Jump to content

User talk:Softlavender/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Please help

First, thank you for chiming in on the NIU Men's Basketball page and setting those two straight.

Second, can you report (or show me how to do it) "Corkythehornetfan" for this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Illinois_Huskies_football&diff=prev&oldid=698779624). Will you please UNDO this.

Evidently, this started with this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Illinois_Huskies_women%27s_basketball&diff=prev&oldid=698772480) then he must have gone and made that edit above out of spite.

He is being petty, spiteful, and TARGETING NIU here (and STALKING me). Is he going to go and change all of the Emporia State pages and Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Western Kentucky, etc?

This is absolutely ridiculous. And he cites the "WP:COMMONNAME" like that excuses his childish behavior. It makes the article incredibly difficult to read without a single "NIU" acronym used.

I appeal to your common sense and experience as an editor to set this guy straight.

I just joined, but if this is how this place runs, I won't be staying. I already tried to report him and another editor for circumventing the three-revert rule (which I knew nothing about and apparently was BAITED into breaking by those two). However, someone claimed that they did not circumvent the rule when it's is obvious that they did and simply looking at the edit history of the NIU Men's Basketball Team page would show it.

Please help if you can, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. (How do I "sign" this?)

-AnneMorgan88

- - - - - -

YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS ANY OF THE CONCERNS.

That user did "stalk" me obviously checking up on pages that I edited after I edited them.

That user is being petty by making the childish edits that rendered the article unreadable. Any real editor understands that once the initial abbreviation is placed in the article, it is acceptable and preferred to use said abbreviation rather than use (a wrong, by the way) long form of the word/phrase/term throughout the entire piece as he did here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Illinois_Huskies_football&diff=prev&oldid=698779624). Citing the "WP:COMMONNAME" does not excuses his childish behavior.

Again, will that user be editing all of the Emporia State pages and Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Western Kentucky, etc., if "WP:COMMONNAME" is so important to him?

Also, how to I REPORT that user? That hasn't been answered. As I mentioned above, any real life editor with real life editing experience (hint: I am one) understands what that petty user did to the readability of the referenced article. Once reported, any real editor should correct that user's malicious actions. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Perhaps report the user to WP:ANI (remember to place {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on the editor's talk page if you do)- you will find such complaints as yours as are dealt with in great depth and impartiality there... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Just so y'all are aware, I didn't "stalk AnneMorgan88". In fact, I edited the page 3+ months before this user edited the page and/or other Northern Illinois Athletic articles. I'm much easier to work with when a user comes to my talk page or talks with me on the article talk page. I even tried talking to her at the women's bball talk page (she was pinged and she would've seen it in her watchlist). It's when they go to other users' talk pages and starts stuff like "they're bullying" or their "stalkers", etc. that I won't work with them. I don't stalk, I don't bully, and I definitely don't "target" articles; there are better things to do in life then to do that. When I have a page on my watchlist, I check the article to see what edits were made by another user to make sure they A) didn't mess up the rest of the page, B) make sure it isn't vandalism and C) to make sure it sourced... just like I expect others to do when I make an edit. When I saw that this user had went to Drmies about this, yes I looked to see what other users this user had gone to. If this user doesn't get what they want, then they'll just move on until they get what they want (This is the third (3rd) person she's gone to). ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
...you were recipient
no. 1091 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ciaran Madden

The article Ciaran Madden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable person.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought

Saw your comment at my talk, but now I just saw this and so I understand the context better. While think you meant well to give me advice on the guidelines, you probably hadn't noticed [1], [2], [3], [4] and especially [5]. I hesitate to negotiate with those who choose that level of confrontation. Montanabw(talk) 01:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit comment on deleting the Shipman cite in Ruritanian Romance

Greetings, and I hope this finds you well.

I noticed your deletion of my cite of the Shipman cite in our article Ruritanian Romance, and while I agree with your deletion, you were wrong on one point on your edit comment:

  • "Editor's summary: Can't use wikis as citations; see WP:UGC. Thatpoint doesn't need a citation though since it has a Wikipedia article. What needs citing is that Jennifer Blake's two novels are historical romances & are set in a fictional country called Ruthenia."

The cite in question was a part of the wikisource project. Wikisource items ARE citable in our articles (indeed, the wikisource project exists to make public domain sources readily available). Where I erred was in not using the wikisource cite template, an error I own.

Just to make it clear that I DO know that our articles are not proper sources for other articles.

However, every other point you made in your edit comment was on point and correct.

I hope you have a prosperous and enjoyable New Year. Best regards, loupgarous (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, please read WP:UGC. We cannot use any wiki or any crowdsourced item as a citation in Wikipedia articles, just like we can't use Wikipedia as a citation. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
loupgarous is right. When you cite something on Wikisource, you're not citing Wikisource itself, but rather the underlying source (in this case a Catholic Encyclopedia article), a copy of which Wikisource is hosting. That the host is Wikisource is irrelevant -- no different than if it was on Googlebooks or the Wayback machine. EEng (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
But Wikisource isn't secure; therefore it's certainly not irrelevant that it is the host. It's like Wikipedia; anyone can edit it and put nonsense inside the supposedly authentic article. Therefore, it's unreliable. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't swear by it but I think that's wrong. Wikisource has a formal review and protection process -- see wikisource:Wikisource:Protection policy. Pinging John Vandenberg, who I think has a special interest in Wikisource. EEng (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Most importantly, the source is not the link. The source is the originally published item. The link is just a convenience that we add to Wikipedia citations in order to help other editors find the cited material. As editors we need to find and use the best link for each citation, to help each other and readers.
There are some aspects of a link host that are relevant when choosing whether to link to it. The first should be "does it host scans of the original, with clear bibliographic metadata for the version hosted". Wikisource does host scans with metadata. The scans are usually linked to the page, however the Old CE is undergoing a maintenance project. Anyway, the scans for s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ruthenians are somewhere near s:Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/323 (in the pages that follow it).
Scans of Old CE were briefly online at http://oce.catholic.com , however they had an enormous watermark on them, and they claimed copyright of the scan (which is copyfraud). OCE went offline; apparently the business model of making money from PD scans didnt work well. Now the only other comprehensive online copy of Old CE (that I am aware of) is New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ , and its clones like http://www.atlaschurch.org/index-8.php , which also does not have scans, does not have images, and I recall it having significant errors in the text.
Yes, anyone can edit Wikisource, but the scans on Wikisource include provenance and metadta, and in this case the scans come from a reputable scanner (University of Toronto). Someone could alter the text to be different from those scans (honestly this doesnt happen very frequently at all...), but with scans around that can be detected and fixed. IMO I would prefer Wikipedia links to a wiki with scans and incorrect text, than to a locked down ad farm with seemingly correct looking text and no scans. We cant validate the latter.
Pinging Charles Matthews who started the Old CE upgrade project. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to the conversation, particularly those posters who mentioned the need to be sure that there are adequate source materials which can be verified before using a wikisource as a source in one of our articles. That's a very useful caveat to use of materials found in the wikisource project, and one that I had not yet considered.
The fact that a cite template exists for wikisource material implies strongly to me that wikisource material is intended to be cited in wikipedia articles. The provenance of the wikisource-hosted material in question here is as firm as many sources which are commonly accepted outside wikisource. loupgarous (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to repeat, it's not the provenance that is in question at all. It's the fact that it is a wiki, and anybody at all can go in and add nonsense to any article, and therefore it's not provably 100% reliable or accurate at any given time. If it were merely a secure and uneditable article-hosting site (which it should be, like The Free Library), that would be completely different. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your point. It's just that wikipedia disagrees with you. A cite template exists specifically to allow citation of sources from wikisource in wikipedia. Quoting directly from Template:Cite_wikisource, "This template is used to cite sources in Wikipedia. It is specifically for works in the sister project Wikisource." It's a detailed template, and there are even a series of partially completed wikisource cite templates for specific sources of information hosted there. That's an awesome amount of support for sources which cannot be cited in wikipedia.
Wikipedia itself makes the needed point in Template:Cite_wikisource: "This template is used to cite sources in Wikipedia. It is specifically for works in the sister project Wikisource." I don't know how much clearer wikipedia needs to be on the subject.
While it's been pleasant discussing this point, at this point I can only encourage you to take your concerns to those of us responsible for the policy which permits the use of wikisource-hosted materials in wikipedia articles. loupgarous (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Those of us??? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine, with a few caveats, to cite what is on Wikisource within Wikipedia. One has to note that the source itself may be old scholarship, even if a "reliable source" in the sense used here; and also that transcription errors may occur with any digitisation. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I think that due diligence in evaluating a source is indicated regardless of the nature of the source. The Shipman cite touched on an historical fact, the existence of a geopolitical entity called "Ruthenia" in real life as well as in the pages of one of the novels discussed in the article Ruritanian Romance. I had actually, after making the cite, continued to exercise due diligence and had located a better source, mentioned the fact in the Ruritanian Romance talk page, and was waiting for discussion, so that the change could be made after a consensus had been reached (to avoid any conflicts with other editors on this article). When my cite had been deleted, no one had responded to my request for discussion and consensus.
I actually agreed with Softlavender's deletion of the Shipman cite on grounds of relevance - I'd identified a more recent and possibly more scholarly chapter of a book in Google Books which I felt was a sounder source. But I felt the Shipman cite (Shipman's article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia) hosted on wikisource, was a technically correct citation. I was not then aware of the proper template for citing sources hosted in wikisource, Template:Cite_wikisource, and to that extent I erred.
But the overarching issue of whether or not wikisource-hosted sources can be used in wikipedia articles shouldn't be an issue. Template:Cite_wikisource is very clear on the subject. I'm primarily interested in making sure that we don't have to go to arbitration or any other dispute resolution process to legitimize a process on which there is clear guidance from wikipedia: "This template is used to cite sources in Wikipedia. It is specifically for works in the sister project Wikisource." I can't think of more than one interpretation of those two sentences, and that is that use of sources hosted in wikisource is permissible in wikipedia articles (as you say, with due consideration of the quality of the source). loupgarous (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting way too wall-of-textish.

  • loupgarous, the existence of the template is of zero evidentiary value in this. There are lots of templates that purport to help you do things that, in fact, MOS or RS discussions forbid you to do. And if you think a question like this is ever going to go to arbitration, you've lost all perspective.
  • The key point is the one John Vandenberg made, which is that in addition to the transcriptions, Wikisource also hosts scans of the original material e.g [6]. Forget the transcriptions -- the scans are the source. EEng (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Linking to a/the scan would work, as scans are not editable. (Just for the record and to repeat, there is no need to use this or any other citation about Ruthenia/Ruthenians in the Ruritanian Romance article, as I explained in my edit summary and on the article talk page. There was a misplaced "citation needed" tag which belonged on the previous sentence.) Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Well, we learned something new about Wikisource, anyway. BTW, you seem to have missed the party. EEng (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Words. Fail. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, how come I attract all the impaired or intoxicated block-happy admins? Maybe I should start an essay, WP:BLOCKHEADS. EEng (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"... screw their poor old EEngeens, get sloshed and go berserk"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This discussion hasn't reached a usable consensus in the question "Can wikisource-hosted material be used as sources for citations in wikipedia articles?" Accordingly, I've requested a WP:Third Opinion to open the question up to the wikipedia editor community at large. This section of your talk page and the relevant section of the talk page in Ruritanian_romance are cited. I have given my arguments for the utility of wikisource-hosted material consistent with the general guidelines in WP:RELIABLE in the "Active Disagreements" section under the heading "Are articles or documents hosted in the Wikisource project valid source material for Wikipedia articles?" in WP:Third Opinion. You are, of course, invited to defend your position there. loupgarous (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Third opinion has been provided here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your posted close request

If you still want a close on your posted close request for Power Rangers then let me know and I will do it, this is your posted request:

(cur | prev) 16:03, 13 January 2016‎ Softlavender (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,755 bytes) (+803)‎ . . (→‎Request for closure: Wikipedia talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters: restored request for closure archived by bot) (undo | thank)

It should be a simple close for a short RfC. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Fountains of Paris was confused by the edit summary here, Softlavender's edit had nothing to do with Power Rangers, he was adding another RFC close request back to the page directly under the pre-existing Power Rangers request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fountains-of-Paris, I never made a request to close any Power Rangers RfC. ... Next time, please make double sure to check the thread/diff in question (as Floquenbeam did above) before making such an assumption. Also, if you would, please learn how to post a WP:DIFF (using the radio buttons in the edit history and then using brackets to shorten and link it, just like Floq did above, like this: [7]) so people know what you are talking about. Thanks very much! (And Floq, I'm a she.) Softlavender (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the editing tip! I am trying my best to make the articles as comprehensive as they can be. For the articles about the mountain bike riders, there isn't a ton that I can say about them, but I think it's enough for an article for someone to learn something about them. Rileyschneider (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, Rileyschneider; we realize that you are a good contributor; it's just that you needed a way to add more to your articles before they are posted live on Wikipedia. Another tip: In case you are not aware, the best thing on Google searches is to remember to put quotation marks around the name when searching, and also to remember to check GoogleNews in addition to web. I disagree that there's not much you can say about them. Yngvadottir's additions to your articles show that there is a lot of information and coverage. (If you can't find much about a particular cyclist, then they don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and don't belong on Wikipedia.) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Robert Davi comments on the "Great American Songbook" page

 I posted some comments on the "Great American Songbook" (GAS) which you removed. Could you please tell me WHY you removed my comments? I gave credits to EVERY song name, music writer, and lyric writer of EACH and EVERY song I mentioned as shown below. The link to the GAS with my comments is below. In the reply I received from Wikipedia (below) it states, 

  "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zanmia (talk | contribs) at 09:53, 27 December 2015 (Added Robert Davi to the "Other Singers" section of the "Great American Songbook"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_American_Songbook&oldid=696979612 ),

which may differ significantly from the current revision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook )." 

 What exactly are you talking about when you say, "This is an old revision of this page"? The COMMENTS I added were TOTALLY NEW and NOT a "REVISION". What EXACTLY do I need to do to have my comments included in the GAS page?



 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_American_Songbook&section=9
 “Other Singers”



“Actor turned singer Robert Davi has turned his attention from acting to his lifetime love and passion singing. Through his singing he is bringing the greatness that is the "Great American Songbook" to audiences new and old both in concert and on his recordings. His recordings include such classics as "All The Way" written by Jimmy Van Heusen with lyrics by Sammy Cahn, "I've Got The World On A String" written by Harold Arlen with lyrics by Ted Koehler, "Too Marvelous For Words" written by Richard A. Whiting with lyrics by Johnny Mercer, "Summer Wind" written by Heinz Meier with lyrics by Johnny Mercer, and too many more to list. They can be found on "Davi Sings Sinatra On The Road To Romance" at http://davisingssinatra.com/ “

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zanmia (talk | contribs) at 09:53, 27 December 2015 (Added Robert Davi to the "Other Singers" section of the "Great American Songbook"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_American_Songbook&oldid=696979612 ),

which may differ significantly from the current revision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook ).


(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

This article possibly contains original research. (November 2009)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2014) 

 Thanks, Mike
 Zanmia (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Zanmia. What you are mistaking for a "reply" is not a reply, but simply the Wikipedia software's banner on an old and archived version (the version with your edit) of the article. As to your question about my removal of the text you added, this sort of question/discussion belongs on the talk page of the article itself, so any further discussion belongs there. I will however give a brief explanation: Davi appears insufficiently noteworthy in this context in the GAS Wikipedia article, which is already overrun with too much insufficiently relevant information. Plus the information was uncited and obviously promotional. Please do not respond further here on my talk page; if you have any further questions or comments please post them on the talk page of that article. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you notice ...

... this? Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested

Hello S. I hope that you 2016 is off to a good start. Pauline Collins is a longtime favorite of mine. I wanted to let you know about this sale price on her series The Ambassador. It never aired in my part of the world so I am looking forward to seeing it. Features Denis Lawson and Peter Egan as well :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow that does look good, M. I love all those actors. I'll check into a it a bit further and see if I want to spring for it or if it's on Amazon Instant or whatever. By the way, are you watching War and Peace? My boy Jack Lowden, whose wiki article I wrote, is in the main cast as Nikolai Rostov so I've gotten the BBC broadcasts from my Twitter friend as they air (U.S. airing is cutting about 11% of the footage). Loving it so far, even though not as deep or thorough as Tolstoy. Lowden is quite fine, captures the part perfectly (in fact more than any other actor in the miniseries he captures his character as Tolstoy wrote it). Ta, Softlavender (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning W&P. I am such a techno-dinosaur that I haven't gotten around to streaming shows yet. I know that means I am missing some wonderful programs. I will hope to get a chance to catch it one day though. I have to see it since I've read the book a couple times. I've also seen the 1956 film, the 1960 film series and the BBC 1972 series. I even saw the opera many years ago. Of course the comedy version is full of laughs and takes much less time to watch :-) Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, you're way more up on W&P than me. I've only seen the Hepburn/Fonda film, ages ago. I hadn't read the book before this holiday season, so I started around Christmas and have been keeping just ahead of the BBC episodes. I imagine the DVD will come out at some point; hopefully you can acquire the British DVD rather than the U.S. one with all the cuts. (It's an Andrew Davies adaptation, for better of for worse.) :-) Softlavender (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll keep my fingers crossed for a DVD release. I have a region free player so getting the UK version will be the way to go. If you can ever track it down the 72 version is an interesting watch if only to see an impossibly young Anthony Hopkins. Do you think that the Beeb will ever make everything available for streaming and just charge us the going rate? MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
In terms of the Beeb, it would be nice if they did, and would help offset the Tory budget cuts and its possible imminent destruction. There's been a fair amount of discussion on IMDB with proponents of the Anthony Hopkins version and also his portrayal. Not having seen that to compare, I'm quite happy with Paul Dano, who embodies Pierre as written quite well and quite likeably within the confines of this truncated production; in fact, he's gotten the bulk of the praise so far. Softlavender (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Sergei Bondarchuk directed the Russian film series version and also starred as Pierre. It was a remarkable performance. If you ever go looking for it beware of truncated US DVD releases. This is the fully restored DVD set. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: The Ambassador is on Amazon Prime Instant [8], so as a Prime member I can watch it for free anytime I want. Thanks for letting me know about it! Thanks for the tip on the full-length Russian W&P also. Yeah, I hated streaming until my CRT TV died in early 2010 and at that time figuring out which flatscreen to buy, especially on a remote island with only a small Sears store for choices, was too complicated, so I got into streaming. I haven't yet replaced my TV so I'm still streaming (and watching DVDs on my computer). These days most streaming will also stream to any TV or device, if one wishes. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am glad that you will be able to watch it at your leisure. No spoilers if you start watching before my DVD set arrives :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi S. I've started watching the series. While it may not reach the heights of others I've enjoyed I can say that it is well written and I am enjoying it. You might find my post here Talk:The Ambassador (TV series) of some interest as well. Best regards and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to say thank you for mentioning the availability of this series on AmazonPrime. I have let a couple friends know about this so that they can enjoy it as well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marnette, I just watched the second episode of the series last night, having watched the first episode a week or so ago. I enjoyed the first episode but I wasn't sure there would be enough of a plot in Dublin for much to happen in future episodes. Plus, although Pauline Collins is a fine actress, she doesn't have much emotional range (especially facially) in this (I guess ambassadors must be ambassadors), so that's a little frustrating and makes me wonder whether she was the best choice for the lead. Anyway, I'm enjoying it as my no-cost, watch-when-I-don't-have-anything-else-to-watch item. Right now I'm waiting for the final BBC1 episode of War&Peace tomorrow, which I'm enjoying immensely and reading the novel portions in advance of each airing (I'm on the Epilogue now). After I view the final episode I'll give you my impression of the whole. By the way, in terms of the various legitimate viewing options, for Americans, it is now on Amazon Instant [9], and in 6 parts like the BBC broadcasts, but each episode says ~43 minutes rather than the ~58 minutes of the BBC airings, so I think it's the cut American version. The uncut DVD is available for pre-order on Amazon UK [10] (wow, getting killed in the user ratings there, which don't match the glowing reviews/reports on IMDB, Twitter, news media, US Amazon, etc.). Since the final episode airs tomorrow, I imagine the UK DVD will ship soon. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I hope I haven't lead you into a show that is turning you off - click - heehee. I am actually enjoying her performance as it is quiet compared to some of the comedies I know her from. That just goes to show that two people can have different reactions to the same thing :-) BTW if you haven't seen Quartet (2012 film) I recommend it as well. It really hit home in many respects. There are a number of laughs in it as well. Make sure to stay through the closing credits as it lists what form of entertainment that each of the cast made their life's work. MarnetteD|Talk 00:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention, I've had that in the far back of my mind for some time. It's on Amazon Instant rental now so I've just now put it on my Amazon Watchlist. Later, Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC) :)
You are welcome and I am so glad that you enjoyed it. I was fascinated that all of the performers had long careers in acting, music etc. Have a wonderful week. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was fascinating in the end credits; had no idea that was the great Gwyneth Jones, for instance. The climactic quartet was so piercingly good I found it on YouTube: [11]. Here's another version also with Pavarotti and Sutherland, but with Leo Nucci and Isola Jones instead of Milnes and Tourangeau [12]; this one is not from the whole opera but from a Met Gala in 1987 -- the applause at the end is deafening and lasts more than a minute and a half. In terms of the delightful film, the leads were all actors I have loved for a long while; Tom Courtenay is a particular favorite of mine and I consider him an amazing chameleon. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Courtenay is a long time favorite of mine as well. Thanks so much for the link as it is a wonderful performance. I have fallen head over heels for Isabel Leonard - here is one performance for your enjoyment. She is a marvelous mezzo whose acting equals her singing. The other thing I keep noticing and admiring is that she seems to have a deal of fun as well. She is going to appear at the Santa Fe Opera this summer but I am not sure if my schedule and budget are going to allow me to go. Thanks again for the link and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ha, I forgot to post the second link; have added it now -- def worth a listen/watch. I'm not familiar with the name Isabel Leonard; I confess to not being as "up" on the opera world as I was when I lived in the Big Apple. Thanks, I'll give that a listen when I get up and turn off the radio -- I'm all settled in in my chair and the radio is too far away. :) Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
All settled in is the way to go :-) I am glad you added the second link - I was afraid I was missing something (slow on the uptake is my middle name) because Milnes was listed in the one I watched. I saw him in "Girl of the Golden West" last century. MarnetteD|Talk 05:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I watched the Isabel Leonard video. Wow, she is beautiful, a great actress, and has a powerful and extraordinary voice. (Her pitch seems off to me in a couple of places, but maybe that's an anomaly.) Hope you can get to see her -- that's sounds exciting. :-) While clicking thorugh some other of her and others' videos, I was reminded of one of my favorite mezzo moments of all time. It was in a master class by Pavarotti from 1979, televised and also reproduced later in a doco about him. I think it's actually the best performance of "Non so più cosa son" from Le Nozze di Figaro I've ever heard: [13]. I didn't catch the mezzo's name then, but now I see it was the 22-year-old Susanne Mentzer. I also love the things Pavarotti says to her. Anyway, if anyone is interested. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

You are invited to participate in discussions regarding the deletion of "Million Years Ago" and "Send My Love (To Your New Lover)":

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Adele

You have been invited to join the Adele WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Adele. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You.

Lost in the wilderness

Um, I think you put this [14] in the entirely wrong thread. I think it goes here, and if your intention is to oppose blanket rules restricting image sizes, then you want to support the new text recently installed [15], which omits language like "As a general rule, do not change the image size from the default" and so on which two editors seem to want. EEng 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to that. I still think the threads/proposals/whatnot are unwieldy and contradictory and hard to follow or fathom. I do not agree at all that specific px sizes should not be used, or that they should be discouraged; hence I don't think that I can in good faith support anything that I see as of yet. If someone ever sorts out the proposal to restoring the MOS like it was before all the one-size-fits-all stuff creeped in, I will support that. I think the only other kind of wording I might support is just a simple "In general, the default image-size setting should be used", but totally unqualified after that (i.e. no bold scare text that says deviation from that must have "very good reason"). Softlavender (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding you on the AfD?

Am I misunderstanding you on the autism AfD, or did you really mean to say news reports from reputable media organizations are not reliable sources for medical diagnoses under any circumstances? Aside from the fact that this contradicts WP:NEWSORG, this would render virtually any report of a medical diagnosis unreliable, unless of course you talked to the person or their doctor directly yourself, in which case that's original research obviously. I am starting to see the merits of the AfD on other grounds, but unless I'm missing something, which I hope I am, your claim takes things way, way too far. If I am missing something or misunderstanding you, I apologize. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't stalk Mabelina

@Softlavender: what is your purpose in engaging in the ANI debate as to whether I should be booted off Wiki? This whole escapade launched by MIESIANIACAL is getting less and less savoury. Please advise. M Mabelina (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I can point out a saving grace for MIESIANIACAL and that is by his use of quotation marks. However, even the use of the term INEDUCABLE causes a legal minefield, which I have never wanted to get into. BUT, if such a statement remains anywhere on Wikipedia it could cause others to assume that it might be the case, following which yet another totally unnecessary bullying strategy comes undone costing loads of money... M Mabelina (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: you just encouraged MIESIANIACAL to spread the use of a term which I had previously advised is offensive - was that your intention? M Mabelina (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

About copyvio

Hi Softlavender. On the AfD discussion for Amalia Carneri you suggested (in bold as if it were a reprimand) that if a writer copies their own stuff into a WP article it is automatically free of copyvio. Actually that's not quite right. WP:COPYVIO says " If the contributor is the copyright holder of the text, even if it is published elsewhere under different terms, they have the right to post it here under CC BY-SA and GFDL without violating copyright, so long as they provide a suitable release to the world under Wikipedia's licenses or a free license that is compatible with them." No such licence attached to the article. The action taken by another editor, to rewrite it, was therefore appropriate. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done

You really lit the blue touch paper there, didn't you? I had got to a point where Mabelina had agreed to "cool off" (his words), and then you have gone and stoked things up again. Would this "cooling off" have lasted? I don't know. But I know for definite that there was a significantly greater chance of it lasting without your intervention.

I am under no illusion as to the scale of the mountain Mabelina has to climb to get unblocked. I am also under no illusion as to the possible outcomes of any unblock request, but Mabelina will continue to edit other wikipedia sites so if we want him to contribute to those constructively is it not better that he leaves here with a reasonably positive outlook towards at least some other editors, rather than seething with rage at the "injustice" of it all?

I will admit that I did not know about the 6 month guideline, so I should have said "6 months" instead of "a few weeks", but I fail to see how you could object to any of the other advice, especially as I was very careful to point out that they were merely my suggestions and that they wouldn't guarantee anything as someone else would make the decision. I'd also point out that the 1RR was suggested by another editor, and the admin who blocked Mabelina was the one who suggested I offer that advice to him.

Oh, and exactly how many thousand edits should someone make before they are able to offer advice to another user? 5? 10? 50?

Frinton100 (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanders

You're not seriously suggesting the article says he might even possibly be atheist, are you? That would be a remarkable failure of reading comprehension. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

New Message

Hello, Softlavender. You have new messages at SPACKlick's talk page.
Message added 11:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC on embedded hardcore pornographic movie in A Free Ride

You asked to be notified if there was an RfC on including the movie in Debbie Does Dallas. I have started an RfC about a similar case which has had a hardcore pornographic movie embedded since 2012. I believe the result of this RfC could be helpful in moving the discussion forward on Debbie Does Dallas. The Rfc is here. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been naughty

And threatened with an EW block on ANI. If you notify the anon, in all fairness, you probably should notify me. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138, I've added an update to the ANI thread you started. If the problems continue, the article will need further protection, in which case you can apply at WP:RFPP or let me know and I will do so. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

can you fix these ref-code warnings?

Since you can't stand to see them. :-) Alt-right is a mess in many ways, but perhaps you could help with the warnings. I'm not sure if they are caused by an editor there who seems to have some competence problems on the non-technical side, but as he does most of the editing of the article probably. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine now, so I'm guessing someone else fixed them. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Gave you credit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Starling

Gave you credit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Starling for your work on Hank Bergman and Sherman Bergman AfDs. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see, I'll look into that. It's mostly FranciscoFWPerez, logged in and logged out (the two IPs geolocate to Miami), rather than more registered socks. But at a glance it looks like the same lack of notability. Thanks for the heads up; I'll check the article in a few. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You're right, it is mostly just that account. But I didn't want to name it in the nomination, since you had already identified it as being one of the many socks in the other noms. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, please take a look at this. I reviewed each and found several problems. Would welcome your review and input. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I already checked them, X4n6, hence my latest note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Starling. I'm not actually familiar with boxing/martial-arts notability guidelines, though. Perhaps you should notify a Wikiproject that covers that. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
At least seven of the existing ones, excluding the current noms, fail either WP:NBOX or WP:NKICK, just as clearly. I could always do a multiple nom, per WP:BUNDLE and notify the appropriate projects. X4n6 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
X4n6, please don't do a bundled nomination. That's what messed up the first Hank Bergman AfD that lasted more than half a day. Always do single nominations. Viewers need to investigate each subject for notability, one at a time. Softlavender (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Would have waited for the current noms to close anyway, for that very reason. But your point is well taken. Will likely still wait before the next one, for the same reason. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. I'm not sure there's actually any reason to wait, but the timing is up to you. You can use Twinkle if you want nominations to be faster (I don't use Twinkle and it takes me forever to do an AfD lol). In any case, I'll put all those articles on my Watch list, so no reason to "canvass" me or alert me. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The only reason to wait is because I don't want to be accused of having an "agenda," or piling on, as happened in the 1st Sherman Bergman nom. Don't want to become the issue. Especially when the only agenda comes from this rather longstanding and rather prolific beehive of sock activity that you've uncovered. The fact that it survived this long before it was uncovered is surprising. Again, kudos to you! Btw, I've never Twinkled either and this process is time-consuming. But I'm certainly getting lots of practice lately thanks to this. X4n6 (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Well at this point we're only dealing with that one account, because the other accounts stopped editing. So there'll be no actual association with socking on these particular articles, unless the article histories reveal new related accounts. The main problem is that this user created a lot of articles on non-notable martial artists, which is why many of them have already been deleted, and many of the remaining ones lack notability as well. The user may have learned their lesson about notability, since they haven't created any new articles in 2.5 years (at least not from this account), but that doesn't mean the other non-notable articles should stay. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm still looking at a couple registered accts that have edited regularly on the Bergman pages as well as other boxing and MMA pages of questionable notability. They're not SPAs, but maybe that just means folks have learned and adapted after having so many articles deleted. In the interim, I'll wait for the disposition of the open noms and likely follow with the rest then. Will watch the pages, but don't really want to focus singularly on just this. X4n6 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I found two more apparently non-notable articles created by the Bergman socks: Carlos Andino, and Skip Hall (MMA). Maybe I should start using Twinkle myself. :-) Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh geez... it's like a flea infestation! But wait, are you saying that you don't think living in Brazil and working as a bouncer in a nightclub, or as an IBM sales manager, confers notability as MMA fighters?!! Some people and their highfalutin' standards!! X4n6 (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Sherman Bergman once knocked out Carlos Andino, so that automatically makes him notable. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I saw that and thought the same thing. Notability by dominoes. X4n6 (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Another article linked from the Sherman Bergman article that fails WP:NBOX: Rodney Bobick. OK, I have to stop this now. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to do as many as you'd like. They can/should all be nominated. Thanks for doing all the research! I'll do more noms this week. Buona notte! X4n6 (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Main_Page; and http://boxrec.com. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi X4n6, I had seen that but was less sure about it because of his U.S. Heavyweight Championship for Karate International Council of Kickboxing [19], which means I think he may have at least started the competition for the world championship (the nature of the fight where he got put out of commission is unclear to me -- was that part of the World Championship rounds or not?), which may mean that he meets the criteria for WP:NKICK. I'm not sure on the finer points of the criteria so I'm just going to sit this one out. I think the rest of the people looking at the AfD will make the right decision. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender. NKICK doesn't mention "KICK" and with good reason. According to its own website: "KICK INTERNATIONAL is dedicated to the administration, promotion, development, and unification of amateur martial arts sports in the United States." So while the article claims this was a professional title, the KICK website indicates just the opposite, pretty clearly stating that it was an amateur title. On the same page - its "History" section - it says (emphasis mine): "KICK INATIONAL[sic] has been established exclusively to develop amateur athletes who aspire for recognition and a future professional career in martial arts." The KICK website, also says this: "In 2006, there was a historic development in the arena of Martial Arts sports. In October the General Assembly of International Sports Federations approved Kickboxing as a world recognized sport under the direction of the World Association of Kickboxing Organizations (WAKO). In November of that same year, KICK INTERNATIONAL was delegated as the recognized National Governing Body in the USA on behalf of WAKO and filed for recognition under United States Olympic Committee." However, only WAKO-PRO is listed under NKICK, while WAKO, the amateur arm of that organization, isn't listed. But two other problems makes all of this effectively moot anyway. 1) Because Colombo won the KICK title and had his last fight, in 1993. Both events occurred 13 years before KICK even had an affiliation with WAKO - per KICK's own website. So at the time, that title wasn't sanctioned by any organization listed under NKICK. Add to which, 2) NKICK denies notability to "Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively... unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications." So it's a non-notable amateur title with insufficient coverage. It all adds up, again, to failing NKICK. X4n6 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
You can't go by what that particular current organization ("KICK International") is today, because we are talking about 1993, at which time the Karate International Council of Kickboxing held professional tournaments, e.g. [20], [21], [22], [23]. Plus the wiki article states that Columbo had turned professional by then. On another note, the odd thing is that I'm getting more and more proof that Van Damme is a fraud: [24]. Weird. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
One would think that if KICK at one time sanctioned professional matches, it would be mentioned in their own history section on their own website. But it isn't. Moreover, even if we were to ultimately decide that KICK sanctioned professional matches, it's not among the list of organizations mentioned at WP:NKICK. So it still wouldn't matter. As for Van Damme, people have been calling him a fraud for years. Even worse has been said about Steven Seagal. Just google him and "fraud." Happy reading. X4n6 (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are talking about two different organizations: the earlier "Karate International Council of Kickboxing", and the later "KICK International". It's not a question of whether or not the Karate International Council of Kickboxing sponsored professional tournaments -- we know for a fact they did because the events are listed in the reliable-source publications I linked. In terms of Van Damme vs. Seagal -- two different things. I'm referring to falsified championship claim; Van Damme once claimed that people couldn't find his record(s) because he had a different name back then, but the 1993 Inside Edition investigation I linked to checked both of the names and found nothing; and Van Damme refused comment on that and strong-armed the investigators away. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
If you go to Karate International Council of Kickboxing, you will see their website is http://kickinternational.org which redirects to http://teamusakickboxing.org/ which is KICK International. According to its website, KICK International was developed "in 1982 when Koplar Communications and Anheuser Busch developed a syndicated series of events from Las Vegas to New York directed and sanctioned under KICK International by Frank Babcock, Fred Wren, Larry Castor, Ken Norton and Chuck Norris." While, according to the article for "Karate International Council of Kickboxing," which claims as its source, Roy Kurban, (1979) "Kicking Techniques for Competition & Self-Defense. Black Belt Communications" :" "KICK was organized in 1982 by Frank Babcock, Fred Wren, Larry Caster, Bob Wall and Roy Kurban, with martial arts icon Chuck Norris serving as a goodwill ambassador." So I'm not seeing how you're saying they're 2 different organizations. Although it is a headscratcher how a book with supposedly a publication date of 1979, could reference an organization formed in 1982. As for Van Damme & Seagal, one may be lying about his championships, while the other may be lying about his background - because apparently he has never actually competed; so those black belts have been called into question. But back to Colombo, whether it was the old "Karate International Council of Kickboxing" or the new "KICK International", I'm still not convinced either has a legitimate connection to any of the bodies listed under notability and really that's all I'm interested in. X4n6 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you want to verify that they are two different organizations, just Google it: [25]. "Karate International Council of Kickboxing" was founded in 1981/1982 and sponsored professional and some amateur tournaments. It later evolved into "KICK International", which is a registered charity that is strictly focused on amateur martial artists. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I've already Googled it. I'm pretty sure you're both right and wrong. You've said they are different organizations, which I do not believe they are. You've also said one evolved from the other, which I believe is more accurate. To prove that, they were both founded the same year by the same people. The source you just updated, "Kicking Techniques for Competition & Self-defense by Roy Kurban," originally published in 1979, (which had its 14th printing in 2003), says: "In 1982, he joined forces with Frank Babcock, Fred Wren, Larry Caster, and Bob Wall to organize the Karate International Council of Kickboxing (KICK). Chuck Norris accepted the role as KICK's goodwill ambassador..." Which is as close to verbatim as possible to the current KICK INTERNATIONAL website under "Kick History." That's good enough for me. While they may be strictly amateur now, it appears they attempted both pro and amateur matches originally. But even if that's true, who they were then, in 1993, when Colombo won a title, still doesn't confer notability on him, per NKICK. Because there's no evidence that, at that time, they had any affiliation with any of the organizations listed. X4n6 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken blocked

I believe the block for several days resulted from some machinations by Fountains-of-Paris. Francis was an important editor on multiple articles Please help to undo this block. .Marlindale (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Didn't realize that; thanks for the info. FS knows how to request an unblock. If he doesn't request an unblock, he will still be unblocked in a few days. There is no rush on Wikipedia. And Francis also knows how to stop edit-warring and how to discuss on talk. Softlavender (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC); edited 03:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reintroducing, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions. Since you have had some involvement with the Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions redirects (i.e. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 5#Re-introductory), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Godsy, please don't post canvassing notices on my talk page in the future. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Reinforcing: Reintroducing, Reintroducing (Reintroducing reiterated?), Reintroduction, and Reintroductions redirects really require rehash? Ridiculous! EEng 04:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Alexander Street Press

Hello, Softlavender. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Bach cantata

go outside

Background for better not arguing at all is to be found in the article talk archive, mine, on ANI, and on the talk of BrownHairedGirl. If you don't want to read a lot, just stop arguing, better go outside ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

ps: a Bach cantata is on the Main page, expanded by three editors who like collaboration, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

ps: ja ja - as the Marschallin says in Der Rosenkavalier - remembered with thanks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DVD cover of War & Peace 2016.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DVD cover of War & Peace 2016.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Story

I am a choral singer, and when we discussed counting the number of rehearsals attended (to exclude those who had not participated enough, such as less than 70%), a wise woman said: "some singers come to the first and know the piece by heart already, others will not be able to learn it in all rehearsals offered". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, that's just nonsense in this situation, and I'm going to archive this thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem

Here's why I don't—and can't— fix every article where I comment !keep at an AfD; I'd never work on any project of my own: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts Today: +8 AfD...). This is frustrating and sad to see. Yes, I could unwatch, I was a lot happier on wiki before I watchlisted this. But it seems important to keep trying to accurately assess and try to salvage some of them. (True, some are state pageant winners or "glamour models", but all were labeled for WP:Women -- can you imagine all the unnoticed drafts and untagged articles out there?) I wish more people would become involved in the article rescue squadron. I wish that "consensus" would actually reflect policy instead of repeating a skewed interpretation that is called "policy" but is not. I am somewhat heartened at the thoughtful discussion and comments I'm starting to see at the RfC I filed (there are two, mine is the second one) at WT:N, though there is also a lot of misunderstanding too. But given some of the drama I seem to have drawn in the last 48 hours, and your comments here and there, I wanted to post this, just as a FWIW. (No response needed, just food for thought). Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to "fix" an article; you just have to demonstrate that the subject has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Provide the specific links (and the source names, such as "Mother Jones") on the AfD page if that's all you have time for. NorthAmerica1000 does that all the time; learn from him. To argue on, rather than unwatch, an AfD you have voted on but are unwilling to provide proof of your position on is irrational. Policy is policy. I'm not interested in discussing further. Softlavender (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I do, frequently. They are generally pooh-poohed or ignored. This is what makes me want to rip my hair out so often. (Also, being told that I don't know what I am doing and being lectured about it...) I am guilty of getting impatient with repeating the same arguments over and over, so I do get a bit short at times and use shorthand in an argument (maybe I need to just create a set of macros with the standard arguments, lol)... I suppose in the future I could add the source names and not just the link, for what good it would do, and maybe put them in nice big letters or something, but I am pretty convinced that a lot of folks at AfD seem not to care about sourcing, they just want to delete, delete, delete. Once they have a theory, they will stick to it no matter how much you explain. I find it frustrating that these debates take more energy and bandwidth about deleting an article than would be needed to bring it to FAC. The debates are also really, really toxic (I know some folks who just will not even go there for that reason). The bottom line is that s/he who gets the most !votes wins, and the idea that closing admins are supposed to evaluate the weight of the arguments is, often, not happening (sigh...).
But philosophically, WP:N states that there is a presumption of notability. That's my starting place; the burden needs to be on the AfD nominator to present proper, policy-based reasons, providing citation to the precise policy or SNG they are using to make their assessment (At least they need to spend as much time nominating as the rest of us do trying to keep it). I have seen the most unbelievably superficial and flat-out stupid (and I don't say "stupid" lightly) justifications given for some of these AfDs. In particular, they have to stop equating poor quality writing with lack of notability! Also, if there is no consensus to delete, there should never be a "no consensus" close -- if the burden is not met, then it's a keep. Finally, if there is a Keep (or even a "no consensus", as for now we are stuck with it) there should be a moratorium on re-nominating the article for AfD for at least six months... not six days or six minutes... (OK, I don't have a six minute example... but...) Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want my personal opinion (I know, you didn't ask, but I'm thinking out loud), I wonder if AfD should generally be permitted only for CSD-qualifying-but-debatable situations -- where, if true, speedy is met but there is only some gray area about whether an article is, for example, a blatent attack page, (like the "Crooked Hillary" page recently deleted), something absolutely offensive and violating of policy (say, someone getting around a salted article title or topic) or a copyvio. I think that most AfDs that remove all content and create a redlink should be a drastic last resort when there is no possible target for a merge and redirect, and no justification for userfying it at the creator's userspace or Draft space. (I know, the hole in this argument is what to do about seriously non-notable stuff like undisclosed paid puff pieces, garage bands and tinfoil helmet manifestos...but I'm thinking out loud here). I also wonder if there should be a userright needed to even nominate an article for AfD... I suggested somewhere the idea that a person should have to have created or significantly expanded at least 10 articles themselves and have had 5 DYK credits before they can do an AfD nom (or participate at AfC, for that matter) -- have SOME notion of what article writers go through! (OK, now I'm ranting. I'm done now...) Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Also, if there is no consensus to delete, there should never be a 'no consensus' close -- if the burden is not met, then it's a keep" -- No, a hung jury is not the same as an acquittal.
And your claim that "WP:N states that there is a presumption of notability" completely misrepresents what WP:N says, which is that there's a presumption of notability if either GNG or an SNG is met. You're changing the "starting place" to an initial presumption of notability, period, which just isn't true. EEng 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, I have never seen you provide solely independent RS sources that contain significant coverage and provide the name of the source. For instance, on one of the AfDs people were squabbling over on another page, you provided some putative sources, but none of them had the name of the source, and all of them were either non-RS, or non-independent, or passing-mentions only. And since you have a history of merely squabbling rather than doing the footwork and providing proof, and even if you do sometimes provide so-called "sources" they are faulty as I just mentioned, people are probably doubly inclined to disbelieve you, as you have become the troublesome boy who cries wolf. I'm not going to discuss this further, and I'm going to archive this right now because I do not want my talk page to be a discussion forum about it. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Have some Canadian cuisine—a butter tart

Thanks for stepping up at my talk page. I know I've acted like a prick to you before. I know myself well enough not to promise I won't again, but at least I can promise I'll never be a prick for the sake of being a prick. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries, CT. I (try to) call 'em as I see 'em, no matter what past interactions I have had with folks. (That's not to say I'm not human, but WP is so big that generally speaking I interact with too many editors to opine based on "friendship" rather than my actual analysis.) Thanks for the food! Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


Your thoughts

Seeing as how you did argue for more stringent sanctions on this user when I took him to ANI, (though he subsequently stopped his disruption) should I have handled this by anything other than ignoring and allowing him the WP:LAST? [26] he's back to editing in a useful way and hasn't caused trouble for a few days. My goal is to try and not let myself be baited so much (I do not always succeed), but I do wrestle with the line between immaturity and trolldom. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I've been off-wiki. I always advise ignoring PAs (seriously, I never respond to them). If he edits disruptively, then that's another thing. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably good advice, which is why I asked. LOL! Montanabw(talk) 01:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disappointed in Softlavender

Hi Softlavender, I have seen your background (female, 1955, Duke University) and just wanted to let you know how disappointed I am in your comment that "it does not matter" whether someone is lying or not. Ends justify means? See below. If seasoned academics like you have such an attitude, then what hope is there for the rest of the world?

"Hi Softlavendar. You are side-stepping my question: where is the alleged agreement/discussion on the Talk:Census of Quirinius page? Perhaps I am too stupid to find it, but I am concerned that GBRV is making it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.54 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point it doesn't matter. You were edit warring against legitimate, valid, and easily understood edits by an experienced editor which cleaned up an overlong section. Contrary to your repeated claims, nothing was vandalized or deleted -- it has merely been better organized. If you object to the current organization, take that up on the article's talk page, by starting a thread on it. Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)"

Important message

Click the image for an important message. North America1000 13:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Aw, North America, I wanted a "You've been blocked" message! I feel left out! Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Proposing moratorium

I invite you to ongoing RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Bangalore IP

Still unwilling to follow BRD and discuss much in talk. Just reverts w/ an occasional ES. Should I request PP on both articles? Psychological resilience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Social work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Having computer problems and this thing I'm on is really really slow. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for filling the ANI. I may not be understanding WhoIs correctly, but some show Bangalore and others New Delhi. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Jim1138: For future reference: Don't check WHOIS, check Geolocate. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Admitting ignorance has its benefits; one can actually learn something. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom

Greetings. The wikicology case is something that ought to go to Arbcom in my view, because of the principles involved, in particular whether it is OK to falsify credentials, and if not, whether editors should be accountable for any credentials they claim. But this is generally what Arbcom don't do, since they are a dispute resolution body. This requires naming the parties who are in dispute, and saying what the dispute or disagreement actually is. In this case it's not clear. In the Wifione case, the editor denied all allegations and thus the dispute was about whether he or she was in fact employed by a degree mill. Note also that Arbcom typically doesn't do forensic investigations. That is up to community, who present their evidence for the 'judges' to make a decision.

So the key question is: who are the persons in dispute, and what are the disputed questions? I am thinking about it. Also @SlimVirgin: Peter Damian (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there necessarily need to be any other "involved parties", because the case is solely about him. The case is similar to Essjay, Wifione, Neelix. See Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope_of_arbitration. And the problematical behaviors go way way beyond merely falsifying credentials. What we have is massive abuse of Wikipedia and WMF on many many levels, and therefore this is something that ArbCom should deal with and investigate, since some of the evidence is only viewable by admins, and since as you say evidence will need to be provided, and ANI does not have the context to deal with all of the issues and all of the evidence. If there absolutely must be a second party listed, as with other single-issue (single user) cases, the filing party can be listed as the other party. Could also mention other people from the ANI thread who were strongly in favor of an ArbCom investigation and/or a site ban/indef block. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, but as a straw man, what do you think the massive abuse of Wikipedia and WMF actually was? (Clearly I am not disagreeing, but it helps to set these out carefully, as an aid to making the filing itself). Thanks for all your work on this, by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Already spelled out in the ANI thread. It's a long thread. Softlavender (talk)
Note also that the Neelix case was closed after Neelix resigned. You mention Wifione (remember I was the one who effectively got that one to Arbcom), but s/he refused to concede anything. That's what made it a dispute Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. Socking
  2. Misrepresenting sources
  3. Misrepresenting professional/academic standing
  4. COI editing
Is that it?
This is something the community might be able resolve without ArbCom (but we'd need to temporarily restore the deleted autobiography to a sub-page, so non-admins can understand that aspect). It might have to go to ArbCom if the community can't agree on the seriousness of these breaches and so can't agree on appropriate sanctions. I do agree it would be nice to have ArbCom opine on the seriousness of #3. And they're likely to come up with a more nuanced response than the crowd at ANI usually does. Newyorkbrad, any thoughts on where we should go from here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It's lots more than you've listed. I can spell it all out to you in an email if you want. I don't feel like repeating the contents of that massive ANI thread on my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I've read the ANI thread. Don't most of the transgressions fall under those headings? (Of course, the instances and ramifications of those need to be enumerated.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Peter has opened a thread at Jimbo talk: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Faking credentials. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • [FBDB] Don't most of the transgressions fall under those headings? I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole members of the trans community like that. EEng 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Andreas has posted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikicology. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello, Peter Damian and Anthonyhcole. I've been away for a few days; and I'm also having major computer problems and I'm a month behind on a class I'm taking. Thank you for alerting me to the ArbCom request. It looks like it's trending to acceptance. Due to the craziness I just mentioned, I don't think I can start gathering/compiling detailed evidence until several days from now. However I'll try to add a statement of support for acceptance of the case. And no, the items/categories mentioned by Anthony do not cover all of the disturbing issues involved. (Also, pardon my rather curt response above, I actually thought that was Peter making the post I last responded to and therefore I thought it was odd he didn't see all of the other issues involved.) Anyway, Cheers all. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A new issue

Pinging Peter Damian, Anthonyhcole, Jytdog, Pldx1, NinjaRobotPirate, Choess, Fram, Takeaway, Smartse: You all discovered fake/unsubstantiating references in articles that Wikicology created. I've discovered a new very worrying issue even beyond that: Not only did he add fake references to his own articles, he added numerous non-substantiating references to random existing articles (usually previously tagged "refimprove" or "unreferenced") that he did not even create. He's done this as late as a month ago: [27]. I've only had time and room to note 6 or 7 articles he did this on, on 18-19 August 2014, on my now overlong Evidence draft: [28], but thus far every in article he added references to that I checked, his added references failed to substantiate, even via Wayback. If any of you are going to file Evidence at the ArbCom case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence), would you mind checking his other random reference additions to other articles? The best way to find is to go through his contributions (from the earliest, latest, or middle), and Control+F ref .... The newly extended deadline for Evidence is Monday 25 April, which I presume means end of day 25 April UTC. Thanks all who can help. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Forgot to add Sam Walton and Jayen466 to that list. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Softlavender. Erasing seems simpler... and safer ! Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Pldx1: I'm not asking for help on my evidence. I'm just asking, in case you will be filing evidence, if you want to check some of the other random articles he's added "citations" to. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

PS I looked at your evidence page. Do you have any objection if I put some signposting sections in to make it easier to follow? You are the first person to spot some of the 'bitey' stuff. Peter Damian (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter Damian: I'm not ready to organize it yet; I've not even finished perusing his first three months of editing. I'll organize, trim, and post headers when I get to a good overall viewpoint of his entire editing history. Also, "bitey" stuff is well covered in the 2014 ANI and the RfA -- I hope that the two ANIs and the RfA can be put, wholesale, into evidence, because they speak volumes and there's no way I can summarize all of the problems. I seem to be the only person really giving an overall picture for Evidence, even though 23 out of 33 people !voted for a ban/indef in the last ANI, and a ban was also suggested in the 2014 ANI. (BTW, I've never participated in an ArbCom case before, except for offering statements at a few RFAR's, so this is all new to me.) -- Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
ok just offering help. Lots of good stuff there. Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE to everyone: Wordcount for everyone has also been increased to 1000 words across the board, in filing Evidence. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's disappointing that Wikicology's disruption would extend to random articles. I don't know if I want to get involved in the arbitration case, but, if I do, I'll take a look at his edits outside of the articles he created, too. We might need a dedicated page to coordinate the cleanup of his edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to involve myself with this Arbcom case as it involves two people that make WP feel like a dirty place to me. I did what I could during the first ANI of Sep 2014, to have this problematic editor stopped (or at least closely monitored) but nothing happened back then. I suspect that Wikicology received personal messages from an admin or admins back then somewhere halfway through the original ANI, that he wouldn't be banned. I base this suspicion on the fact that at a certain moment, WC went from being extremely apologetic to becoming snarky again: "If you think I will be blocked or ban for this, by an administrator, it won't happen.". Just wondering who the admin or admins were? And where are they now that the shit that they created hit the fan? As for WC's bid for adminship: why would the nominator, User:Davidcannon (who's apparently been off-wiki for a while and only resurfaced with an edit today), have introduced WC as a lecturer? DavidCannon apparently didn't know WC at all before "This user approached me with a nomination request" so I can only conclude that WC himself wrote that he was a lecturer in his request to DavidCannon. And WC reaffirmed the claim to be a lecturer again later in the discussion concerning his adminship bid. But after the second ANI, WC suddenly states "there is no place I claim to be a University lecturer". Hopefully DavidCannon can shed some light on WC's claim to be a lecturer during his adminship bid. - Takeaway (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You are right. I didn't know of the existence of Wikicology before he approached me, asking for a nomination. I took his claims to academic credentials (which I seem to remember reading on his user page, though my memory is foggy now) face value — perhaps you could accuse me of being too trusting, and I probably was in this case. The long and the short of it is that I had just a brief look at some of his edits, saw nothing to raise my eyebrows, and didn't really look before I leapt. And by the way, whoever the admin was that told WC he wouldn't be banned, it wasn't me. I knew nothing about any of these controversies. David Cannon (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Davidcannon Can you perhaps find the original adminship request that Wikicology sent to you? It might be important. Don't blame yourself for thinking that this editor was legit. His articles all looked good at a glance due to his extensive use of fake/fluff references. Only when you start digging, do you see that a lot of it is just that: fake and fluff, probably meant to act as a smokescreen because when he is found out and told to remove unsourced content from his articles, he actually understands what is, and what isn't correctly sourced. - Takeaway (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Takeaway and Davidcannon: Here is the request for RfA nomination: [29]. I found the request by doing an "Edits by user" search on User talk:Davidcannon: [30]. It seems to be completely out of the blue, and I'm wondering why he did not approach one of the number of admins whose talk pages he frequently posted (butted in) on. David's initial responses: [31], [32]. Peter Damian may be interested in this. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

ANI

Thanks for your very clear feedback to Gongwool there. I trust your analysis, even when it comes to me, and you have chastised me there as well. It is good to have clear thinkers who aren't driven by wikipolitics at ANI. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Jytdog. Thanks for the note. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way Jytdog my last post there was an edit conflict and happened at the exact same time as your close (sometimes that happens on ANI -- two simultaneous posts on the same thread get posted). I didn't really know what to do -- whether to self-revert (maybe things were indeed resolved) or just leave it. Kind of a puzzler when that happens. Your close was gracious, so I hope I didn't escalate what was already calming down. If you want me to self-revert and return to your close, I will. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't know. It was a good enough place for me and reaching a good enough place in this situation was ... good enough. Gongwool actually is a newbie and I have some hopes for them. I don't actually want to stomp on newbies.  :) I do want the community to kick their ass a bit when they forget they are new and do crazy things like Gongwool did. So... your call! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I reverted. Better to have good feelings. People like to blow off steam when they are called to the carpet, so I'll chalk it up to that. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Insert smiley face here. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Happy to oblige: . EEng 14:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
EEng you are one step away from being banned from my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
<sulks> Are you serious? Apologies for any unintentional offense. Intentional, too, if there was any. Is this why you don't visit me anymore? EEng 08:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You are dead to me. Dead. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm famous now so you're making a big mistake. EEng 02:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Fucking hell. Is it too late to suck up to you? Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopper

Rather strange edits on User_talk:Timothyjosephwood#Social_Work & Career talk. First Kerala IP gets blocked, then second Kerala IP makes first edit to Timothyjosephwood's talk page and suggests first is a rogue? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

Hi, I see you reverted my edit to the article on Prince (musician) regarding the 911 call. You stated in your summary that there was "no need" for quotes from the 911 call. I am not sure I understand your reasoning. I made the edit so that readers could see highlights (not all) of exactly what was said: so that they could understand the hesitation of the caller to report the incident in its real terms, as well as his confusion about how to tell the 911 operator where he was. I don't know of any extant Wikipedia policy that discourages the use of quotations from 911 calls. Do you? And can I ask why you feel the article is better without this information? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 02:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444: In brief, it's trivial, unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and less easy to comprehend. There was nothing unusual about the call itself and the wording that was already in the article covered it accurately. If you still feel that your preferred version should be used, per WP:BRD start a thread on the article's talkpage, which is where these discussions should occur -- not user talk pages. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, "the hesitation of the caller to report the incident in its real terms" and "his confusion about how to tell the 911 operator where he was" is all your own mind-reading. There's nothing intrinsically correct about those interpretations. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You may be right about the venue for proposing such a change, but I did not want to revert your reversion and as you were the editor who reverted I would have thought it rude not to contact you first. And while I grant you that the interpretations I gave above are just that— interpretations— I did no such interpretation in the actual article: I left it to the reader to interpret the phone call... which seemed the fair and accurate thing to do, no? KDS4444Talk 06:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a talk page

Hi, Softlavender. AfD is not a talk page.

Per the AfD Edit Notice:

commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive

Hitler comments, etc. are unacceptable per that edit notice. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPO applies to all non-article-space areas where people post and sign comments. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. This is the edit notice on the AfD page:

commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. My removal is appropriate per the AfD edit notice:

commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. We are off-topic, but TPO which is a subset of TPG, stands for: Talk Page Guidelines. AfD is not a talk page. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. The Hitler and crime verbiage is a personal attack, and disruptive, per the AfD edit notice:

"... commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive"

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. From the AfD Edit Notice: "... commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive" {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I see your point

The solution to that is to remove the death section of the Prince article and simply have a link to the child article. Thank you for your concern. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. Plus, please keep discussion on the AfD page, not user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy at its finest

What are you, a comedian? Issuing an edit warring warning to someone with whom you are also edit warring is about as pathetic as it gets. Perhaps you don't know that just because you don't click the "undo" button doesn't mean it doesn't count as part of your edit warring. You've been told to calm down, be patient, and stop purposely presenting guidelines and policies out of context. You're literally all over the Prince talk page and have been battling numerous editors for days. Dirroli (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Warnings are a mandatory pre-requisite prior to reporting someone at WP:ANEW. You've already made 4/5 reverts in one hour over one edit, and now four reverts in one hour on another edit. I posted the required template in case of a report. Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, you completely missed the point. Again. You've also done this with several other editors. In any case, I was already warned. Do you know how to look at the editing history of a page? You were warned, as well. Are you going to report yourself? Dirroli (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dirroli: No, that's not required. For that reason it's probably best to leave warnings where they are, at least for a while. I don't know what you mean by "You were warned, as well" and "Are you going to report yourself?" Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, there's already a AN/3 report started. FYI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. Politrukki (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor conduct re: Krista Franklin articles

Hi @Softlavender: If you’d be so kind, would you please review the AfD discussion and my talk page discussion relating to the Krista Franklin article in regards to editor conduct? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Picomtn, I won't even be able to look at it for a day or two. If you need someone to look into it, I'd find someone else, as long as you would not be violating WP:CANVASS or WP:FORUMSHOP. Good luck. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Softlavender: A day or two would be fine as there’s no hurry on this issue, and the comments by @TonyTheTiger: were very helpful too. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Picomtn I have to ask why you are approaching me, as I have never edited alongside you, or had any interaction with you that I recall, and I have never edited that article. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Softlavender: For many years I’ve done small WP edits, but this year, for the first time, I registered an account and have been diligently trying to learn the rules around here. Unlike the academic world I’ve inhabited for many decades though, the consensus process here is often confusing thus leading to conflicts. So, and recently, I came across one such example of this involving yourself and the editor Checkingfax that was decided (I believe that’s the word to use) by C.Fred. However, and in reading the history behind that conflict, I became even more confused as the policies here are, sometimes, very difficult for me to understand. When confronted by issues such as this, and as my life experience has taught me, I’ve always found it constructive to query opposing viewpoints (the more extreme the better) in order to discover where the divergence occurred and led to conflict—which many times, I’ve discovered, rests in language differences. Therefore, since this is a subject area you’re familiar with, and in my belief that I’ve been treated rudely by editor HappyValleyEditor, I could find no better example than you to (hopefully) receive guidance from. Also, in you not knowing me your thoughts/opinions are even more invaluable due to your inherent neutrality. Please remember too, my query to you has nothing at all to do with the article, just editor conduct. I hope this explanation helps you, and, as far as I know, my requesting your assistance in this matter violates no WP policies—but if it does please direct me to it and, also, forgive me. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Although the editor is being quite aggressive in their edits, edit summaries, and comments to you both on that article's talk page and your own talk page, it's best to look past (i.e., completely ignore) comments about you or what seem to be personal attacks or aspersions, and focus instead solely on article content and Wikipedia polices. Everyone who edits Wikipedia articles does so with the implicit understanding that their article edits/content can be altered by others. If you want to write something somewhere that cannot be edited by others, do that on a website or blog of your own. When a dispute over content arises, start a talkpage thread on that article's talk page, and keep the focus on the content and on sourcing, not on other editors (don't even refer to the other editor[s]; e.g. don't use the word "you"). You are free to replace content that was removed if you can find citations that back the information up. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Picomtn, I'm going to suggest you contact Cullen328 for mentorship. He is an experienced editor, often works on articles about artists, and I believe he enjoys mentoring editors. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Picomtn: Dont take my comments personally, as I have said before. They are exclusively about the article or your editing, not you as a person. I am sure you are a nice person. However you are sure to get flack (as an editor) when you claim "copyright" on an article as you did here: "have reverted the deletion of my copyrighted edits to this article as no consensus was reached for doing so. Thanks." .... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, HappyValleyEditor. Maybe your word choice is poor, or your method of citing "policy" is. To wit: You are still insisting that we do not have a copyright on our edits, when I have already pointed out to you that we do. When you say that we do not, it naturally pushes people's buttons. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That's nice. Let's not waste time on silly things here on Softlavender's fine talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically, its a copyleft that we have on our Wikipedia contributions: anything we add can be modified, and also anything we add can be reused (with or without modification) by others, as long as there's some minimal form of attribution (even a hyperlink) that can [eventually] be traced back to attribution to us or our username. Softlavender (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender (with ccs to: HappyValleyEditor and Picomtn). Yes, you are technically correct, but my point as you confirm was spot on. As a west coaster I have an aversion to the left word (as in left coast). Such terms are usually a backhanded slight. My vernacular is copyright, and copyleft is a subset or maybe a fork of that.
Hey, HappyValleyEditor, calling my comment a waste of time on silly things and tarnishing a page is not cool or sportsmanlike behavior. Can't we all just get along? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to add one more thing to Picomtn: People can often seem aggressive here on Wikipedia, and they can be very opinionated and even often fairly obstinate/possessive. In some ways this is uncomfortable, however sometimes it is merely because we are building an encyclopedia and people can become very passionate about their vision of what's best for the encyclopedia, or how the encyclopedia should be. It's best just to see what you experience as rudeness as being passion or impatience. It's the internet -- people type stuff and click send with such ease, speed, and anonymity (and without much mental filter) that they act in a more dramatic or intense manner than they would in person. It's not so much that a "thick skin" is needed here, as it is a need to look past the personal comments or things that could get your goat, and focus instead on the goal of creating the best encyclopedia. Don't take anything personally, and focus on content, not on editors or their "behavior" or style of communication. We do have a lot of content policies and guidelines (which can take a while to get fully familiar with), and a lot of dispute resolution processes. Be patient (and forgiving) with others -- they are only human, too. Softlavender (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Softlavender: Thank you so much for your kind and respectful insightful answers/explanations relating to my concerns. It is, also, refreshing to find yet another experienced editor who values not only WP, but also knows the value and worth of helping those of us who get confused at times. Thanks again. Picomtn (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Softlavender: I must say honestly that the comments made in the AfD discussion regarding the Krista Franklin article by @HappyValleyEditor: have greatly saddened and discouraged me. This person said they were changing their vote following the flurry of truly wishy-washy references added by some editors and sarcastically added that this article has become a classic example of how to make someone notable enough through forensic reference excavation and archaeology. And as you know, and is documented, the editor being refered to was me, and all I was trying to do was my honest best in trying to improve this article, which took me many days of research, and which you’ve, greatly assisted in too. According to my understanding of WP policy, shouldn’t the nominator, and by association the supporters, of an article for deletion first do everything they can to support it? Isn’t saving an article the first choice before deletion? What am I missing?!? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Picomtn:: Re: "shouldn’t the nominator, and by association the supporters, of an article for deletion first do everything they can to support it? Isn’t saving an article the first choice before deletion?" Technically, no. (Why should an unrelated editor have to work their butt off to try to expand something that was to the casual observer completely non-notable? Wikipedia has strict notability guidelines, and is strict about enforcing them.) Which is why any article should be bulletproof before it is posted live onto Wikipedia. If you create an article, do it first on a user subpage or on WP:AFC or Wikipedia draftspace before posting it live. Technically, an AfD nominator is expected (but not absolutely required by policy), to do WP:BEFORE -- that is, research further a bit themselves to see if there is significant independent RS coverage of the subject. In this case, even if the nominator had done that, there wasn't any readily apparent -- mostly all bloggish or self-published sites/profiles or event notices. Even I would have !voted delete up until the very moment I !voted in the AfD. In terms of "the editor being referred to was me", you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading there, and taking everything personally; at least three editors were involved in adding those refs/information. If you continue to take things personally, especially when you are not being referred to, you will not last long on Wikipedia. I have already told you that. Now stop it, and stop referring to the behavior of others. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. School is now open. WP:BEFORE is a subset of WP:Deletion policy (a policy). WP:ATD (alternatives to deletion) is a Wikipedia policy. So, yes, a deletion nominator is supposed to work their but off to ensure there are no alternatives to deletion before they can nominate an article for deletion. So, technically, yes, by policy. Same for WP:redlinks: policy says they are to remain unless there is no chance of them being made into articles. Scroll up on WP:ATD to see that it is a policy. Please start going to AfD and waving these four policies. Thank you. PS: When I removed mention of the behavior of others from an AfD you reverted it. (ccs to Picomtn and HappyValleyEditor) Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE is neither a policy nor part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. WP:ATD does not say "an unrelated editor [should] work their butt off to try to expand something that [is] to the casual observer completely non-notable". I reverted your violations of WP:TPO. This is my talk page, and I'm quite busy, so I'd appreciate it if there were no further replies here. Softlavender (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Assistance requested- Thanks! Comment

Hello, Softlavender. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tribe of Tiger (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Chariots of Fire

Who? Why? Is it not interesting that the album made two appearances, that it was #2 for 2 weeks, and why it wasn't #1? Thanks. AMCKen (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. There was a lot of clutter in there about the single (which has its own article, so information on it should be on that article, not the album's), so I removed too much. I've restored the Top 10s for the album in the lead. Softlavender (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Social work

Hello Softlavender, Thank you for your work on the social work article, I haven't been brave enough to go near it yet its such a big topic! I've had a message from an IP asking if I can watch the page as s/he feels they are not able to edit - Can I suggest that in your edit summary/ on the article talk page or even the IP's talk page you state why you have reverted the edits. If people know what they are not getting quite right they might not keep making the same mistakes. Thanks again for your edits, I might contribute at some point! ツStacey (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Stacey, the IP-hopper is a troll and has been trolling the article and its talk-page for months. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The edits don't appear disruptive; they just seem misguided in what should be included in the article. I am not criticising your revert just that it would be helpful for the IP and other editors (like myself) who are looking at the history, if there was an edit summary to explain why it was an unhelpful edit. ツStacey (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Stacey, to repeat, the IP-hopper is a troll and has been trolling and vandalizing the article and its talk-page for months. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Trolling and vandalising are strong accusations Softlavender, I don't suppose you could provide diffs of actual bad faith editing or discussion of it on a noticeboard, especially where it goes as far as trolling or vandalism. When I looked through the edits from an outside perspective, they seemed like good faith edits, which could be worked with. I'm not happy with how the terms "troll" and "vandal" are generally thrown around on Wikipedia, so I'd like to see a little evidence. WormTT(talk) 12:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Three different ANIs have already been filed about the editor in the past 8 weeks: [33], [34], [35]. The only reason they haven't been blocked is because they have been IP-hopping under various IP ranges. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Stacey Also see:
The IP repeatedly ignores WP:BRD requests and simply reverts sometimes leaving a message on the talk page. Pages have been PP a number of times. Seems to have the "I'm right" attitude and won't discuss in an honest manner. Very frustrating to deal with. The IP has been blocked several times and has avoided the block by changing IPs. Jim1138 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe this brings the IP to SockPuppet status. Jim1138 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Now hard at work on WikiProject:Social Work] Jim1138 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Prince AfDs

How can those two AfDs get closed? I think it's time and consensus is pretty obvious for both. The more time that passes, the more people are going to waste time working on them. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea. Talk to Drmies or another admin. They're both pretty much snows, but there is some case, I suppose, to decide between outright deletion, and redirecting instead to preserve the content (although frankly there isn't much !vote support for that, even if you combine the "merge", "redirect", and "delete or" !votes). Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll pass on contacting an admin about it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: BTW, I'm starting to wonder if at least one of those new SPAs are socks. They're doing an awful lot of the same things as the article creator -- like removing the SPA notices, etc. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, at least one. I've actually thought they were all the same person/a sock of the article creator since the first one cropped up. Same attitude, behavior, same type of thoughts on the article(s), same manner of expressing those thoughts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably should be reported. I'm not good at filing SPIs and find it tedious -- I've only ever done one at most, and I don't use Twinkle. If you file one, I'll back you up. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I have some experience with SPIs and will put one together later today. I'm seeing some definite tells that should be enough to connect the currently blocked account with another account which should give CUs a reason to look into it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, WV, yeah, you're much better at SPIs. If you need an extra analysis or set of eyes, let me know. What about the IP and also the other SPA? Softlavender (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Hi, Softlavender and Winkelvi. There is that board where you can request non-admin closures. Softlavender knows where it is. Flyer22 Reborn is very skilled at recognizing socks and putting them out of business. Maybe she can assist too? Good luck. I hate socks. They waste our time. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
My only suggestion - for whomever opens an SPI in this case - is that there is some good solid behavioral evidence presented. Otherwise, we then run the risk of the report being dismissed or ignored and then having it go stale. That's been my experience, anyway, with SPIs that aren't overtly "ducky" in nature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought you had a lot of "tells"? Anyway, I'm under a deadline and am really slow to get SPIs together, so it should be you (or someone else; but it would make the most sense if you do it since you've been observing all four of them all along). Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I said I have noted some tells. I'm also under a deadline and don't have time to get to it until later today/tonight. Checking fax mentioned someone else doing it, so I was only trying to give suggestions based on experience with a few rejected/dismissed SPIs. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Thank you very much wiki

FYI - Appears to be impersonating you [36].--Cahk (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I know; I saw that. Just bullshit trolling. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I was about to post about the same thing S. I am glad that you are already aware of it and have noticed it for what it is. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

you've got mail

Hello, Softlavender. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments/threading on the Wikicology workshop page

I see you objected earlier to these edits by Wikicology on the workshop page. Strictly speaking, he is correct - there are separate subsections for comments by parties to a case and comments by non-party participants. In this case, since there is only one party and a lot of evidence, it is fine to use threaded comments as you both were doing initially. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, which is what I have been telling him on his talk page. I do not know why he removed them only to replace his without-context-and-without-replies responses in another place. If you or he request it, I will copy-paste our original nested discussion back into my analysis section. Initially, I thought he was simply removing his replies and mine because he thought better of discussing (I hadn't noticed his edit summary), but then when he posted his replies-only elsewhere, that became a problem at that point. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead and put the discussion back if you like, thanks. Splitting his replies to a separate section was, I think, intended to follow the instructions that case parties should post in their own separate section (a bit like the sectioned discussion sometimes used on case talk pages). We all agree that's a bad way to organize this particular discussion, but the case page templates aren't very good at context :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the templates don't work in all situations. I'll do that now. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bashiru Ademola Raji article

When reading the original version of Bashiru Ademola Raji, two things struck me as being odd. For one, the English used in the article is impeccable. It doesn't "sound" like WC at all, whose English is at best middling. And two, the whole article sounds like a resume that was written by the subject themselves, also because most of the info wasn't at all supported by the sources. So where did all the info come from? If it indeed wasn't written by Wikicology, what does he get out of it by posting it under his name? - Takeaway (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know; I've had those thoughts for quite a while from going through these. It's like a publicist writes them, gives them to Wikicology, and he adds random (and usually inaccurate) references to them. Also see my report on Ken Nwogbo (on my ArbCom Workshop posting) about the dates of the sources and the date of his posting the wiki article. Then click on the photo and navigate to the deletion debate about it -- it's a professional photo that was used online before Wikicology uploaded it as "his own", but on the online one the EXIF data is missing and resolution differs, so he didn't use that online one -- it's like the subject (or a publicist) himself gave him the photo to post. Weird. Softlavender (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I just realized that not only did he have the article draft completed within less than two days after the only source for the wiki article was published, he had also already uploaded that photo (obviously a professional photo from the 2015 Beacon of ICT Awards) on March 2, 2016 Nigerian time, one day after the sole and full source citation used for the wiki article was published. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
That might actually be a good assessment of what's going on here. There can't be another reason for the huge amount of unreferenced and incorrectly referenced content. I can imagine that the cause of all this fishy behaviour is his desire to be a "someone" here on Wikipedia, and through Wikipedia a "someone" in Nigeria. And there might even be some additional benefits for a someone who is the self-proclaimed pipeline to Wikipedia for Nigeria, if even just a friendly invite to attend an award ceremony for instance. - Takeaway (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the "additional benefits" possibly available to someone who is working at the behest of a publicist(s). I've been concerned about COI ever since the middle of the ANI. Softlavender (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I should have winked at the end of the last sentenced. Like this -> ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed the same things. In several of the "professor/physician articles, I began to see a pattern. Usually, I could locate info online to support the lede, career and professional portions. But there's an unusually detailed or specific "early life" section for which there is no discernible source. I will go through my notes for examples. Softlavender, I wanted to let you know that I had added info to B.A. Raji. Should I post u|yourname (inside curly brackets) to alert the other party when I post on a project page? Hoping this will work for TakeawayThanks. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If you have evidence on misconduct, please send it to the arbitration committee now that the evidence phase of the Wikicology case has closed. But I don't think it is productive to speculate on another editor's motivation and insinuations can be seen as a personal attack. If there is content in an article that is not supported by references, you are welcome to find references that do so or you can remove the assertions. But a judgment that someone's English is "impeccable", as if that was suspicious or a bad thing, is out of place here. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Liz, discussions of writing patterns are not "judgments", they are determinations of who is doing the writing. Discussions of newly discovered problematical patterns in an editor's behavior have every relevance to an ArbCom case and are not personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC); edited 03:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger, I'm not sure what you are asking, or why you are inquiring about WP:PINGs, or who you are talking about pinging. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger I have most of the relevant pages concerning this case on my watchlist already so there's no need to ping me. - Takeaway (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have the same doubts. My puzzle from the very start was how someone whose English is erratic, with errors of both syntax and logic in every other sentence, could write something resembling polished prose. When I looked, it turned out that the polished stuff was all copied and pasted from somewhere else. What it means in this case is hard to say. The comment on my talk page, now revdeleted, made accusations about paid editing for clients. Peter Damian (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding that the polished prose is not copypasted in many of the articles I've been checking (I'm checking line-by-line every article he has written from late October onward, and I'm almost finished). Many of them, especially many of the non-stubs, look like they were carefully written by someone else; or at least the body copy has been written by someone else and he has added a malformed lead. I can generally tell when he writes something because it contains his erratic and incorrect English, along with some copypaste sentences that he re-writes slightly. And in all of them, the references are incorrect and inaccurate, meaning that he adds random refs to stuff he doesn't seem to have generated. Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This could maybe explain why he started adding fake refs to random articles -- perhaps to see if he could get away with it, as in the Wikipediocracy article he linked to in someone's RfA. Maybe the fact that he got away with it led him to do it with material generated by others. He started adding the fake refs to random articles by or before August 18, 2014, just over two months after he started editing as Wikicology [37]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The copy/paste edits seem to be concentrated in his science articles, whereas the unexpected polished prose that isn't a copy/paste job seem to occur in biographies of people or articles about organisations. Strange how per WP:DUCK one can point out strong similarities in editing, but there is no such thing as WP:NOTDUCK to point out convincing discrepancies. - Takeaway (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, now that we've considered the concept of paid editing, I find it ties together and makes sense of all the disparate, puzzling, and sometimes seemingly inexplicable aspects of his behavior, including the addition of fake references to dozens of completely random articles (concerning the last, see my thoughts just above: [38]). In the Venn diagram of all his problematic and destructive behaviors, they all meet in paid editing. This also explains the pop-up editors making allegations of late, and why no Nigerian editors (to my knowledge) have come out in support of him. It also explains his protesting-too-much statement on his userpage "Am a wikipedian from Nigeria with no COI.", which he had there from the first iteration of his userpage on June 3, 2014 [39]. It stayed there for 6.5 months: [40]. (I found that to be an enormous red flag.) Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
According to some people, COI-editors should be .."chased out of the room".. -> [41]. ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Softlavender/Archive_6&oldid=1140058132"