Talk:Michael Laucke/Archive 3

Discussion : edits made to Michael Laucke on March 17, 2016
Hallo, Die beste des Tages. First of all, congratulations on WikiProject Christian music - an amazing accomplishment in progress, to be sure! ...some gorgeous music too beside being very interesting. Congratulations too on your long tenure with Wikipedia and helping contribute so much. I would be amiss not to also thank you for that super interesting script which I look forward to installing in all its instances; it will be put to good use, to be sure. (As one of my diplomas is in computer science, I am always interested in these incredibly time-saving java implementations.)

I have been out of town, have just returned and jetlag is taking its toll. So I am tired and will make changes very soon. For now, on the business at hand. Many thanks for visiting the Michael Laucke article; I do hope you enjoyed it while making some constructive suggestions. I'll put in some time over the next few days to deal with the points you raised. Checkingfax and I worked hard on this article, along with smaller contributions from 41 other editors; ...well over 1500 edits if I recall and hundreds of hours, and of course it can always be improved. You pointed out things I left out, the reason being that I felt that the article was quite long enough. I actually have hundreds of excellent, secondary high quality sources on Michael Laucke from online newspapers, libraries, databases, and so on, and copies of the original scans of important newspapers floating around the web. But, as I said, a "readable prose size" of 20 kB (3374 words), with 125 references, seemed sufficient for now, and I did want to move onto articles in my other mother tongues of French and Spanish (and others) which I'm fortunate to enjoy, and help with translation.

I've noticed that on Wikipedia, many of the issues raised, such as some of the points you've made, are "corrected" and restored several times, each time with a different, at times conflicting, point of view, and citing different WP policies to provide a rational for the edits. ...price to pay I guess for such an amazing encyclopedia...

Adelante, entonces!

Kindly consider:


 * WP:ELNO: I see that I did not make sufficiently clear that Laucke was a soloist only until 1988; that is, until then he performed solo guitar recitals mostly alone or in duo or trio. He went on to build several music groups; in particular, he performed with, and garnered lots of press for, his "Fiesta Flamenco" group for the next 26 years! I noticed that he performed for 10 consecutive seasons at Montreal's Place des Arts; he began with only 3 artists and in 1999 we see 16 musicians, dancers and singers on stage! Newspaper articles talk about the show of "Michael Laucke and his group Fiesta Flamenco", and it is with this group that he also performed in many countries. So I will restore group categories  and , with your kind indulgence. I hope you concur and I certainly hope no offence is taken, while I really do appreciate your good faith and help.
 * Also, should be restored since Laucke formed the classical group Trio 3 (with Dizzy Gillespie's right-hand man Sayyd Abdul Al-Khabyyr), as well as the Canadian Guitar Quartet, also classical. Finally, we should restore , which is arguably the most important category of all here. Master French musician Pierre Boulez declared that Laucke was one of perhaps 3 guitarists in the world to perform his most difficult atonal work "Le Marteau sans Maitre" and 25 Canadian composers, among the most well-known in the field of atonal music, have written works for, and dedicated works to, Laucke. Many of these atonal works were performed by Laucke in Carnegie Hall and elsewhere. I feel strongly that a category for Atonal compositions belongs in this article. It is rare that new atonal works by 25 composers exist because of one musician. Again, I hope I've made my point delicately enough and in a civil and polite manner. Your thoughts are appreciated on this, of course.


 * I see you put back some of the flatlists which Checkingfax implimented, as I recall, but then deleted them again. So I defer to Checkingfax for his opinion. I like the effect of flatlists, but am ok with or without
 * I think Flamenco and New Flamenco should have caps, but I again defer to Checkingfax and others for an opinion; clarification required.
 * WP:INFOBOXFLAG: Thank you for presenting this policy I was not aware of. Interesting about flag icons in infoboxes as "unnecessarily distracting and giving undue prominence to one field among many." I don't want to stir up conflict; I'm practically allergic to it! But WP does say that the infobox may contain the national flag icon of (for example) an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport. Laucke won a great many competitions always representing Canada, but I certainly wont push this point.; it seems a bit of a stretch. Again, share your thoughts if you wish; always appreciated.
 * WP:OVERLINK is another interesting point. You un-wikilinked terms like snooker and yo-yo. I think at least snooker would be important as many in North America, unlike England, might not know what snooker is, as opposed to the more popular "pool". I feel it does have an important place in the article as Laucke was, curiously (and verifiably), the youngest North American snooker champion and this financed his musical career. ...other opinions would be great. Helping readers know what snooker is, and the connection to this article, adds an unusual interest.
 * WP:BLP sources: There are 125 references and only one is missing; if you do find others, kindly advise. I do have the required source on Peter Gzowski's program but never got around to adding it; I'll let you know when it's implemented in order to remove this tab and the one cn it refers to.
 * WP:POV: I imagine that you have some neutrality issues in mind but which were not noted anywhere. I removed the tag since WP:POV states that it should be removed when a) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given, and b) In the absence of any discussion. Tagging pages for problems explains: "Adding tags ...without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. ... you should explain yourself on the talk page and/or in an edit summary." Again, I am looking forward to learning of any neutrality issues you may see, and advancing of course towards improving the article as much as possible. In this regard, I have been very careful to be entirely objective and only write what has already been stated by reliable sources, but ...no one is perfect (except Hermes Trismegistus)

In closing, one of the problems of cyberspce is that you can't "feel" the person—body language, speech inflection, and so on. The best of intentions can be misconstrued. I hope that my intention here is not. I remain appreciative of your effort to help improve this article. I've also looked over your talk page and contributions, admirable indeed, and contributed myself a bit with Stryper and elsewhere. Like the music; thanks for bringing it to my attention! Merci beaucoup! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Natalie, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . That JavaScript is a bit buggy and not ready for primetime. I have alerted the developer some time back. I too look forward to using the script when it is solid. Flatlists are cuter. They're clumsy for longer groups. Flamenco and New are not capitalized unless they are the name of a song or album. Spanish flamenco would have a Cap S, because it's a region. Almost nothing is Capped on Wikipedia unless it is a proper name, the King, or the beginning of a sentence. See: MOS:CAPS. Itermedemusic.com seems to be down which makes four of Laucke's references dead. Do NOT remove the dead references. We have two years to find replacements for them per WP:Repairing dead links. I sent Walter a note about his recent edits on the article but he deleted my note 30 minutes later without replying and 30 seconds after that he went back to making similar edits. See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=710537947&oldid=710532035 this] diff for my note to Walter to open the lines of communication. Cheers!  17:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Infobox musical artist stipulates the look of the infobox. has either not read it, not understood it, decided to ignore it or has decided that this article does not apply to it (which would make sense from the use dmy dates but use American English). The capitalization of those genres is made clear there and should not be present. It also stipulates that on flatlist should be used. Checkingfax has made multiple uninformed and incorrect edits including the previously mentioned edits to the format of the infobox, and WP:OVERLINK violations and excessive and unnecessary use of nbsp, linking this BLP to categories for musical works. Do not defer to him. He made a request to have a peer review the work. I came and did so. I found many problems and he basically said "fuck you", and reverted all of the problems I found and fixed in the article. I am putting him on notice: grow up. Your editing is terrible and this article is promotional and self-serving to the musician. It's a giant fluff piece. Compare it to the entry in http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/michael-laucke-emc/ which is three paragraphs long. That's about how long this one needs to be as well. I'll check back in a few days. If this article is still a steaming pile of manure, I'll take it to other projects to investigate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And for further comparison, the Canadian Encyclopedia's online entry for Bruce Cockburn is about 30 paragraphs long, before the awards, etc. and our article is about 40 paragraphs, and ours are smaller paragraphs. But he's a "popular" musician, let's do the same for pianist Glenn Gould. It's just under 70 paragraphs there and ours is 61 paragraphs, but has three articles that have been split from it. I think it's only appropriate to emulate the length based on those criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gzowski
The Morningside reference is weak. I can write that I was a feature guest for the month of my graduation from high school this way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. ...good point. I do have the entire series of audio interviews (all copyright secured), wherein Gzowski states exactly what I transcribed. Would you know if I can use the audio as a reference if I upload this particular 30 second portion? That way it would be coming from Gzowski himself. Would you know if audio files used as references on Wikipedia? Thanks again. Oh, you can hear a tiny part of the interview in the infobox. Hm, come to think of it, if you think it worthwhile, I could add Gzowski himself to the beginning of what is already there, where he states what I transcribed. Kindly advise. ...much appreciated. Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. Or we could just delete this reference if none of the above seems feasible, if you think it best. There's hundreds of Laucke interviews, so one interview more or less... But Gzowski was wonderful, so intelligent and so nice, so I guess it's worth rolling up one's sleeves to more solidly support the ref. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The CBC is very strict on copyright. I don't think that it has been released to be used on Wikipedia, but you're the one they'll sue since you uploaded it. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Walter, for sharing your thoughts. The file was uploaded by Laucke himself, or his office; ...notice is . At any rate, the file carries an "all rights waived" permission, so it seems it would be fine to use. My personal experience has been that it's pretty easy to get rights from CBC, as long as it's for cultural interest and not for profit; so perhaps that's what Laucke did, or he bought it, or whatever. But thanks for the admonition! May I ask you to again share your thoughts on the above suggestion of referencing an audio file; would it make for a valid wiki ref? I'm willing to put in the time and effort of course if you think we should go for it. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. There is a citation template for cite radio so yes, citing radio is on the good list. Same for album cover, poster, sign, podcast, speeche, report, theses, press release, magazine, interview, map, episode, book, and so on. There is even a one size fits all citation template called:. You fill it with parameters and metadata and it adapts and does not squawk about what you fill it with.

Here is a list of the named cite templates (plus you can use the all purpose citation one).

The more metadata you can put into a citation the better. For instance, is there any reason [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Laucke&diff=710663835&oldid=710579238 this one] has such an "old" accessdate= ? Cheers! 16:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi .: ...many citation styles duly noted, with much appreciation, as always. ...and just when you think you've gotten to the End of Wikipedia. I'll put these to good use in the future, to be sure. ...interesting to learn about the general-purpose template. I'll be back later tonight but I did want to write quickly to extend my appreciation of your always amazingly generous help. Hm, I should send you some cookies... Oh, I corrected the accessdate you mentioned above. By the way, did you see the phenomenally refined and tasteful editing User:AndrewOne did yesterday. I must get back to him and express my deepest appreciation. Besides the beautiful subtleties he brought to bear, I enjoyed studying how his mental processes worked to administer changes in "les grandes lignes" (in French, in other words "from the broadest perspective"). Awesome! very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

PS:. More citation templates for your editing pleasure: Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates Cheers! 17:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a pleasure it will be! ...exciting to discover ...many thanks. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadian subject should be using Canadian English
MOS:TIES/MOS:ENGVAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you ever so much for these very interesting edits regarding Canadian English. To think that Canadian English is my mother tongue (at least one of them) and I never noticed. Great catch! (I did notice, subconsciously I guess, the classic differences like "honor/honour", but in all the hustle bustle never got around to implementing corrections.) 'Practi c ing' or 'practi s ing' was a surprise to me however, and again you are totally right. The word 'practising' always has an 's' because it is always a verb ('practice' is a noun). Again, many thanks; ...much appreciated. best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also the excellent changes you implemented to the infobox did not go unnoticed and are certainly much appreciated. My thanks once again. Overall, the design looks so much better! With the previous {{plainlist| version here, the infobox extended quite below the lead and even into the Early Life section, and just looked awkward. The {{flatlist| you brought to bear now is more eloquent and compact, the bottom is now perfectly flush with the Contents box and the infobox ends neatly before the Early Life section. ...so much more balanced. with all my appreciation once again, and all my very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

AndrewOne - A bowl of strawberries for you!
I took the pleasure to send you a bowl of strawberries ...with my deepest appreciation for your refined and tasteful editing on this article. Besides the beautiful subtleties you brought to bear, I enjoyed studying how you implemented various turns of phrase, and better organized the chronology in the Early career section. In the lead section, I would be amiss not to mention the tasteful 'crescendo' you created from beginning to end and the elimination of redundancy that could possibly be construed as promotional (over-emphasizing a point). Finally, observing how you re-shaped paragraphs from "les grandes lignes" (in French), in other words "from the broadest perspective", was so interesting. Fabulous! very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Michael Laucke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150227002551/http://intermedemusic.com:80/language/english/albums/intcd4002/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd4002/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304104949/http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd1004/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd1004/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151117014108/http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/home/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/home/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150227002551/http://intermedemusic.com:80/language/english/albums/intcd4002/ to http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd4002/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources / verifiable

 * I see a lot of scans uploaded to wikimedia that would normally not have been available, they're basically taken off a flickr account by Laucke's publisher - unless he himself felt like showing off all this stuff (unlikely). The fact that all these are funneled into the article totally raw by uploading them to wikimedia instead of just linking to the Flickr account is again not helping the POV appearance of the article.
 * TO DO - link all images directly to Flickr account


 * I don't see Laucke's name mentioned in the link for reference #1
 * Ref # 1 is Intermede Music, one of the the record company labels that recorded several albums with Laucke. The label completely revamped its interface one month ago! Need better ref. Canada archives has good references to all the albums Laucke recorded for Intermede Music, as does WorldCat library. See possibly http://web.archive.org/web/20150227000121/http://intermedemusic.com/language/english/albums/intcd2013/ --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference #2 does not mention Laucke's name either?
 * similar to #1. Check out https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/885229. for details on McGill University Records album with Laucke


 * Reference #19 does not list the author, fairly obvious from the source who it is. and "Unites States Senate letter" as the publisher?
 * Author now listed but may be best to change template to report


 * Reference 41 and 42 are identical.
 * These are two different reviews (October 1981 and March 1982) albeit by the same author of Guitar and Lute magazine. Ref #40 reviews, then nominates Laucke's "Jade Eyes" album for one of the Year's Dozen best. Ref # 41 votes it the best international classical guitar album of the year. The critical review is interesting in Ref #40, and the win (best international classical guitar album) is interesting in Ref # 41. N.D.


 * Reference 86 does not seem to support anything stated about Laucke?
 * (Reference 86 is now 85). References #86 and 87 refer to compositions written for Laucke by composer Michel-Georges Brégent, while Reference 86 is an article in the The Canadian Encyclopedia on Michel-Georges Brégent since he does not have a Wikipedia article. To do - Search for document and/or newspaper mention on Brégent/Laucke for verifiable source.


 * Reference 128 and 129 are basically just external links, no info in the references?
 * Needs more info; consider using more complete AV media citation template

New article 'Michael Laucke : CDs, Films and Dedicated works' Comment
Hi. I am planning the section we spoke of, that is, 'Michael Laucke : CDs, Films and Dedicated works', and have started a first sketch here. Once again, I impose upon your good nature to ask few questions: - In view of the more compact format of the original article, is this new section necessary now? We originally thought it might be useful in shortening the original - If we do move ahead, does this sort of adjunct article needed the lead which I prepared. - I copied over the infobox, but I imagine I would use I am also preparing, offline, the Flamenco Road CD new article as well. Thanks so much once again. very best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Start subpages for the new articles so you can do a clean move when they are ready. Otherwise you will nuke your sandbox and bring along a lot of sandbox clutter. And then, you have to recreate your sandbox anyway.

Start a new subpage in your sandbox for each new article. Just put a forward slash after the word sandbox and start the new article name after that and the new article will be launched.

Remember article names do not go in Title Case unless the term is a proper noun—‌but the first word always is Capped unless it's a weird trade name title like iPhone.

So it would be:

Michael Laucke films, dedicated works and CDs

I would suggest not putting the Cap C of CD right next to the Capped Laucke.

Actually, the name is long. How about: Michael Laucke discography and filmography

Wait, that's almost as long. How about: Michael Laucke works

Do you remember how to create a subpage? Looks like this:


 * User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Michael Laucke discography and filmography

Starting subpages will make a clean Talk page for each new article too.

I think the lead is good. I do not think having a redundant infobox is good. Cheers! 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . Many thanks! I moved my initial rough sketch to User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Michael Laucke discography and filmography as per your suggestion. Before delving in, I am wondering if the Michael Laucke article should be split in the first place and would love to have your thoughts on this. According to Wikipedia:Splitting, if readable prose size is less than 40 kB, than the length alone does not justify division. "Readable prose size" (text only) for Michael Laucke is only 21 kB, not counting tables of course. However, guitarist Paco de Lucia's prose size (text only) is 26 kB "readable prose size", still under the 40 kB recommendation, but the Discography is split to Paco de Lucía discography. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . Page history is shown in b which is easily converted to kb. However, page size for most things is measured like this:




 * Neither of those has to do with the b or the kb of the readable prose. I do not know how to convert characters or words to b or kb. How do you know the readable prose for ML article is 21kb?


 * In hindsight instead of creating a new subpage and doing a cut/paste move you could have done a regular page move and thereby preserved the page history. Oh well. When you move it to Article Namespace you can do it "right". LOL. Cheers!  09:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I use a tool called ProseSize, which you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr_pda/prosesize; it's very easy to install. I see that you don't have it under your JavaScript page at User:Checkingfax/common.js (Sorry, I hacked in to see ). Just adding "importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); // User:Dr pda/prosesize" to your common.js page should install it. The tool gives a very useful summary at the top of the page, and highlights in yellow all text considered "readable prose size". The summary for Michael Laucke is:
 * Document statistics:
 * File size: 312 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 38 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 9307 B
 * Wiki text: 93 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 21 kB (3386 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 456 B
 * I still have the history in the old Sandbox. ...alas . So, do you think the article would benefit from a split, considering the WP 40 kB recommendation? best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . It strikes me as odd that the character count and the b count for the ML article are both 21k. Seems impossible.
 * Do you have much more to add to the discography and filmography? You stated before that it was "partial".
 * I do have a DYK JavaScript installed that gives the prose in characters, then
 * approximates the words based on the character count. Cheers!  10:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I can't find where it says that the character count is 21k. Indeed it would be impossible for character count and b count to be the same. The filmography is complete. In the past, I had found 2 or 3 more CDs for the discography but have to find them again; ...won't make much difference in the length. So, prose size is 21K. Do we split? very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . This might help us decide:
 * WP:DYKcheck gave me the figure of 21K characters (or 3386 words). and Cheers!  22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DYKcheck gave me the figure of 21K characters (or 3386 words). and Cheers!  22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ...mulling over the options. I think I'll opt for a Discography/Filmography summary of major works in the main article and a more complete Discography and Filmography in a new main article, as per the excellent link you sent me—to wit: the discography info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, . I will be interested to see the progression. Cheers!  22:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from Natalie ~ to select contributing editors of the Michael Laucke article
Hi Everyone. I am pinging some of the over 50 editors who so kindly contributed to the article on Michael Laucke, and other helpful souls as well. The article is nominated for GA status and many improvements remain to implement as reviewer User:MPJ-DK generously pointed out. I will take the pleasure to work very hard on this during the next week. Feel free to adjust/comment as you wish. If father time does not permit, I still extend my warmest best wishes. PS. The discography and filmography tables will soon be moved to a new article to make less clutter. Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Hey, thanks to y'all and to the more than 33 other constructive editors we made it to a Good Article promotion 4-months and 27-days after the GA nom! We made it through a tag-team gauntlet of two GA reviewers, with one having the final decision in the affirmative. Out of personal pride, is going to continue to spit shine things behind the scenes.  was the power lifter, but you'all helped push the train while she pulled it.




 * Cheers!  08:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I never edited this article, not sure why I got pinged. But congrats, anyway! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi User:MusikAnimal, ...just goes to show that ...to err is human ; kindly excuse. Btw, I visited your user page and it looks fabulous! Kind regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Final review.
Dear friends, As promised, I had another good look at the whole article again today and, since it was in such a good shape, I took the liberty of applying six edits during the last hour. Since most of them were minor copy edits, I decided to apply the changes directly myself rather than cause more work for Natalie. However, please have a look and, by all means, feel free to revert any of them, or improve on them further, as you deem appropriate. There was one final issue that I left alone, because I wanted to bring it to your attention first: when I reached the section on Paco de Lucía, I was suddenly surprised to be taken back to the 1970s. After looking at the structure of the whole article once more, I realized that this impression was caused by the World tours section appearing too early in the article. I daresay that, if this section were relocated further down into the article&mdash;perhaps just before the Personal life section?&mdash;then the chronology of the article would flow better; after all, the World tours section begins with the sentence: "Laucke's career spans over 50 years, with concert and television appearances in 25 countries." and this suggested to me that it might be best to relocate this text towards the end of the article, since it sounds like we're bringing his career to a conclusive summary. However, since such a relocation implies minor surgery to the structure of the article, I thought it best to leave it for Natalie to make a final decision on the matter. If you agree with the proposal, then I am obviously happy to apply said surgery myself to save you the task, but would only do so with your blessing; so, thank you for letting me know. So, in conclusion, I am happy to have completed this unfinished task on my part, and want to thank you once again for your kind indulgence with the delay of my final contributions, caused by my Wiki-break. With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Pdebee.. That is just so kind! ...and I love all the edits you did ...really. I think you made a really good point regarding the World tours section appearing too early in the article and I'll wait to have user:Checkingfax's opinion; I do think he will concur. I have just taken the pleasure to send to your talk page my heartfelt appreciation and thanks for your very tasteful edits, as well as for your keen eye and the nice tying together of sentences from short stubby ones. kindest regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Natalie,
 * Thank you very much for your very prompt reply. I am glad you approve of the latest tweaks, mentioned above, and am grateful for your kind words, as ever.
 * Of course, it is absolutely fine to defer to 's opinion on the matter I raised above, about relocating the World tours section further down into the article. If/when we are all in agreement, then I would be happy to apply the change, since you've all been so busy of late; besides, you're still very busy munching your way down this huge stack of croissants of yours, Natalie... Seriousness aside (this is catching...), I'll remain on standby, waiting for your confirmation and ready to apply said minor surgery whenever you give me the nod.
 * With kindest regards for now;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, (with cc to  and ). Just do it. Corinne, if she will be so kind, will do any fine tuning to fill in any divots.  Cheers!   21:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear friends,
 * ✅! Very many thanks for your prompt reply and approval, . I hope you'll all conclude that this latest change has improved the chronological flow. Thank you for allowing this to happen, even after GA...
 * Well, this has been good fun, dear team; we should do it again!
 * With kindest regards to you all for now;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, (with cc to, , and ). Now that you mention it ... I recently nom'd Caitlyn Jenner for GA promotion review. If y'all would be so kind as to rake through her article while we await its movement to the top of the GA review queue, that would be much appreciated. CJ is an important and controversial article that gets an estimated 6,540,639 page views annually. I will caution you that it is a 1RR page which means you may only revert twice before you have crossed the bright line. The editing group over there is fairly chill on edits unless you change she to he or Caitlyn to Bruce. Those issues have already been flogged. Cheers!   21:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear (with cc to, , and );
 * Thank you very much for your kind invitation and vote of confidence. For now, I will add this to my list of 'Next projects', and will give it some priority when I emerge from the present Wiki-break. Unfortunately, I have several non-Wiki projects lined up for the next few weeks and probably won't be back in full Wiki mode until early May, at the earliest. However, I will take a look at the article in the very near future and, if I conclude that I can make some level of contribution, then I will let you know for sure.
 * Until then, please keep well; I'll be in touch again soon.
 * With kind regards for now;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Checkingfax Thank you. I will excercise caution using this tool. I read this interesting article thoroughly and will write my suggestions soon. warm regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Checkingfax; I will take the pleasure to give it a thourough read later today. Meanwhile, I found seven potential wikilinks going into this article and so I linked them up. So if you click What links here on the left sidebar, we have a few more inbound wikilinks. ...not much but more later. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Be careful with the semi-automated portion of that tool. Look carefully at the diffs of what it is proposing to change. I tried running it on Planned Parenthood and 25% of the semi-automated edits put a wikilink to PP in the middle of a long URL within a reference. This is a total FUBAR. For PP, the are over 500 hits, so it is going to be tedious to implement, and especially to double check each one to prevent reference pollution. Cheers!  19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)