User talk:Luluplatz

Welcome!

Hello, Luluplatz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Please read good singer biographies and avoid boring lists of famous names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, greetings. I don't know if I am responding properly here or if you will see this at all considering Wikipedia seems very user unfriendly. Can you please point me to some singer bios that meet your standards? I saw your reversal of my edit the other day and am puzzled as to why you would consider listing musical contributors bothersome. I see it as an integral part of a particular musician's musical journey. And yes, it is about music. As for the list of awards, those are difficult to find links for since most happened pre-internet. But they are factual of the singer's musical biography and should be let allowed to stand, links or no links. One other point. Would it bother you less if I combined the list of musical contributors into another existing section rather than have it live within its own separate section? Thank you for getting back to me. Luluplatz (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I watch your page, so see your reply. I am sorry that you think we are not friendly. I tried not just to revert, but welcome, give guidelines for contributions and ask questions. English is not my first language, so we also may have misunderstandings. I didn't say I "would consider listing musical contributors bothersome". I meant to say that a mere list of for example conductors, especially if the names are not linked to their articles, tells me nothing about a singer's qualities and music. The last singer biography I wrote was Petra Lang, see also Maria Callas and Jon Vickers for examples. All could list famous conductors, but none does. Vickers has conductors connected to recordings, - that makes sense to me. Plain names are considered "name dropping": unwanted. Next question is where such a list comes from. If there is no source, it's "original research": unwanted. If it's copied from another website, it's copyright violation; strictly prohibited. All Wikipedia content should come with a source, but be reworded compared to that source. We have to follow quality certain quality standards, and often less is more. Please don't get discouraged! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations and it is making a little more sense to me now. I was not suggesting that Wikipedia moderators are unfriendly. I was referring to the unfriendliness of the user interface. It takes effort to familiarize oneself with the ins and outs of the interface, not to mention best practices for contributing to articles. Thank you also for the bios. Lang and Vickers are an easy read but Callas being what she is, is rather lengthy. And I am sure highly subjective (e.g. the section on Vocal Quality). I am surprised that was allowed since, as I wrote, her vocal qualities are open to wild speculation. Luluplatz (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I have been reviewing several singer pages here in Wikipedia and one in particular stood out, Kathleen Battle. Please visit it and notice the subsection "Major collaborations". How or why is that allowed to remain while my attempt to do the same with Cheryl Studer's page gets blocked? Is there an editorial double standard? I will allow 24 hours for a convincing answer and if I don't receive an answer (or if I do receive an answer and the aforementioned subsection in Battle's page is not removed) I will proceed to edit Ms. Studer's page in the manner I think it should read. Thank you for your attention. Luluplatz (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again two years later, and you seem still not to understand two things:

* When reverted, don't re-revert but discuss on the talk.

* Every fact should come with a source. Facts without source can be removed, period. You will be happier with respect for the standards, and the editors who try to maintain it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Cheryl Studer May 2017.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cheryl Studer May 2017.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been meaning to discuss this issue but have had little time. The deletion of the photo requires an immediate explanation. Frankly, it is arbitrary editorial abuse. What in the world is this so-called violation of "non-free content"? Care to explain? It simply baffles me. I am demanding that the photo be restored as immediately as possible. Please get back to me to resolve. Luluplatz (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, a reminder I have not heard from you. Luluplatz (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reminder. Luluplatz (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not lost sight of this pending resolution. You created the situation (one of arbitrary editorial abuse). Have the decency then to respond and help resolve. Luluplatz (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Your recent editing history at Cheryl Studer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance note

Hello, Luluplatz. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Cheryl Studer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

That would be the pointy removal of information from pages.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to respond regarding the ANI thread while blocked, I'm sure someone will be glad to copy any responses you make here to there.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the ANI thread mentioned above, I have upgraded this block so it will not expire. If you wish to be unblocked, you can still follow the directions in the box above. You will need to convince an admin that you are going to change your behavior; simply raging that you cannot do whatever you want and the block is unfair is very, very, very unlikely to be productive. If you create another account and resume the same behavior, that account will probably be detected quicker, and blocked for block evasion. Enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]