatically given to all users after 4 days and 10 edits). Also if you want somone else to do the move for you can list the page at WP:Requested Moves and an administrator should do it for you, otherwise you can just move it yourself by clicking Move Tab. I hope this helps, if you have any other questions feel free to ask me. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulleted columns

{{help me}}

How do I break a bulleted list into two columns? Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out how it has been done in the swamp article: [1]. It is done with a basic table. Hope that is what you are looking for. Neil916 (Talk) 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal

Hey, sorry about the difficulties at Principal. Thing is, this has been discussed before. She said 1950 at the 1983 Tonight Show, so it's not something recent, and wouldn't it help advertising anti-aging products to claim to be older than one appears? Anyway, I hope it didn't turn you off Wikipedia. Gimmetrow 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations

I notice you have great interest in Bourdain show. great. Well, trivia sections are not encouraged in wikipedia articles. See WP:TRIVIA. Since both informations in trivia section has sources, it can be merged to another section or renamed. Dock^Hi 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette notice

I have placed a notice of your personal attacks at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Softlavender. Please do not question my mental health again. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 04:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Softlavender: as there seems to be some issue as to some of your commentary towards the above user, I would recommend that you try to politely and patiently discuss the matter with the other editor, clarifying your words and intent. I recommend using either your talk page or theirs (not both so that the discussion can be kept together), or if you would prefer neutral ground I can make a space on my own talk page for more of a "unofficially mediated" discussion. BMW(drive) 14:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've apologized on the lists talk page and tried to make it as noticeable as I can. I should have done more research. I would like to tell you that, on a personal note, due to personal issues I regard mental health in very high regard and did not appreciate when you questioned mine as you did. That was, to me, paramount to spanking my bare bottom in public. It is a very personal issue and not something I will be able to shake easily. Please, in the future, understand that there are several different personalities here on WP and there's no telling who you are going to offend with what statement. As I described to someone else, it may not have been a personal attack, but it was an attack that was personal - to me at least. I'd appreciate a retraction. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding what was so upsetting to me. As far as the article goes I've removed it from my watchlist and will take some time getting back to it (if at all). I didn't handle the discussion well... the attitudes of others on the page are not conducive to change... there seems to be no imperative to talk through improvements to the article... it's just generally not a good environment. While I don't understand the importance you place on my becoming an admin (I have ceased caring long ago) I will say the admins I've seen would prefer a long talkpage argument more than edit wars. But it should have been conducted better than I did. I should have acknowledged your points more discreetly before moving the discussion forward, otherwise it looks just like what everybody says it looks like - I'm not listening to you and stuck on getting rid of the list. Well, that's not what was happening but I did a poor job of communicating that to you and the others. I understand the need for more than one list (I did as soon as you explained the need for more than one list about three responses in) and rest assured, I am not going to try and remove, restructure, or replace (or, indeed edit or otherwise affect) any of the Mozart composition lists. Padillah (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Classical instrumentalists infobox

I need an infobox template for classical instrumentalists, composers, and conductors. The Template:Infobox Musical artist repeatedly states it is for non-classical musical artists. It does not even have background colors for classical soloists, composers, or conductors, etc. Please help! Thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because there is apparently a consensus against using infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Lead section). I came across a deletion request for the talk page of a deleted infobox of that kind, you can see the deletion debate here. I suggest you head to Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers or, when it's not about composers, its parent WikiProject, WPP:MUSIC and discuss your requests with the participants there, who will surely be able to give you much better answers. Regards SoWhy 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with (Classical Music) banner

Thanks for spotting this. The text was changed - I think in error - in June. See the project talk page. --Kleinzach 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving page

{{helpme}}

Aaarrrgh, there's some kind of weird bug that is not allowing the title of the Eighth Blackbird page to show up correctly on that article page. Here's the rub: The group spells their name in all lowercase, a la kd lang. However, per Wikipedia naming conventions, the article must be titled in initial caps. The only problem is, when I try to make the title into initial caps, the "move" page seems to think the article title already is in initial caps (which it isn't -- it's now in some weird version of uppercase and lowercase: "eighth Blackbird"!) This is some kind of technical bug and I don't know who to ask to fix it so maybe someone can direct me to a techie here. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Softlavender for fixing the messy sentence I left at Barack Obama. Its far less awkward now =) thanks, --guyzero | talk 08:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama talk

I want the proposal section to be clean and easy so we can get a clear answer. I understand you're arguments, and I think you've made them clear in the proposal section. I made a new section specifically so it would be separate from all the various, unhelpful fights. If the guys who wrote those other posts want to talk about it in the proposal section, I can't stop them, but I don't think it's right to cut and paste discussions into a section which was created explicitly to end the type of fighting (and be away from the fighting) that the pasted section employs.

While I am sure you are aware of the three revert rule, I mention only that further revisions could be considered an edit war. I want this discussion to remain friendly, though. We all have legitimate points and I just want a clean and safe place to talk about my 3 proposals. Thank you for your understanding and continued help on the article.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting old userpages

{{help}}

How can I delete some of my old userpages, titles included? I worked on four new articles for over a month via user pages, and then posted them on Wikipedia proper when finished, but the userpages keep coming up on any Google search of the topics, even though I've blanked the pages. How can I remove the title(s) of those userpages themselves so they won't keep showing up on Google? Thanks; hope that made sense. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Go to them and write {{db-g7}} on the top of them. An admin will come by and delete them. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bennington

Thanks for cleaning up the dead external links in Bennington, Vermont; but please don't continue to add the forum link, as it doesn't pass our external links criteria. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is criterion #10, which prohibits forums. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see; and thank you. However, how does this pass #4 and #13? It's altogether not normal to include such links on pages for those reasons, even if they're not forums or (in this case) not primarily forums. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oxfordian Theory

Don't mind at all. Format away! (But I would highly recommend keeping the mainstream spelling of "Shakespeare" as a long time consensus amoung the Shakespeare editors agreed to it - much as I sympathize with ALL the points you made....) Smatprt (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

eighth blackbird capitalization

About a month ago you moved this article to Eighth Blackbird with an edit summary citing naming conventions. In general it is true that a musical group's name should be capitalized on both letters, but in this case I believe neither should be capitalized, as noted in the last sentence of the article's intro paragraph. I haven't been active on Wikipedia for a long time, so there may be some new policy of which I'm unaware, but it would seem that this would be similar to will.i.am. The convention demonstrated there is to have the page at Will.i.am (due to technical limitations) but place {{lowercase}} at the top of the page so that the title displays will.i.am. I haven't made any changes to it in deference to your more active current involvement, but please take a second look at the eighth blackbird article. —WAvegetarian (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Your parallel to adidas made me notice something else, though. Neither of the articles have a uniform capitalization scheme, using capitals in some places and lowercase in others. Thoughts?—WAvegetarian (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have zero experience with bots or their coding and given the small amount of time I'm currently investing in the project, feel this is a relatively low priority/low impact way to spend it. If I find myself with a free afternoon before my classes begin again in February I might try to tackle it. —WAvegetarian (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have one term's worth of classes left towards my undergraduate degree in environmental studies with a focus on education.—WAvegetarian (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading image

{{helpme}} How do I upload the image of a book cover for an article? Here is the article: The Nasty Bits, and here is the image: http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/may/bourdain/cover200.jpg. I have tried to upload it three times using the link on the left, but every time I fill out the form and click "Upload file" nothing at all happens, even though the bottom of the window says "Done." Help! Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, might be some problem with your internet connection/browser settings. Anyway, I uploaded the image for you File:TheNastyBitsCover.jpg. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Softlavender, Merry Christmas!

Softlavender,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Wet season and such

Every so often I like to swoop in and save an article...wet season is one of those times. I'm tackling the rainy season article also because no one else felt comfortable doing it, including at least one member of the met/TC project. While I am no expert in rainy seasons per se, I am a meteorologist, and I did live in an area with a pronounced dry and rainy season, so I was willing to look more into the topic and put a good face on the met project by revamping the article. Normally, I like to improve articles to B or GA before letting go of them. I'm now in the process of editing two previous stubs (wet season and rainbands), with two articles on deck to be reviewed for GA, 1984 Pacific typhoon season and Hurricane Flora. This will keep me busy for a while. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is tagged, the theory is that someone will get to it, eventually. I haven't heard of the term before, so I'm wondering if the article is misnamed. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at tropical rain belt. It looks like it's trying to tackle the subject of monsoon trough or intertropical convergence zone. I made a comment on the talk page that the article could probably be deleted, or a redirect, to monsoon trough. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Add your support to the talk page. It will help out when there's enough support to redirect. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, go right ahead. Keep in mind that portions of the article which are salvageable and more lay-friendly could be incorporated into the monsoon trough/ITCZ articles, if relevant. Hawaii is a strange animal, climatewise. Mountains up to 2 miles high jutting out of the tropics in the middle of the Pacific ocean, where the break in the subtropical ridge is located, which has precipitation consequences in the cold season and protects the islands from more frequent hurricane occurrences. Notice I didn't include Hawaii in the wet season article? That's because when the rainy season occurs is elevation dependent, with the Kona slopes seeing a summer maximum, lower elevations otherwise see a winter maximum, while at moderate elevation it's a tropical rain forest regime with no preferred wet or dry season. Makes it hard to categorize when the rainy season is preferred, no? Thegreatdr (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A A Gill

Hiya. I'm not bothered enough to revert or to change it, but if you have a look at the article The Sunday Times (or the paper itself) you'll see that the word "The" is capitalised and forms part of the name of the paper. Just wanted to tell you in case were going to change it on other articles too. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not bothered. I can't stand the nasty little racist. And while I wouldn't intentionally make an article any worse than I find it, I have no intention of improving it myself, when there are so many others to choose from. As I say, I just wanted to let you know in case you'd decided to change it on other articles too. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image upload for film infobox

{{helpme}}

I'm clueless about uploading images. Can someone do another one for me? Here's the image: http://www.giganticpictures.com/images/cosmopolitanpostersmall.jpg (from this website: http://www.giganticpictures.com/cosmopolitan.html). It's just a small, low-res 175-pixel poster for identification purposes only for the infobox on this particular film. Here's the infobox (and article) that I want it inserted into (I'm developing the article). Can someone upload this for me? If so, thanks! Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really very easy. Just go to WP:UPLOAD and read the instructions. If you get confused, let me know and I'll help, but you should be able to figure it out. --Chasingsol^(talk) 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Go to this this link. I can't upload it for you because YOU will need to fill in the fair use rationale. I don't know the history of the image, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to add it. --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember, you'll need to save the file to your computer first and then upload it from there. --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the text, that made it much easier! I've uploaded it for you at File:Cosmopolitanpostersmall.jpg. Since the article doesn't exist, you can go ahead and simply create it. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify. Once an image is uploaded, it's always referenced by the File: tag, so it doesn't matter where the article is located, it will still point to the image. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan (film)

Hi there. I have had to create the page otherwise the movie poster would be deleted, since it was not used in any articles. I have put a note on the talk page indicating that all credit should go to you for the original version of the article. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article for B-class for WP:FILM. There are several issues that should be addressed first. Please take a look on the talk page and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Performance Today and What Makes It Great

What Makes It Great was most recently featured on Performance Today on January 5, 2009. See [2].Nrswanson (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Article doesn't come up on Google

{{helpme}}

I'm just wondering why my article doesn't come up on a Google search. I created Exploring Music three months ago, and it used to come up in the first ten listings in a Google search of "exploring music" (in quotation marks). Now (for the past month and a half or so) it doesn't come up on the first page of listings at all! It's listing number 350! Why should that be? The article is 10,000 bytes and I think it gets at least some hits, more than the inane stuff that precedes it on Google. What's up? Anyone know the answer? All of the other articles I've ever created (about 12 or so) always come up at the top of a Google search. Thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk)

You'd pretty much have to ask Google. We have no influence over their search algorithms or results. //roux   05:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just know that this still works.  :) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to ask Google about listings. Softlavender (talk)

Well, Wikipedia does not control what Google decides to list or not list. The {{helpme}} function is used for Wikipedia itself, not third party listings of Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I cannot help you there. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 05:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

I'm re-opening the above question in case someone has some insight. Is there any way that this article is being blocked somehow by/on Wikipedia? It went from being #3 in the Google listings to being #300 overnight, with no change on my part. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As Jamesontai said above, {{helpme}} is for questions about Wikipedia, not external websites. Sure, the article may not have changed--but hundreds of millions of other websites did. Please look for articles about how Google creates search results. We cannot help you. //roux   05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, this IS a question about Wikipedia. I'm asking what, if anything, could have happened on Wikipedia to cause this change. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Hawaiian flag

Aloha, Softlavender! You have been invited to join WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort which aims to create, expand, and maintain Hawaii-related articles. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. All kōkua is appreciated! Mahalo!

Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, V, thanks for the invite. I find I get terribly bored doing Hawaii stuff on Wikipedia, and would much rather create and edit articles about other stuff and places. Example: Last spring I tried to edit Kilauea, which is next door to me, and the article was a mess and inaccurate, but I just couldn't get enthused about researching something so familiar, so I just cleaned the thing up and removed gross inaccuracies. In other words, what happens to me is that I usually clean up articles I bump into that are horrendous, and I'm more than happy to help if you guys need desperate help, but normally I have too much fun doing other things to join the HI group. Aloha! Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you right now, there are several outstanding issues we need to consult with you about, mostly to confirm or verify things on the Big Island. Since you live in Hilo, would it be ok to ask you some questions when we begin to address them? Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fer sher. Happy to oblige if I can help. Not saying I'm the expert by any means on the BI. I don't get out much (I'm slightly handicapped), and I haven't received the newspaper in a couple years, but I suppose by osmosis and friends and excursions and TV I know something about this old place. Merry Monarch rules! Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's talk soon, and don't be a stranger. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art in Hawaii at the Honolulu Academy of Arts

Unfortunately, it didn't work out in Hilo, but everything's going ahead great in Honolulu. Your friend should look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/Honolulu Academy of Arts rules and this post on the museum's blog (their events are on Feb. 14, 15 and 27). Everyone should look at the Flickr page also; but no, there isn't any requirement to register ahead of time.--Pharos (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fashion house

I noticed your edit to Fashion House. That speedy deletion notice is for categories, and actually you did a cut and paste move, whereas on Wikipedia, to preserve the author attribtuion in the page history we must use the move button. However your idea about making Fashion House redirect to a disambiguation page was a good one, I have implemented the idea by properly moving the pages.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Exploring Music

I had no idea you were behind this. Fantastic show. Let me know if I can help you in any way. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee. Yeah, I went on a Bill McGlaughlin kick in October and did four articles concerning him (see my user page). I'm pretty OK with the article as is, except that: (1) The "Program description" section makes me yawn, so if there's anyway to tighten that up or make it more well-written, have at it. I tried to steer away from POV, but perhaps erred on the side of boringness; plus that section may have internal redundancies. (2) It would be nice if more people clicked on the article so that the gods of Googledom would make it come up in a Google search (the title is so generic, that's the Google problem). (3) I couldn't think of good weekly titles/subjects to include in the short list. If you remember any good ones, add or let me know. Perhaps this week's is a good one, thanks for reminding me! (there, I just added it). (4) I've been intending to e-mail it to the show's producers (Robinson, et al.), but I was waiting for the holidays to pass. Now they have, but I got caught up with other things. That would probably be a good way to get more eyes on it. Bill already knows about it, but he's extremely busy (only returned one of my e-mails) and probably more concerned with the two articles specifically about him, if anything at all, plus he's doing other shows now and I think EM is on continual reruns for the moment. Anyway, feel free to improve in any way, or suggest improvements. Cheers. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I start off by adding WikiProject assessment tags to the talk page? I think you are pretty close to GA, but you might be interested in getting a peer review first. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine w/me. I think those things are fine when they accomplish something good; however when they insist one conform to a box when breaking all rules would work better, I tend to sort of take them with a grain of salt. Good way to get more eyes on it, though! Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You should try and meet Bill and talk to him in person when he comes out to Hawaii. Doesn't he come out like once a year or something? Tell him you want to take him out to lunch to Cafe Pesto! Or better yet, Merriman's in Waimea! :) Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he? Where did you hear that? (Yeah, I've wanted to eat at Merriman's for a while.) :) Softlavender (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was interviewed live on HPR several years ago or so, possibly during their pledge drive, and I got the impression that he came out here yearly, but I could be wrong. Heck, just ask him. :) Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I would if he weren't a celebrity and if I knew him personally, which I don't. The thing about radio hosts is that people feel very familiar with them because they are right there in people's homes and cars, so they get deluged with fans and e-mails and such. I'm sure he and the show get tons and tons of e-mails. I happened to find his direct e-mail address while I was researching, and I let him know about the four articles when they were all done, but he's so busy (he travels constantly, for his several shows and with Karrin touring and with his guest engagements), that the most he could squeak out was a short but very courteous reply from his iPhone. I did also accidently correspond with a friend of his (a fellow broadcaster), but even he didn't reply to my Xmas e-mail. So, I'm leaving them all in peace. LOL. :) Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Karrin is playing May 9 at the San Francisco Jazz Festival, but I was thinking about going to see Mariza on May 2 instead. I can only go to one; which would you choose? Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, Mariza who? I'm a jazz flunk-out. I like it (mostly from the Ken Burns thingie) but I don't follow it. I did bump up Karrin's article a lot and thereby got aquainted a bit with her music (quite a performer), but I'm def not up on jazz. Still, sorry to see Karrin always a bridesmaid at the Grammys. Softlavender (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Marisa dos Reis Nunes. She's a fado vocalist. As for jazz, in the male vocalist category, I recommend Kurt Elling. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, V, and have a good time on your upcoming trip. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm still waiting for the economy to improve before making any decisions.  :( BTW, have you asked Bill for a promo photo that we can use on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the e-mail he didn't answer. It's either not a priority for him busy bee that he is, or I made it sound too complicated. But, in point of fact, images are not so relevant for radio hosts, and the public doesn't necessarily need to know how they look. However, it could be good Wikipedia-wise I guess, if that's what makes an article best. I'm OK without them, but I'm not the general reader or new to the articles. I really think the source of the photo(s) would need to be someone less busy -- like Karrin (don't have her e-mail), or one of the producers or techs from one of the shows (I could e-mail some of them if I dig out the info), or maybe his friend/co-broadcaster that I e-mailed a couple of times. *shrug* Do you think image(s) important? For which article(s)? And one w/him in the studio, too? BTW, did you hear EM today? He played two of Karrin's songs. You can catch the show online tonight if you missed it. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I heard it today! I think the biography project likes to have a photo for every biographical article, but I could be wrong. Considering that there are quite a few of him around, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with at least one.  :) BTW, any objection if I submit Exploring Music for a peer review? I would like to see you bring it to GA-class.Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool. Eventually I'm going to e-mail Steve Robinson to clarify the station-count/listener-count confusion, but short of that it's about as good as I can get it now. (Excepting a possible photo -- do you think the EM article could use a photo too? If so I'll ask Steve when I e-mail him.) Anyway, all of the photos I've seen of him are copyrighted, but surely someone has one they can spare. Softlavender (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There, I e-mailed Steve. Thanks for the nudge. I had a prospective e-mail to him already standing by in my "To Be Sent" box, so I just had to update it a bit. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: I just made an infobox for Exploring Music. I'd like to add this image as the logo/image for the infobox: Exploring Music logo, in the same way that the article on Hearts of Space uses the HOS logo in lo-res form. It's 342x100 pix, and 13 KB. I'd say it's lo-res, no? If I provide a similar sort of rationale and add other reasoning, do you think it'd be OK to upload? It's from the WFMT site, and is the logo that most radio station websites use for the Exploring Music show in their lineups and show descriptions. Second question: If it is uploadable, do you think it would be good to put in the infobox? Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question. Are you certain it's the logo? I'm not, as you can see from here and here. I would say leave it out until we can get confirmation. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the only real "logo" that exists, IMO. Here it is on the official home website: WFMT (where it's produced). As you also see, it's on both of those pages that you linked, and is the insignia that stations use to represent the show (unless they create their own graphic or use one of Bill's studio pics). Why would it matter if it was uploaded for a tiny infobox image? (Anyway, what would constitute "confirmation"?) Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it seems you were right, that other graphic is used as a logo in a few places. Here it is. It looks very pixelated when reduced to infobox size. What to do? Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that can be fixed by using a different file format. But, have we confirmed that this is the official graphic for the show? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

They don't really have an official graphic for the show besides that one, from the official site. Not sure what would constitute 'confirmation,' as you put it. Anyway, if you Google Image "exploring music" mcglaughlin official graphic that's what comes up. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Confirmation" would mean that you received the ok from either Bill himself, official representatives of the show, or you could prove that the graphic was used on letterhead, t-shirts, or any promotional material. I was unable to find anything except for a few web graphics, so I would recommend leaving the image out of the article until we know for sure. Of course, you are welcome to ignore my suggestion. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Public Library

Next question (in addition to the logo thing; see comment above). After looking at other articles I am indeed yearning to have some images in the article. It is in this area that I am the most clueless (and that includes the logo questions) — whether it concerns obtaining the images, uploading the images (I can't seem to, may be a computer problem, see the rest of this Talk page, so other people have to do it for me), or sensing/providing rationale for legal use. Anyway, above you mentioned publicity photos of Bill. Do you think that's what we should go for? Plenty of them exist: here's some. I count 6 or so that are specific to EM and would be perfect for the article. How would we go about obtaining them? Or, would we have to settle for amateur photos taken by friends/co-workers? What say you? Or, who should I ask here? Who is a photo/image expert here?

Anyway, I was trying to think of images and I found a photo of the NY Public Library main branch, which I thought might be added to the Production and distribution section. In lieu of other images. I tested it and it was OK, but I didn't save it to the article. Anyway, thanks so much for your time and inspiration! Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me which article we are talking about so I can provide you with a specific answer? Is it Bill's biography or the radio show (or both)? Let's assume for the moment that we are talking about a photograph of Bill that can be used for both articles. Basically, we need an image that is licensed for use on Wikipedia. I'll take a look at the links above, but the best thing we can do is have Bill or his office give us the ok to use a promotional image for use on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant the Exploring Music article (for now). And what about the logo? Can we just go ahead and place the logo in the infobox, or do we need permission for that too? If we reduce it and make it into a small-sized JPG, could we just use it with the same rationale with which other logos are used in infoboxes? Also: re: publicity photos: If Bill signs off on Wikipedia use, would he need to send the photo(s) to us via e-mail? Or would he need to upload them to Wikipedia? Or could we harvest them from the Web? Lastly, all those various kinds of free license terms (which seem to all start with G) are really confusing to me. Would he have to understand them as well? Forgive the onslaught of questions. I didn't even own a camera till a year ago, and now I'm all excited about making this article the best it can be (which means adding images as far as I can tell). Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's focus on the Exploring Music article for now. Give me a few minutes to take a good, hard look and get back to you on this question. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer at least one of your questions: No, Bill (or anyone else) wouldn't have to do anything other than give us permission to use a particular image, preferably one that is already on their website. However, if it is a photograph of Bill that appears on a page that says it is copyrighted, he or someone reprenting him, might have to e-mail OTRS saying that they had released the image for use on Wikipedia acccording to the license given on the upload page. So, what this means is, we would take care of the upload, and they would confirm the licensing if it isn't already explicit on the webpage where we found it. It really doesn't matter how we do it, just as long as we do it. On the other hand, Jazz musician Kurt Elling was "cool" enough to release a professional promotional head shot into the public domain simply because we asked him. (I met Mr. Elling at the end of one of his shows in SF a while back, and this particular photograph doesn't even do him justice.) Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm taking all of that in. About the photo of Elling that was uploaded by User:Jlencion: How did Jlencion acquire the photo? How did he acquire the release into public domain? Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He simply e-mailed Mr. Elling and asked for permission, although it may have helped that Jlencion and Mr. Elling share the same alma mater. :) Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How did Jlencion acquire the image in the first place? And is that all it takes, just an unpublished e-mail saying the photo is released into the public domain? Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail. You can read the discussion, here. Keep in mind, that was in 2004. Right now, there are several different ways of doing it. One way is to use the OTRS process that I mentioned above, over at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission, however, I think we should simply upload the correct photograph to commons (with prior permission to license it as cc-by-sa-3.0), and then have Bill or his office confirm this is true by e-mailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I've been informed that they have to 1) mention the name of the image and, 2) the specific licence/permission (in this case, {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}). Of course, this only holds true if we have the permission to begin with... Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as for the public library photograph, that's actually not a bad idea. But right now, some of the prose needs work, and I've made a few comments on the talk page. I would seriously try to improve the text before considering what images to add, but I think your thought process is sound on this matter. A few other ideas that came to mind as I read the article: images of the production studio, the Fine Arts Award, individual composers (ideal if they are popular classical composers, as many of these images or paintings are already in the public domain). Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TOC not appearing on some Talk pages

{{helpme}}

The "Contents" section doesn't appear on a few Talk pages where it should. I've seen this twice so far. The latest is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Adams_(composer) . Can someone tell me how to force a TOC, and do it for me there to illustrate? Thanks very much in advance. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

__TOC__ is the code. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is showing all 30 categories in the Project Assessment boxes ABOVE the TOC. How do you make the TOC not show that, but show only the actual contents of the page itself? Something's broken there. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that template is broken - you should report it or fix it. — neuro^(talk) 23:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is my report, and I don't know how to fix it or I wouldn't have asked the question. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't fix it, unfortunately; that's the result of stupid template design. The TOC will always display any and all headers on a page; if your comments subpage has headers on it, those get displayed as well. It may be easier to try to remove them somehow. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed ALL the headers just now, yet they still show up as section headings on the TOC. Why? Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they are in the template. It's the template that must be fixed (have headers removed). — neuro^(talk) 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the 'template that must be fixed'. Thank you.Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As you already removed them from the comments subpage, I think it's a cache issue. What you need to do address this is to clear your cache. On most computers you can do this by clicking cntrl + F5. The reason is that while removing the section headers appears to have worked, your computer is still showing you the version of the page it has stored in its cache memory. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

F, I've never had trouble with my cache on Wikipedia before. It would be more helpful to see if you can view the 30 categories in the Project Assessment boxes in the TOC, rather than assuming it's a computer problem on my end. UPDATE: Seems to be OK now. Maybe what I did worked, and it just took a few minutes for it to become apprent. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reaon I thought it was a cache issue is that I had, and the view was fine, which meant that to me that it was likely a display issue on your end:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Classical music radio

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. {{#ifeq: ||You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:
Category:Classical music
Category:Radio formats
Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

When you reformatted my message, you revealed some hidden text and altered its apparent meaning. While there are many category templates which supply parents (such as {{cat class}} and {{template category}}), I'm not aware of any which would apply to Category:Classical music radio. Sorry for the confusion. --Stepheng3 (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Odd. Anyway, I've reformatted it again, minus the hidden text. I've been in the editing and typography business too long to have ugly draft formatting on my Talk page. :) Softlavender (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamersley

Perhaps you can indicate which "scholars" are quoted in continuing support of the identification with De Vere. Paul B (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't need to google the matter. You added the reference with the claim that "scholars" are quoted in continuing support of the attribution. The claim that the picture depicts Oxford date back to the 1940s, when Barrell, who was an Oxfordian, claimed to have found evidence relating to Oxford. These details were based on his own interpretation of x rays, which were not, to the best of my knowledge, made public, though his claimed findings were. The detailed and more up-to-date tests were published in 1993. What you have to show is that scholars (not Oxfordians with a vested interest, and journalists) continued to support the claim that it depicts Oxford after the publication of the Folger studies. You make the claim so you have to provide evidence that what you say is correct. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the same non-answer in not an adequate response. It is not a neutral book at all. It is a journalistic and commercial polemical text with no scholarly status. I do not have to read this stuff. I read quite enough serious scholarship. You have to demonstrate that what you claim is true. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you are now trying to add this stuff to the Shakespeare Portraits article. I will inform you of a few relevant facts. I have given you enough time to answer my questions. You have utterly failed to do so. As I have stated, the book you reference is not a scholarly text and is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If you wish to debate this please discuss the matter on the Reliable sources board. Oxfordian publications are not reliable sources either. According to WP:fringe such sources are only appropriate on pages devoted to fringe theories themselves, and the Hamersely page and the Shakespeare portraits page do not come into that category. So neither of your sources are acceptable there. Please feel free to check this out with uninvolved contributors. Paul B (talk)

I will not have this page sullied by distortions and misrepresentations. If you want to discuss the frankly ludicrous arguments of Mark Anderson with regard to this portrait I am happy to do so. I only have access to them from his web page, since I have no intention of buying his book, and it is not, of course, in the possession of any of the academic libraries to which I have access. Stylistically this picture is unlike Kettle's work (apart from generic similarities typical of the art of the time), and is not attributed to him by any reliable sources. It is far less skillfilly painted than Kettle's works. The composition of a person holding a skull is completely typical of the time, and there are numerous other examples. (eg Catrin o Ferain. Kettle himself painted one Thomas Pead) So no-one at the time would have thought there was anything unusual about it, or connected it to Hamlet or Shakespeare. Anderson's claim that Oxford's family repainted it after his death because of a "panic" over political crises is so silly that it's difficult to know where to begin. Even portraits of convicted traitors were not repainted, and there is no reason why a portrait of Oxford should have been. To repaint it to connect it to Shakespeare is even more nonsensical if the intention was to conceal a connection to him. Numerous servants in the household would have seen the unaltered original, so repainting it to resemble the standard image of the playwright would make a connection that would not have existed at all beforehand. In any case the age has been repainted by a year to obliterate Hamersley's age. It does not fit Oxford's age at all. All these arguments demonstrate a profound ignorance or deliberate twisting of the facts about 16th-17th century culture. Paul B (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

References and external links

If a reference is cited under "References" it should not be repeated under "External links". 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(sotto voce - noting nice work)

Noticing and smiling at your passing touch of grace to Shakespeare's sonnets. I would never have caught that. Cheers. - Proofreader77 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Saint Paul Sunday logo.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Saint Paul Sunday logo.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Softlavender. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5