User talk:Softlavender/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Re: your response on RFPP

Hi Softlavender - I just saw your ping in RFPP with your concerns regarding the duration of the semi-protection that I set on Kurt Eichenwald. I apologize for following-up so late; as you can imagine, I've been busy with my off-wiki life due to the holiday season and what-not. To be honest, I'm scratching my head here... I could have sworn that I set the semi-protection length to be one month... Obviously, the extent of the vandalism (as well as the page logs and additional comments provided by the other editors) were more than enough to show that a protection of a long duration was needed. I know that extended confirmed wasn't needed due to the vandalism being made only by IPs and maybe some new users, but one day? I'm pretty sure that I goofed and set the wrong duration, and for that I owe my apologies (as well as my appreciation for you taking the time to follow-up and ask why I set it so damn low). It looks like the protection has been set to well beyond next year by another admin (yay!), else I'd be fixing that as we speak. Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns for me, and I'll be happy to assist further. I hope you had a good holiday. Cheers :-) -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up, Oshwah. Fortunately the (inadvertent) short protection caused me to make an even stronger case when the 24 hours expired and the vandalism started right back up, so we have a 6-month semi-protection at present. Thanks again for the reply, and Happy New Year! Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Just passing a line to wish you a Happy New Year! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and same to you Garagepunk66! -- Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Fighting with My Family

Like I said in my edit summary the film starts production today. Why do you keep removing it from Jack Lowden's filmography? Rusted AutoParts 06:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please keep discussion on article talk pages, not on userpages. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a direct question to you. Your talk page is the more appropriate location. 06:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply

I asked you a direct question which you refused to answer, instead opting to ignore it and delete it. I told you that production was starting today, it's perfectly fine to add this into his filmography. Rusted AutoParts 06:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please keep discussions of content on article talk pages, not on usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Again I'm directly asking you a question. This is an appropriate location for a user specific question. Rusted AutoParts 06:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

SvG clean-up

In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Circa dates

Please note Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Contractions, which is indeed what most articles do. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod I disagree and have re-instated Softlavender's edit.

| c. || circa ("around") || In dates, to indicate around, approximately, or about, the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx. It should not be italicised in normal usage. The template {{circa}} may be used.
— Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

?? You do realize she was changing "c." to "ca."?? Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod—I do. That is why I struck my opening sentence. Initially I misunderstood and reacted too quickly. Apologies offered ... — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure my Wiki email or gmail is working properly ....

Someone sent me a wiki email that I got a notification for but the email never arrived in my Gmail inbox or spam folder. Can someone (ONE person only, please) send me an email via the Wikipedia "Email this user" link, so I can check it? Things have been wonky lately with my Google Chrome and it may be affecting my gmail. By the way, when the first person does this, can they please place {{ygm}} below so everyone else knows? I only need one test email. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I just sent a brief one S. I remember seeing a thread about someone else having email troubles on one noticeboard but I can't find it at the moment. I'll keep looking and leave a link if I find it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks M. I got it fine this time. I do not know why the email I referred to above did not appear in my gmail box. It reminds me of the time four years ago when I emailed an acquaintance asking them if they could come help me with something at some point during the week. I never heard back from them. Then all of a sudden three days later they showed up at my door. I was like what the fucking hell ... but fortunately I was at least dressed and my teeth were brushed. They had apparently sent me a confirming email with a date and time but it never showed up either in my inbox or spam folder, and it wasn't in my deleted emails either. It just never got to me, period .... Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender and MarnetteD: This discussion? Mind you, it's a few years old. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I emailed you last night, FIM, so if you've not recieved it, it's not. Cassianto^Talk 04:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Well you see, it might be- I won't be able to check emails till later today- sorry, forgot to let you know- had jyst got to work. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 04:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi but it was something more recent. Now that I think about it I think the problem was with those that use Yahoo for emails. They couldn't get any emails through the WikiP system or some such. Thus it probably wouldn't be of any use to you Softlavender. MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm. On that note, can someone who has never emailed me before (MarnetteD and I have emailed each other via wiki previously) email me to check? Just let us know here afterward so I won't get emails from 500 new people LOL. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, can someone who has never emailed me please email me, if you wouldn't mind and if it wouldn't overly compromise your desired level of anonymity? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As the guy that kicked all of this off (I am the someone in "Someone sent me a wiki email") I am wondering whether or not you received my reply to your email which I sent on Yahoo/BT Internet as opposed to my initial Wiki email. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Gareth -- see below. I got your second email into my "Primary" inbox (since it was not sent via wiki), and your first was in a folder called "Social". Softlavender (talk)

I sent you message as well. I received my own copy right away. I've had Wikipedia email problems similar to what you describe, but never took the time to diagnose what was going wrong. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• UPDATE: It turns out Gmail is putting all of my Wikipedia email into a folder called "Social", where it puts those often annoying notifications from Facebook and YouTube. It has apparently been doing this since at least late November 2016. I want to know how to get it to accept Wikipedia emails as normal emails to my "Primary" account. Does anyone know how to make it do that? (I will also ask on WP:VPT.) Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• SECOND UPDATE: Got an answer here: WP:VPT#Gmail_is_putting_all_of_my_Wikipedia_email_into_a_folder_called_.22Social.22_--_how_to_fix.3F, so perhaps we can put this whole tiresome question behind us. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD Joker tagging

Hi,

I'm one of the people who was pinged to take part in the above discussion, but have not had my comment/vote thereon tagged. I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to tag myself, but thought I'd bring it to your attention, if you feel it's appropriate. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Check again, O Guilty One. I tagged your !vote five hours ago: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I get for thinking I was going to get a ping on it!--Killer Moff (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Grace VanderWaal external links

Thanks for interjecting at the ANI discussion. I was in the process of preparing an RfC (or ELN notice) to get the dispute clearly settled as suggested by Serialjoepsycho. Since you didn't endorse that approach and responded on the article talk as well, I've been waiting for the dust to settle a bit more at both the ANI and talk page. Any concerns with this approach, or comments on what I have prepared: User:Ronz/notes#RFC.2FELN? --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello? --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Any interest in discussing anything about it now that the ANI has closed? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful memories shared

Hi S. As a theatre devotee I think you will appreciate the memories that O shared with me in this thread User talk:Onel5969#A thank you then.2C now and for the future. A real treat. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day! (Find a flower on my talk.) Just read your comment regarding the Rodigast hymn, - there's a discussion on classical music, Reger, related, sort of. - After two severe hymns 1 · 2 I will turn to love today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, thanks and Happy Valentine's Day to you to. I confess I don't know what you are talking about regarding "the Rodigast hymn" or anything else you mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice this only now, sorry. The Rodigast hymn is Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, I thought you knew. The Reger discussion originated here, in case of interest. I confess I did worry after one of four things I am proud of having done on Wikipedia (see the infobox on my user page) has been annihilated by making it a redirect. (I reverted ... and started the discussion, and it was a redirect again. In the meantime, it has been restored, and I worry a bit less.) I explained last year already how to make articles from the works list, - care to do a few? I will do next 52 chorale preludes, Op. 67, - 52 titles off the general list then. - I removed the Valentine's flower on my talk, instead it's a (unrelated) sad and beautiful note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What I was worried about happened: we have now an article with this alleged history, which has me still as the main contributor but for edits done long ago, not for what I did about the table. I wouldn't mind - see above - if it wasn't what I am most proud of in 2016. The merge could have been performed the other way round, and than renamed, no? (I know you didn't do it, but need to sob somewhere ... - ignore). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Bolier (2nd nomination)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Bolier (2nd nomination) you cautioned editors to "remember to avoid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of only English-language subjects". As the nominator of this deletion discussion, what specific bias did you detect? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfair comments?

Soft, I think your comments about my moves at AN/I are unfair. Essentially just "must be guilty or people wouldn't be complaining at AN/I". Are there any actual moves that you think were controversial, in some sense that can be discussed? And what are you trying to say about dashes? None of my dash-related moves have been questioned by anybody, so if you have an issue with them please do bring it up. It's also unclear what you meant to suggest by "unilateral"; most of the moves in question are backed up by clear consensus. The ones being complained about, downcasing of lines, were motivated by comments at an RM that fixing one big bunch would leave things in an inconsistent state; was moving toward fixing that really controversial? And note that Mjroots has now withdrawn his proposal to cap all lines, for lack of anyone supporting him. I've asked him to withdraw the AN/I complaint, too, but don't know if he will. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you get the more balanced opinions you were looking for? Or just more piling on with no indication of which of my edits or moves might be considered controversial? What is motivating your nastiness toward me? Having I forgotten some place where I may have crossed you, or are you just an AN/I ambulance chaser? Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists are content too

Come on! I get what you mean ("real" content creation is harder than lists), but you could have typed a few more words. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re critical response section of MOS:FILM

As suggested in Top Ten lists discussion, I reviewed WP:RFC. I think (but am not 100% sure) that the appropriate request for comment regarding the dispute about critical response section guidelines in MOS:FILM is the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Am I on the right track? Thank you in advance. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking me, Pyxis Solitary. There may be a word missing in your question. An WP:RFC is not the same as WP:DRN. DRN is a monitored and adjudicated (generally monitored and adjudicated by one person per dispute) venue for resolving content disputes between two or more people. WP:RFC is a specific formal discussion format for engaging the wider community in resolving content disputes (and the results of an RFC are generally perceived as more binding than an informal talk-page discussion); it has very strict language, format, layout, and tagging/template requirements. (Also, you cannot make a discussion into an RFC after it has begun, nor generally speaking can you request or start dispute resolution at more than one place at the same time; let discussions proceed until they resolve or become untenable.) Also, just so we are clear, an RFC never happens at DRN (the two processes are mutually exclusive); an RFC happens on an article talk page or other non-user talk page. You might want to read WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Now I'm really confused. The crux: I am trying to reach consensus regarding the guidelines for a MOS:FILM section vs. interpretation of said guidelines in the "Lists" vs. prose about lists discussion in MOS:FILM Talk page. One editor refuses to accept the opinions of other editors. If there is agreement that contradicts his viewpoint, he does not accept it. And now he has attacked a new editor who dared to post his/her opinion by accusing him/her of being a possible sock puppet. Taking a dispute or inability to reach consensus to a higher level beyond a Talk page is new for me. I have no "been there, done that" about this in my WP experience. I think the current situation necessitates intervention through RFC because it relates to a MOS:FILM guideline. If a final consensus is not reached, one editor is going to continue to delete content and revert edits -- and this "my way or the highway" discourages participation from other editors.

Forgot to add: WP:RFC says

• "RfC is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Alternative processes include...the dispute resolution noticeboard." I've got a pretty good handle on the English language, but this explanation about RfC is not a straightforward description of its purpose. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a question in there? In any case, that new account who has only made that one edit does seem to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone; their !vote and/or comments should be discounted in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that an anon creating an account so as to join a discussion necessarily suggests he/she is a sockpuppet. He/she could have just as well have stayed an anon; but then, a comment posted anonymously would probably have also been dismissed. There are many registered users in WP that haven't done much through their account, preferring to stay anon. And after being attacked for creating an account and posting a comment, I'm sure he/she is not going to subject him/herself to more attacks. I don't presume guilt without evidence. Anyway, the reason I'm here, trying to find guidance about what the right steps to follow are, is because you seemed to know something about RfCs. If you think I should seek this guidance somewhere else, I would appreciate knowing where I need to go. Because the combative stance by one editor needs to end and the only way to find clarification and consensus is by intervention from outside input. What's happening is neither good for film articles, nor good for the WP community. And I've been editing WP for too long to now shrug this off and not give a damn. (I'm clocking out for now.) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, is there a question in there? If you post a question, with a question mark, I will try to answer it. You may also want to ask any questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on what transpired in Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) @ WP:FILM talk page and continued in "Lists" vs. prose about lists @ MOS:FILM Talk page: Should I request RfC @ Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture -- or -- a resolution request @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Which of the two is the correct place to go for outside opinion on the dispute?

I would be remiss not to warn you that you may be accused by User:Tenebrae of being biased and abetting a canvass. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are two current problems: (1) You've posted the current discussion/dispute across two different venues (rather than simply leaving a brief notice at the second and linking to the discussion). This kind of thing is problematic and leads to fracturing and confusion and irresolution. (2) The discussion(s) haven't resolved yet. So in my opinion, you're going to have to let the discussion(s) resolve or at the very least die down before taking any further action. Ideally the discussion should have been held on the talk page of the film in question, with a neutral note perhaps posted in the WikiProject and MOSFILM venues. Going forward, I personally recommend that, for instance, you: (A) Let the discussion resolve or die down -- for instance, when it has been inactive for one week. (B) Then and only then (assuming there was no consensus agreed upon in the discussion[s]), start an WP:RFC on the film's talk page. (C) Personal note: I however am not convinced you are capable of writing a sufficiently brief and sufficiently neutrally worded RfC, or of formatting, titling, and submitting, or listing it correctly. I believe you need further guidance on that. Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This was the first time I've initiated a discussion about reaching consensus among editors. Because it's about interpretation and application of MOS:FILM guidelines I began where I thought it belonged (WP:FILM), then realized that was not the right venue and shifted the discussion to MOS:FILM's Talk page. (No beginner's luck here.) I will do as you suggest and let it resolve or wait a week if it's not. And you are correct that I will need further guidance on composing an RfC. (I know when it's time for me to pull over and ask for directions.) Thank you for your kind attention and response. I appreciate it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs to be collapsed

A neutral summary like "Other users' disagreements with Snow Rise" would probably suffice. A slightly less "neutral" but certainly more accurate summary like "Other users' rebuttals of Snow Rise's claims" would probably pass if someone other than you or me did it.

The sheer size of the !voting portion of the thread (probably 90% of it Snow Rise and our responses to him) has apparently started to attract the "this is too long for me to read -- kick it to ArbCom" crowd. I dislike his false claims going unchallenged as much as, if not more than, you do, but I think we don't have a choice.

Also pinging User:Only in death who agrees with both of us on the substance and I think agrees with me on this particular problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(Note that I took it here because (1) the whole point is that the thread is TLDR at the moment, (2) I'm not IBANned yet, so discussion here is still possible, and (3) if the IBAN is put in place such discussion would become redundant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC))

• It (SR's vote rationale & the ensuing rebuttals) should really be moved to the comments section. The !vote should have said "Oppose -- see my comments above" and the 4,500+ bytes of commentary should have been placed where others' placed their comments, above the poll section. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Premature archive of RfC

Re this, I've been adding {{DNAU}} to RfCs at articles where I'm involved. I let the duration default to 10 years and anyone can remove the keep after the RfC closes. That's working well and is preferable to increasing the archive age for everything on the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think 7 days is waaaay too short for any page, particularly a Policy page. Some people don't even log onto wiki for a couple weeks at a stretch. But thanks for the template; I couldn't remember where to find it or what it was called. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems at Garage rock article

Sadly right now I am involved with another editor on the talk page of the Garage rock article who is trying to have the article's GA status re-reviewed. This is a backwards step in light of the fact that I was trying to get the article ready for FAC. I know that you had mentioned that you felt that the article was near to FA. I have had to make a lot of trims to satisfy the needs of other editors. I know that you would have preferred to keep it at (or near) its previous length, but I am trying to come up with something that is acceptable to everyone. I feel that during FAC we can fix any remaining problems (or if need be, bring back some of the previous content--I'll supply everyone with an archive of where he article was at the beginning of November). But, right now, as I try to reduce the article to bring peace, it is having the opposite effect. I feel that I am getting bullied. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:

If DK canvasses again in any form, he should be blocked (cc: Drmies) Technically, Drmies said DK would very likely be blocked if he denied that canvassing had already occurred. Mind you, it's a given that further canvassing would carry at least as heavy a penalty as further IDHT behaviour regarding previous canvassing, so you weren't wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No that's not what he said. Please stop bringing your petty grievances and bickering to my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear

I want you to stay off my talk page until the current ANI discussion is closed. I'll be happy to discuss with you whether you were technically wrong to selectively collapse my comments and insist that they stay collapsed after the the discussion was closed, or I was technically wrong to uncollapse after the discussion was closed. But that needs to wait until the ANI discussion is closed because I've already got enough distractions. You should self-revert now if you intend to honour my request, but I will also request an uninvolved admin do it in case you refuse. I am already technically in violation of 1RR, if one takes it as applying to revertion of repeated unwanted comments on my own talk page, so I won't do it myself for at least 24 hours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for how many distractions you have. Per WP:TPO, do not selectively remove my comments from an ongoing discussion. If you want me to stay off your talk page, do not post further on the thread I opened there. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

When I have exactly two distractiond and you're 100% responsible for one of them and at least partly responsible for the other (as I laid out on my talk page) ... yes, you are. I didn't selectively remove anything. I asked you to stop posting on my talk page, and then reverted a couple of attempts by you to violate my request. If you continue to do so I will ask for you to be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for your ability to handle two discussions. You did not ask me to stop posting on your talk page. Moreover, per WP:TPO, you cannot selectively remove posts from a discussion. If you want to close, archive, or delete the entire thread I opened, you may do so, but as I mentioned in the thread, don't prevent me from responding to a thread that I myself opened, and don't remove posts from a thread. See WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What you have been doing on my talk page is not a discussion. You have been talking past me and ignoring everything I say. You were wrong in the initial collapse, you were wrong to revert me despite the discussion already being closed, you were wrong to say I reverted the same edit three times, and you were wrong to continue posting on my talk page despite my repeated requests that you drop it. Your refusal to recognize any of this would be endearing if it wasn't so damn frustrating. But your lack of patience after I twice told you that I would be happy to discuss the ethics of collapsing with you after the ANI discussion you sucked me into is closed was the worst. If you are still willing to engage in civil discussion, I would be happy to forget this whole affair ever happened and keep the offer of said civil discussion open. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not talked past you, and in all of my lengthy and exhaustive replies I have quoted you directly on each statement you made that I was referring to you when I replied. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you say (repeatedly) that my yesterday edit was a "revert"? You even called it a revert "of the same content on the same page". It was a compromise with your concern that the collapsed segment was too long, as it only moved the top of the collapse two lines down. I explained this to you several times on my talk page. If you had actually read and understood my edits that you reverted, and my replies to you, there is no good-faith explanation for this. Can you provide one? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

All three of your edits were reverts of the status quo ante. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri on a phone here. If I make an edit and you revert, and then two weeks later make a different edit that addresses your concerns, that is not me edit-warring, and the above response does not answer my question. Either you reverted my edit without reading it, in which case you were the one edit-warring, or you were already aware before posting it that three reverts of the same content on the same page was untrue. 106.133.133.47 (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed edit-warring. I'm sorry that you don't understand or accept that, but your understanding or acceptance is not my responsibility. Not only that, you did not make an edit "that addresses [my] concerns". The content was the hatting as it existed at the close. You changed that three times. All three of your edits were reverts of the status quo ante. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral collapses

[2]

Softlavender, you are not allowed collapse or hat off others' comments with non-neutral and/or inaccurate summaries. Doing so violates the spirit of TPO. Aggressively and repeatedly restoring such while citing TPO is wikilawyering. If I see you doing so again I will request that someone else help me clarify it for you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't do any hatting or collapsing; I restored Jbhunley's text. I didn't violate WP:TPO, you did, and have several times, including by changing Jbhunley's text twice without his permission. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, technically Jbhunley hatted off my text without my permission, with a summary that I didn't approve of. And now Jbhunley has thanked me for the edit that removed said summary. You and apparently DK are the only users who think the hat note is appropriate (ironic since DK was one of the ones engaging in unconstructive bickering). Being thanked by the user whose "text" I "changed" for the edit that changed the text is a pretty good indicator of permission (much more than your personal insistence on repeatedly reverting any edits I make involving hat and collapse templates in multiple forums. But "thanks" are not a good measure for things like this either way; I've now asked Jbhunley for explicit clarification that he approved of that particular portion of my edit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing another person's post without their permission is a violation of WP:TPO; you did that twice. You requested Jbhunley to alter the text and he struck the word "bickering". You then changed his text twice without his permission. Please do not engage in mind-reading about who "think[s] the hat note is appropriate". Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What edit did DK thank you for? I am not mind-reading. The evidence is right there, and is really easy to interpret. If you can point me to another edit for which DK had reason to thank you, I'll bite my tongue (as was made clear on ANI yesterday, I am always ready to admit I am wrong), but otherwise you are the one in violation of AGF by accusing me of "'mind-reading". And I didn't change anyone's post. Removing an inaccurate and/or non-neutral summary in a hat note or collapse title and replacing it with the all-purpose neutral default is really, really common, especially when everyone has already agreed that the existence and dimensions of the hat itself are not controversial. I have had my non-neutral summaries removed by others, but as long as the hats themselves stayed I never took it as a problem. The fact that I had signed the summaries with four tildes was completely irrelevant and didn't suddenly mean TPO applied to my summary first and foremost over the hatted comments themselves. By the way -- nice distortion of the timeline and assumption of bad faith. I had no idea until just now that "bickering" had been stricken, as was made clear in my edit summary. I had an edit conflict with Jbhunley's striking, and knew only that I was removing an inaccurate claim that TBST and I were "bickering" that either you or DK had restored. Jbhunley thanked me for the edit that inadvertently reverted his striking by completely removing the whole note; they did not apparently see fit to thank you for reverting me either time. On top of the fact that it is common practice to remove unnecessarily contentious summaries like that, all you have to go on is this fact, but you are choosing to assume instead that I clicked "Edit" after seeing the stricken version around 02:39, and composed all the text present in the above edit in the intervening six minutes, and it was only your and DK's comments of 02:40 that I had a legit edit conflict with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way: It's really obvious that DK doesn't like me, so I accept the theoretical possibility that he was thanking you for any of the edits you made in the two or three previous instances I can recall when we came into conflict, but to assume he went back into my edit history and thanked you for your comments in that IBAN-baiting discussion back in November would be questionable. It's also possible that he was thanking you for some unkind word you may have had for Curly Turkey at some point. I really don't know. But the state of affairs on ANI makes me think it's far more likely he was thanking you for re-adding the claim that my final warning proposal was "unconstructive". By the way: Jbhunley was really clear that he agrees with me on the substance. He just thought my proposal was distracting from the TBAN. I actually agree with him on that point (now). So if asked if he thought the proposal itself was "unconstructive" in light of my having already withdrawn it, it seems like an AGF-violation to assume he would say "No". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Screw it. You're too good and honest an editor to fight like this over minor policy disagreements. We agree on the only point that matters here for building the encyclopedia, and this isn't a social networking site. You can blank my above comments if you want. Or the entire section. It's not worth fighting over this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Freddie Bartholomew

Please do not revert edits without any explaination. I think you're mistaken. 206.45.11.108 (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that revert should have said why. You broke the first sentence in the Early life section; otherwise, it looked sensible. Try again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IP, please discuss on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Any idea what virtual-history.com is?

I'm trying to figure out what virtual-history.com is and noticed you have a link here. Do you know what this website is? I can't find any discussion about it beyond an old spam report where no one responded. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know; my impression or guess at the time was that it was some sort of information/image/links aggregator. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's actually very helpful. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to enforce breach of agreement

I am sorry you feel insulted in your intelligence. Paradoxically, that is exactly how I feel in this ANI, I am so disappointed. I just came here for enforcement for a breach of sanction after weeks of ANI before, that was all, I do not know all the technicalities, but I have an experience and know what makes sense and what does not. I started to be required more evidence as if nothing had happened before.

However, the editor in question continually provides fresh evidence for irregular (formal) editing, like removal of content, breach of AGF (also added by WCM), that is the basics of WP, not the content. It is difficult to explain, but this content is a taboo, critical matter in Spanish politics where nuanced positions are very difficult, with loose legal charges by politicized tribunals if you know closely Sp politics check also Transparency International, so you can imagine what my leeway is w that editor there... Not extending, apologies for the escalation. Do the right thing, I am done. Regards (Thanks for not pinging me) Iñaki LL (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nursery rhyme versus poem

Hi! I saw this diff and was curious, because I think we might have different ideas of what a nursery rhyme is. All the nursery rhymes I can remember have a (basic) tune attached, so "nursery rhyme song" is redundant. Do other nursery rhymes not have tunes attached or is this a different distinction between simple melodies (Humpty Dumpty etc) and full-fledged songs? Mortee (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, a followup question - why did you remove the image from that article? As far as I can tell (not found a source yet) the image is of a wall honouring the poem/song in question, so it's quite relevant. Was there some sort of fair use concern I'm not appreciating? Mortee (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nursery rhymes are not songs unless they are composed as songs. The image was completely unexplained but I have researched it enough to add it back with an explanation. Just FYI: Discussions of article content need to stay on the talk page of the relevant article; so in the future please post queries there instead of on user-talk pages; I'm making an exception here as you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for the pointer. I'll make sure to do that in future. While we're here, though, and separate from this case, what form should that sort of explanation take, on the article? I'm working on a draft where the same concern might apply. Mortee (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking, what's the right way of explaining why an image is being used? Is it just a matter of having a descriptive caption that shows the relevance of the picture to the article, or is it something more? Mortee (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you are asking. I have already completely replaced the inaccurate and unhelpful caption of the image; any other questions would have to be specific questions about specific images in specific articles, as the question is too vague. You might want to read WP:CAPTION. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought from what you were saying earlier that there was a general principle that the use of images had to be explained and I was wondering what the format was. It sounds like it's more case by case, but informative captions help and WP:CAPTION gives guidance on how to write those. Mortee (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be using the word "explain"/"explanation" in a different meaning or context than I am. I was referring to the unexplained (not too mention totally inaccurate and completely unhelpful) caption, nothing more. One doesn't have to "explain" why any relevant image is in any article, unless it is a WP:NONFREE image, in which case a fair-use rationale for usage in each individual article it is used in is necessary on the file's page. (Usually a non-free image -- e.g. an album cover or a DVD cover -- is only used and uploaded for a single article.) A caption doesn't have to be a complete sentence or lengthy explanation, but it does have to make sense and be accurate and correctly identify the image. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I misunderstood this edit summary. Thank you for explaining (pun fully intended) :-) Mortee (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent reverts on basque national liberation...

Just for the record, those edits you reverted as POV were not mine. Take care with edit summary otherwise it seems like I made them.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So jailed is a POV term? Or is ETA being a terrorist organization POV?Asilah1981 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrator Incident Board- "User talk page harassment after warning by JordanGero"

Hi- I would have posted this response under the appropriate section on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents page, but the section has already been closed (see here). The only thing I wish to address is your mention of my previous complaint against GregJackP. Please note that the recent report in question on the incident board was not commenced by me; rather, it was commenced by the other user, and I felt it was necessary to make sure the record was complete. I say this to make clear that there was no "regurgitation" on my part of a previous complaint: the similarity was incidental to me supplementing the record in efforts to counter GregJackP's accusations of harassment and "historical revisionism."

Anyways, thank you for your assistance in the matter. I will not be interacting with that user on Wikipedia anymore unless he contacts me first.

P.S. If possible, can this addendum be added to the appropriate section on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents? The section was closed very quickly, before I had a chance to respond to your message regarding my apology request, or the subsequent "regurgitation" note. I didn't expect my request for apology to be honored, but I nevertheless felt it was apposite to request one, given the other user's continued implied support for the inflammatory statements in issue. Thank you. JordanGero (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jordan, your 10,500-byte post on GregJackP's talk page (plus your subsequent and even more vulgar 5,750 bytes there, and your endless wall of text at ANI) were regurgitations of a matter that was settled 1.5 years ago. Please stop. Do not post here further. Softlavender (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, you're not my familiar, so try to minimize addressing me by my given name. Secondly, you're now erecting a straw man to deflect from my original contention: I did not "regurgitate" anything on the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard: GregJackP commenced that incident, not me. My post on his talk page was pursuant to an unresolved issue I had with him from before, and I wished to resolve that issue by speaking with him directly on his talk page. The matter 1.5 years ago was settled as far as the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard was concerned, but it was not settled between myself and GregJackP. Do you understand the difference?

Additionally, an unreasonable request does not cease to be unreasonable simply because you add "please" to it. I did not commence any new incident on the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard, and my posts on GregJackP's talk page were pursuant to unresolved issues I had with him personally. My last post on his page informed him that I was not going to post there anymore (the only reason I continued until that time was because he kept replying to me). Lastly, given the level of racist vehemence GregJackP communicated in the original conflict 1.5 years ago, and his confrontational, ad hominem response to me on his talk page, my posts were not unwarranted (i.e., any crudeness therein was designed to communicate a point about GregJackP's own vulgarities, e.g., my comments about what I could say to him seriously if I were a racist prick). I also don't see what the length of my posts has to do with their substance.

That being said, thanks for your help in resolving the issue for good. There is nothing left to be pursued on this note as of now. JordanGero (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Coffee, the user above is harassing me despite my explicit request above for him not to post further on my talk page. He is also continuing to attack GregJackP on this page. Would you mind putting a stop to this? Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Lichfield Gospels page

Hi Softlavender. I am not quite sure what to do about this page. The link that Blackstache keeps adding is to materials that clearly infringe upon copyright of other institutions. I've documented it well on the Lichfield Gospels talk page. The editor Blackstache seems to have one intent and that is to included this link. He or she does no other editing. Also, all the reasons Blackstache gives are far from reliable, from seconding that Wikipedia is not a court of law to saying that links have a lower bar. Every edit page states: "Content that violated any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Is this not really policy?Wilshire01 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One more time. I just left this message answering Tiptoethrutheminefield's questions about copyright. For copyright information, I referred to these links: D-Lib Magazine, an academic journal for librarians :http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may14/05inbrief.html and Manuscripts of Lichfield Cathedral :https://lichfield.ou.edu/st-chad-gospels/historical-image-overlays . Both show other copyright holders than Lichfield Cathedral. Furthermore, I just had an idea and did a google book search for Lichfield Gospels and Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art (1962 images) The results show a published academic book that attributes permissions to the Conway Library: [4] . I hope this helps to resolve the issue. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshire01 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI Overturning

Listen, I'm trying to make a very concise point. El_C 11:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for that terse message. I was frustrated that my comment was closed just as I was writing it (not your fault, just timing). I decided to retain your close, but start my own subsection. My problem is that users with very few contributions skewed that RfC, and that this point is getting lost in text walls about the content dispute and so on. El_C 11:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for baring with me! Much appreciated. El_C 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, El C; it can be frustrating when actual relevant information gets buried in a sea of ANI walls-o-text. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Friendly (talk page stalker) – Could use this perhaps? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Softlavender,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Congratulations on reaching this milestone. Best regards,   Aloha27  talk  15:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Aloha27; I didn't realize that I had reached that milestone. Aloha, Softlavender (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Kind of makes you wonder where the time went, no? Best,   Aloha27  talk  02:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Confused

Hi Softlavender. Sorry for erroneously posting to the administer page. I thought it would be more productive and less harsh than threatening to block someone from editing. When I didn't remove the link, tried to engage Blackstache in conversation, giving her or him 10 days to respond, he or she ignored me.

Can you explain when to apply the Ignore rule? I do not remember it mentioned in the training modules, and it seems counter to all the attention paid to copyright. Also, how does it relate to the WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. When I did the google book search, I found definitive evidence that the 1962 images provided as downloads by these linked sites infringe upon the Conway Library's copyright. Lichfield Cathdral only granted rights to the 2010 images. As an editor, what should I do? For a while, I managed a small technical writing department, and the company I worked for was exceptionally careful about copyright. Those standards and what I thought I knew about Wikipedia policy and guidelines directed my edits. In my small scope of editing, the links I removed are the most egregious that I have encountered. My sense is that Wikipedia is gaining in popularly because people are finding content and links reliable. I'm feeling confused. What type of balance should I strive for with the Ignore rule? Thanks Wilshire01 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 10 years ago...

Hey, Softlavender. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Akatombo

On 2 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Akatombo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Akatombo, or "Red Dragonfly", written by poet Rofū Miki and composed by Kosaku Yamada, is one of the most-loved Japanese songs according to a 1989 survey? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Akatombo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rofū Miki

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Attacking me

Why attack me? I was only trying to contribute to Wikipedia by creating Akatombo. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for undo my edits. I meant to fix incorrect info and actually introduced some myself. My apologies. Keep the goid work!Urbanoc (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Haha, no problem, Urbanoc. Happens to all of us. Hard to read the fine print on those articles. :) Softlavender (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, our friend here turns out to be an editwarring sockpuppet. EEng 17:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well. I bet that told you. Huh. Sorry SL- thought this was EEng's page ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know which of us is more insulted. EEng 17:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I should've realised when I didn't feel my mouse finger seizing up! :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo?

At ANI you wrote "...did open this ANI filing...". I believe you meant to write "...did not open this ANI filing...".

As always, I respect your opinions as being well-thought-out even when I do not agree with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that -- I had even posted it twice like that. By the way, I am hatting that section as off-topic because it is misplaced and not relevant to the thread at hand. Feel free to open a separate ANI filing at the bottom of the board if you like. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. I believe that Malerooster has contributed to the problem being discussed, even though he isn't by any means the major problem. You have expressed your opinion on ANI, and now it is up to the closing admin to evaluate it and make a decision. It is improper to shut down an ANI conversation about a particular editor after someone else posed an opinion that he is part of the problem. Insisting that I must file a new ANI report right after I quoted the section of WP:BOOMERANG that specifically says that your " Malerooster did not open this ANI filing" argument is wrong was also misguided. If you wish to argue against my assertion ("Nowhere does that page say that the boomerang only applies to the original reporter or that only action on ANI itself will be scrutinized. There are many examples of ANI discussions where someone participating in the discussion ends up being sanctioned without them being the person posting the original complaint or the person who was originally complained about.") feel free to do so, but you shouldn't try to shut me up. That isn't your decision to make. Revert me again and it is you who I will be filing an ANI case against. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you meant to say about rather than against. Anyway, as I mention in my closing notes: it did seem like your boomerang was largely piggybacking on an ANI notice that was already focused on the one user (snugglepuss). But I also closed it because the closing itself was beginning to become a source of conflict. As also mentioned, if indeed there are outstanding issues related to Mrrooster, I do urge you to list a new ANI notice about him. El_C 13:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with a user who doesn’t accept RfC

Hello user:Softlavender. I recently reported an incident about edit war in admission discussion board, and you mentioned it is better to open RfC. After opening the RfC, I message some users (on their talk page) that I was aware that they were actively involved in making and editing election maps and graphs. After Dennis Bratland saw that result that doesn’t favor him, he starts to reject the RfC, and starts to give false accusations. In here you can see a simple fair message that I sent for all those users. Now, he accuses me for “votestacking” and claims that I “handpicked” those users, and now he threats to “close” the RfC! I tried every single right, true, and legal way I could to advance and end the discussion, and still, he doesn’t accept it, already started his edit war, violates, and starts to give irrelevant reasons to support his idea, without hearing any opinions that he simply doesn’t like.

I’ve already sent a same message to an admin to watch the RfC, and I request you to step in and help to end this situation. Thank you Ali 04:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ali, that's not an WP:RfC, you did not follow the very clearly detailed procedure instructions. All that is is an informal talk-page poll. And you should not post notices on individual editors' talk pages -- that is WP:CANVASSING. Read the RfC instructions. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So would you please help this situation so it finally gets done? When nobody comes up to comment and nobody would give an opinion, what do you expect me to do? Dennis started edit war and I tried to resolve the dispute with RfC, and now you said it is not RfC. Would you please actually step in the process, instead of giving me advice about what should I do? Ali 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to remedy the situation. By failing to follow the very clear numbered steps at WP:RFC, you've created a non-neutral, unsigned survey that is not an RfC but that has already been responded to by at least five editors. And you WP:CANVASSed individual users. If you want, you can take the problem to WP:AN and see if an administrator can straighten it out. In the future, I advise following instructions (and that includes the entire page of WP:RFC). -- Softlavender (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Would I be correct in assuming that there is a link between User:Natalinasmpf and User:OccultZone (via user User:La goutte de pluie ? see diff, more specifically that these are all the same user who was Arbcom banned for an issue raised in Talk:Rape in India/Archive 2 ? That could explain a huge lot of things in the Vipul affair. Inlinetext (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext, I'm not the person to ask, nor the venue to bring this up. (Also, just FYI, when you indicate you are posting a WP:DIFF, it really needs to be a diff.) Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(Untitled)

Please stop trying to change Chris Cuomo in order to align with your left wing political viewpoint. Please do not lie to the users of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the facts, rather than your leftist veiwpoint. The users of wikipedia are not just liberals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousedit19923034 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that went well for the editor, not. 2 week DS block. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, thanks. I had reported the situation at that article to NeilN. For the past 2 years the article has been an increasing BLP-vio magnet, and it was time for some extra eyes. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Softlavender,

Just wanted to belatedidly thank you for your comments at ANI regarding whether I should have been boomeranged. I really didn't think I was that uncivil there and agree that another ANI case should have been brought up if others thought it was needed. I really appreciate that since I try not to get involved in those discussions but let the community decide if I should be punished, ect. Snooganssnoogans and I are in another dispute and this time I will not comment about him and will stop editing that article. The consensus might be for inclusion of certain material in the lead, but right now I feel like it should be removed until consensus is reached. Not a huge deal. Thanks again! --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Malerooster. You need to handle any current content disputes via the normal methods: article-talk discussion without mentioning behavior only content, consensus, and if needed, WP:DR options (including neutrally inviting input from relevant Wikiprojects) or WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will try to do that. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up....

...that the section of the TRM appeal at AE where you replied to El C's comment about empathy is for "uninvolved admins" only. Rank-and-file editors such as you and I aren't allowed to post there. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BMK (fixed now). Beforehand I was actually aware that that section was for admins only, but somehow when afterwards I was remembering El C's comment I thought it was in the general discussion section and I simply searched for the word "compassion" and posted my reply under it. No wonder TRM thought I was an admin. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell you how many timea I've wanted to respond in the admin section - not to make an argument, but simply to point out a fact of some sort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

AE - and compassion? Really? For me, it's the most compassion-free one on Wikipedia. If I have compassion, I don't report a user, - I talk to them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You might want to see this

I thought of responding but it might be better coming from you. [5] Doug Weller talk 09:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Clear?

When I post a QAIbox, I don't "always" add the clear template, because I think it would look pompous to block so much space on the page. If a user wants it like that, fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's disruptive not to use the {{clear}} template, because a thread consisting of only an image, with no text in the post, disrupts and blocks the thread below it. If you don't want to take up space on a user's talkpage, don't post, just ping them from somewhere else or email them. Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Haven't heard "disruptive" in a while, and didn't miss it. Usually, a thread develops after posting an image. If not, I avoid white space by no "clear" template, with the next message following immediately. I don't know what you mean by "block". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you do not include a clear template, the image blocks, disrupts, or intrudes upon the next thread. It's that simple. I don't know how else to put it. This is true even for very small images: See before [6] and after [7]; before [8] and after [9]. Softlavender (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I know what "clear" does, but it's not "blocking", at least to my understanding of that word. I confess that I like "before" better in the second example, and think you could leave it to the recipient of a talk: to remove the whole thing, to respond, to add "clear". I occasionally add "clear" on my talk: when the next message comes as another image or block which is too far away from it's header, but only then. I don't see a general rule, and I fail to see how less white space is disruptive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely it is up to the talk page user to add the template "clear" if he/she prefers to change the page layout. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's an obvious common courtesy not to disrupt someone's talkpage by adding images with no corresponding text (without the clear template), which therefore block, disrupt, and intrude upon the ensuing threads. Requiring someone to clean up after you is disruptive editing and really aggravating, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I will not bother you with pictures then, but others thank me for them, and seem to feel no need to clean-up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I never said I was bothered by pictures; I said I am bothered when people don't add a "clear" template if they are not including a sizable amount of text with the image. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Subscription costs?

Hello. Could you please help me out and point me in the direction of something about not putting subscription costs into articles? I'm afraid I have been doing this! Not just the one that you corrected.-Thank you. There is another infobox template that asks about paid membership I think? TeeVeeed (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked through the 100 articles you have edited [10] and I don't see you have done this anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or a directory or a catalogue. We don't add costs to any article. See also WP:NOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I did it recently here: [11] Not OR in my case because the info. was on their site which was already used as a source. Ahh-Okay, thanks I see it in "not a catalogue" and I'm going to make sure that I have a secondary source for that. I think the 10 grand or so sub price edit that I did is encyclopediac content because it was widely chatted about in other sources, and the subscription/report is a major product for them.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit to Bridgewater may be relevant, but subscription information for any online publication which uses the very standard format of subscription only needed for more than X articles per month is neither noteworthy (or even newsworthy for that matter) nor relevant nor encyclopedic. This is in addition to the fact that we don't list prices on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

got it-thanks again. The subscriber fee on the 1st one was also for access to the databases so even though I am not putting the price in the article again, the fact should be included so I added. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Tried to respond to you.....

Tried to respond to you and correct my mistake on the ANI but I got edit conflicted 4 times then the ANI was closed. But to answer your comments you tagged me in, Yes I did notice the date and I was trying to correct it and strike it out but there was an edit conflict which I think was your edit letting me know about my error then 3 more conflicts after when I tried to answer you lol. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, WarMachineWildThing, I've done that mistaking-the-past-year-for-the-current-year thing (through basically not even reading the year date) so often (at least four times in the past 12 months) that now I check myself several times before calculating a timeframe. :) Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Softlavender, I'd like to thank you for your laudable efforts at being a consensus-builder and problem-solver at Winklevi's ANI. Your helping hand was very badly needed, and I'm hopeful we've finally got a way forward. --Drmargi (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmargi and David in DC for your notes. I was trying to come up with something that would satisfy all of the very diverse range of opinions. Softlavender (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope we can keep the discussion on topic. What appears to be a buddy of his is mucking about with the discussion over something to do with Commons. I hatted it pronto, but we shall see how that lasts. --Drmargi (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda

I recently uncovered Swami Nithyananda. It's consistently disrupted by "COI Expert" User:Lemongirl942 and recently User:Ravichandar84 who both appear to reside in close approximation to the BLP and his centres. User:Inlinetext has continuously disrupted with page, recently and turning it into a hit-page. I've tried discussing and reverting edits - but these users seems to be adamant about incorporating entirely outdated sexual allegations into the article. I honestly think Lemongirl has the COI and this page is anti-Nithyananda. For example... it now says that he founded an "e-commerce" site. I'm relatively new to WP and I don't know where to post this... So I thought I would share. Thanks. DocTox (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi DocTox. I am not involved in that article that I can tell. Any concerns should be worked out on the article's talk page, and if that gets stuck you can use any of the various forms of Dispute Resolution. If you are new to Wikipedia, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to get assistance and answers. Lastly, you could bring up your concerns at WP:BLPN and/or WP:NPOVN regarding what you consider undue-weight issues on a biography of a living person. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you for your help. You had commented on the issue when it was brought to admin thread a while back. Anyway, I will do what you mentioned because they keep reverting edits. I feel like they are policing the page! DocTox (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Myke Hurley

Hi Softlavender. You were a lot of help sorting out Bill Hillmann, so I'm wondering it you wouldn't also mind taking a look at Myke Hurley and commenting at Talk:Myke Hurley#Notability and primary sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I think I came to Bill Hillmann via a thread on ANI, and got into it because I felt sorry for the newbie who created it and got slammed by SwisterTwister's lack of WP:BEFORE. And then I became very interested the the article subject -- I found it intriguing that someone could be a former boxer, bull-runner, and very colorful writer. Whereas that article you mention seems very boring to me. I wouldn't even want to determine notability on that one, but the article does look promotional. I just don't have the interest to fix it, though. I think I'll tag the talkpage with search suggestions and see if that helps. If not, you can always nominate it at AfD .... Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Understand. If you have any comments on the sources, either way, than that might be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I just don't know much about podcasts or podcasters or what makes them notable or not. It's really a matter of doing the research (with the help of the tag I added, for instance) and getting better sources if available, but I don't have any interest. Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank for you taking the time to take a closer look and provide input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for your diligent efforts to find resolution in the Winkelvi ANI, a thankless task performed well and in the face of much heat and antagonism. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Figureofnine. Much appreciated! Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Trevor Eyster AfD

Hi Softlavender. Sorry again for the mistake on ANI. I was gonna ping you again, but then decided it would be better to post this time around. You might want to take a look at WP:ANI#Retaliatory Editing since it may have an impact on the AfD discussion. I just saw that another possible SPA/COI account (with only a handful of edits) added a comment to the dicussion, so there may a bit of strangeness happening on both sides of the fence on this matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Kitchen sink films

Please stop removing vital films from the list, I created the list initially and these films shouldnt be removed. 81.174.255.78 (talk) AmyNelson. —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tell yourself to stop edit warring! Do some research instead of removing vital films from the list, this is beyond a joke. 81.174.255.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Salute Your Shorts

Hey there! Can you check out the edit history for Salute Your Shorts? Judging by the IP address, I assume it's another sock for the prior malicious editors, but my main question is about leaving Christine on due to her being a "Guest Star" vs an extra. Only reason I'm asking you directly is because this person apparently thinks you and I are the same person and since we both know we aren't, I thought maybe you could help in this case. Thanks! Erinhayden (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Erinhayden, I don't have any knowledge of that matter (whether someone who was on two episodes should be in the cast list on Wikipedia). If the IPs are being disruptive or are socking, request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP, which will prevent IPs form editing the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! Sorry to bother you. Erinhayden (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Meta Glass

If you have a chance would you mind looking over (or mind directing some apt minds) over to Meta Glass (a new Sweet Briar related article that someone has made)? I've made some small edits where I can but it seems that some things could still be fixed. Thanks! Ladysif (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ladysif, I don't know how much time I have to spend on it; I made a few edits. If you like you could add a {{refimprove}} tag to the top (although it is possible that most of the info comes from the frequently cited Stohlman book, and it simply needs to be noted in a separate section called "Sources", which would cover a lot of the material which does not have inline citations). If you need extra eyes/help, I advise posting a neutral request on the talk pages of the WikiProjects which are linked on the article's talk page. Hope that helps! (PS: I invite any of my talkpage watchers to also help out. PPS: The article creator is not a total newbie, and could be reminded that the article could use some help to get it up to snuff.) Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Ladysif, I've pecked away at it and made it about as good as it's going to get with the current information. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! A few things seemed off with it and I'm a bit far removed from editing these days as I am extremely busy, so I appreciate it. I would have stuck it in the articles for improvement but since it was brand new it didn't seem right. Ladysif (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

List of LiveJournal users

Regarding your recent edits to the above-noted article, could you please start a discussion on the talk page describing your concerns, particularly as they relate to the notability guideline for standalone lists and to the previous two discussions of the article's notability in the AfDs? Simply slapping a template on a page that has already survived two notability-based deletion discussions, without providing something new to the discussion, is not particularly helpful. If you believe that it is necessary and possible to better establish notability, then some ideas would be helpful. If you don't believe it's possible to establish notability, then as I mentioned in my previous edit summary, a better course of action would be to start a new deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• See Help:Maintenance template removal. Do not remove maintenance templates until the problem indicated in the template is solved. The article does not establish any notability whatsoever, much less from any reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. WP:LISTN states "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...." The article does not provide that. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Could you please start a discussion on the talk page where others can easily find it? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Winnipeg editor

I've blocked 142.160.173.180 (talk · contribs) for evasion. Let me know if you see any new IPs working in the same style. Consider filing an WP:SPI, just for record-keeping, though I'm unsure if the clerks like that. If SPI isn't the best, I wonder if WP:LTA would work. So far I notice some 142.* addresses and some 216.* addresses, though no blockable ranges have been used so far. Some of these IPs have been blocked by User:Coffee. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

See a response from an SPI clerk on this idea. Their only caution was against IP tagging for the suspected sockuppet category. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

AN thread

Hi, Softlavender! I've reverted your revert, as I feel you've misunderstood the edit. (I was merely undoing a recent automated bot-archive that I felt was premature.) If you have concerns about this, I'd like the opportunity to discuss them with you. Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Copied troll-chasing meta-question to VP Technical.

Leave the section on ANI alone, note the move to VP, or just nuke it in place? Anmccaff (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anmccaff, I've noted the move in the close now, and in my edit summary; I've also removed your unnecessary formatting on the VPT thread, making it easier to participate in. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd still be more comfortable if it was obvious at VPT that Thos. W's contribution was originally elsewhere, but if this is how it should be done, I'll live with it. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want people at VPT to answer the question, the thread shouldn't be in green. I noted that the conversation was moved from ANI. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. I know it can be frustrating at times, but that level 4 on Quantum seemed a little harsh to me, for what looked like good faith edits (that just failed to meet P&G in a newbie way). Murph9000 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Murph9000, I gave him a level 4 because I had already given him a level 3 (because of this ANI report [12]) and he responded by edit-warring with me. Also, you might want to read Don't template the regulars. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, I was unaware of the improperly filed ANI (no notice of it on the user talk page). I meant no offence by using a template here, it was just an expedient way to express the base of my concern about what I saw, supplemented with a personal comment attached to it. I saw you going directly from level 2 to level 4 in a case which seemed to have misguided good faith from the newbie. Anyway, you won't hear any more from me on this particular issue, as I just wanted to quietly add my opinion. Please do feel free to remove this talk section, if you want to. Thanks, and best wishes. Murph9000 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

AN

Is there a reason why you're taking the moral fucking high ground with me on your Laser brain thread at AN? Do you know how patronising your coming across by advising someone to email the retired editor rather than participate on a thread which you've aptly named "Laser brain"? I had no idea the thread was exclusive to you and your thoughts. Cassianto^Talk 10:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your poll post

Hi Softlavender. I must say that I found this to be really harsh and bitey. Was that to put others off taking the poll, to put White Arabian Filly off running for adminship, or to blast me for "spamming"?

In response to your post:

• Many editors approach many others about adminship at their talk pages, face to face at Wiki-events, via email, etc. In fact, that is one of the main ways new admins come into being. Why do you feel that my post were inappropriate?

• You wrote "... no interest, no indication, no need, and little or no qualifications for becoming admins..." but White Arabian Filly is interested, has shown indication, and is qualified.

• As for "need", plenty of editors see AIV and other areas requiring more admin help, and run for RfA for that purpose. "Need", as you put it, implies need to serve one's own purposes. Adminship is about serving Wikipedia.

My best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A new hobby?

Pssst!! I'd avoid Craggy Island, if I were you. At least until AAA-Uncle-Jimbo-Cars steps into the fray again? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help

Corkythehornetfan is at it again.

He's changing CORRECT info with incorrect info. Also, he's going back and undoing CORRECT changes to the logos that he himself introduced. This guy has a history of doing this. It becomes about "winning the argument" and not doing what is right and starts these mass edit wars. Please help me with this. I tried to move past this the last time, when you stepped in and ruled that I was right and he was not. But now he's doing it again. It's clear his latest edits are a mere extension of this past attack.

Please help and stop him.

Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk)

No idea what you are talking about. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

please provide diffs for your accusations

diff - Your continued harping, on the other hand, accorss multiple talk pages and in multiple venues, is disruptive editing, and sooner or later is going to get you blocked -- at this rate I'm predicting sooner.

It is a wp:npa personal attack to accuse without providing links to support - Please offer links or retract your accusations - thanks - Govindaharihari (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been seemingly very harsh

...to me, for someone experienced here, and professionally. I say this especially with regard — not to the issue of tags, which I can understand that there are strongly differing perspectives — but to the motives behind what I do. I will acknowledge there is a little of the counter-cultural "I don't care a whit for running up edit numbers, by being religious about logging", but there is not a whit of what is attributed to me, in terms of attempts to deceive. If I perceive there is any possibility of concern as to indentity, or any chance of misunderstanding, I add Le Prof to IP edits. I think the policies and guidelines are clear, that IP is allowed, logging preferred, but the red line is use of IP by registered editors with an attempt to deceive. This simply does not apply—and as I replied at Ivanvector's talk page, even the appearance that recent edits were an attempt to get around the ban is just that, appearance. (I did not know about the ban until late today, shortly before the time-stamp of my long reply at User:Jytdog's Talk page.) I simply spend no time at my own Talk page. (I find it largely a waste of what little life I have left to live.) Cheers, bonne nuit. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, can you remind me again why we put up with the verbosely deaf and clueless? EEng 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note, EEng, you have been warned about this, by an Admin, please comply. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Being scolded by you for not listening is like being told you're ugly by a toad. EEng 02:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

...charity...?! :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 22:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, I renew the invitation to explain your ire. Not your studied concern, or your principled objections to the mistakes I have made—some of which I admit to—but your anger/ire. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Anderson (writer)

Hi Softlavender. I was looking at Mark Anderson (writer) and noticed that you made a number of contributions to the article. There is only one source cited and that appears to be to a primary source, so I was going to tag the page with "Notability" and "BLP primary sources" templates. I know you do help out improving BLPs and also remember saying that you mainly work on those you find interesting, so I was wondering if you feel Anderson meets WP:NAUTHOR or if this should maybe be AfD'd. I did Google "Mark Anderson writer" and there were some hits, but most of what I saw appear to be trivial mentions or stuff which might be for another Mark Anderson. Any ideas on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be AfDed; it has withstood the test of time and intense scrutiny because he is or was in the middle of the Shakespeare authorship controversy. I just now added the "friendly search suggestions" template to the talk page, but checking that now it's kind of hard to use that because there are a number of Mark Andersons who apparently have the word "writer" come up in random links mentioning them, and because he doesn't use a middle initial that I can tell. Anyway, I'll look at it down the line to see if I can figure out more targeted ways to find sources on him. I'm kind of distracted right now so I don't know when I will get to that. :-) Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and your feedback. Do you think tagging with a {{BLP Sources}} would be appropriate just to let others know to be on the look out for better sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather wait on that step, if you are asking me my opinion. I would like to do some targeted Googling with added keywords to find appropriate sources. If I haven't done that within a week, get back to me here to remind me, if that plan is OK with you. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Although I do add tags to articles, I don't see myself as a tag bomber. I'll keep looking for stuff as well. I was able to find his Linked In page (I think) and seemed to weed out a lot of the other Mark Andersons by searching "Mark Anderson Shakespeare". -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I didn't spend too much time on it but I've added four references, all of which establish that he is a recognized expert in the fields of the two books he wrote. The three references for the transit of Venus book are all interviews, but they are all from major international venues with high quality standards. I'm sure there would be much more that can be added if a painstaking search were done, but I didn't spend all that much time. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hello. I didn't realize Marchjuly has already contacted you regarding Mark Anderson (writer). I some time ago prodded this article mentioning there were no secondary sources discussing the author. I have further noted that one primary source failed verification and another statement had no citations. You removed the prod mentioning that the author is "clearly notable and an internationally recognized expert in his fields". I'll go by your direction here. May I request you to add the secondary sources to get the article up to our notability guidelines? If I'm missing something here, please don't hesitate to pull me up. Thanks. Lourdes 03:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the significant improvement. Much appreciated. Lourdes 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Lourdes. Thanks for the nudge; it was nice to get the article up to snuff. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Just want to say thank you as well for really taking the time to improve the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cary Grant

To date, there are 5,387,571 articles on the English Wikipedia so there is no need for you to be at the above trying to breath life into an old, and very much established discussion on a contentious subject. I'm sure there are many other articles out there that could benefit from your invested time? I have some suggestions: Why don't you go and make the 5,387,571 articles 5,387,572, or go and review a GAN, or take part in a peer review somewhere? I fail to see the benefit in you playing your pipe towards the Grant article in an attempt to attract a bunch of faceless nobodies to pitch up at an article that they will more than likely never visit again, just so they can enforce their unwanted and very much unneeded POV at? I consider your attempts at doing this to be thoroughly disruptive. Cassianto^Talk 13:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

LeProf

I kindly request that you stop messing with LeProf. It's clear that they have a particular view of how they want things done, and you're really not making things better by insisting that the exact threading of the original conversation be kept. All you're doing is antagonizing them. Is that really worth it for a few seconds of self-congratulations that you're "right"? Primefac (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPG. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that page, but I genuinely think this is a case for implementing WP:IAR (especially since TPG is more of a guideline). LeProf clearly doesn't want people messing with his talk page, and (as mentioned on a few parallel discussions) it's probably easier to just let him have his way in this case. Pointless quibbling helps no one. I guess the question is this: in the grand scheme of things, is the threading of that conversation going to seriously change the message and overall outcome of the page? No. So again, I ask, please just drop it. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page rodent) 1.6.1 Others' comments - Fixing layout errors - He likes fixing errors... at least it's not big tags before each message: (sorry, I couldn't resist). — PaleoNeonate — 14:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Interested or perhaps a tps is?

I was glad to see you pop by the Akhal-Teke article. That one is a mess, we had it halfway cleaned up for a while, then the political stuff got added in and I haven't had the time to clean it all up since ... there's quite a political kerfuffle over there, and I would be really interested in collaborating with someone who can delve into that mess and clean up the article accordingly. There are a lot of unsourced claims in there -- the horse genetics and bloodline stuff I can probably delve into ( I've done so before) but it would be great if someone could also look into the political side and the Amnesty International involvement (I think that one of the major breeders and gov't agency heads is now was imprisoned [13], [14] ) -- the horse obsession of the dictator is neither helping the horse breed nor the people... these horses are of some moderate interest in the USA (see Nez Perce horse), and the question of whether they are descendants from the same sources as the Byerly Turk is of some historic interest to Thoroughbred breeders. Anyway, you also have a lot of talk page watchers too, I'm sure, so just extending an invite to anyone interested. Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Archiving the music project page

Thanks for your edit - I agree that 30 days is too short. But just to point out a slight logical error (imo): if anything more important projects can be archived sooner. The fact that a project is obscure suggests that people may visit it far less frequently, and so arguing for a longer archive delay on grounds of obscurity would be more persuasive. Did you know, btw, that imo is the generic Japanese for edible tubers, including potatoes? (And btw is prolly German for something else) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Revert unclosing

Hi Softlavender. I noticed you reverted my close of the James Lambden section without leaving anything other than an edit summary. JJL understands not to alter talk page comments anymore and no one has commented in the past few days. What else is there to do? Please consider closing it back. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a massive amount of discussion in that thread, on a wide variety of topics, not just about JJL's altering talk-page discussions. The thread should continue open until all matters reach some form of resolution. If it simply dies out, a bot will archive the thread after three days of inactivity. Threads should not be purple-box closed unless they are completely resolved. Rather than shutting down discussion, just let them expire naturally if there is no obvious resolution. Softlavender (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The point of that thread was altering talk page comments. Everything else was unrelated and belonged somewhere else and no admins had commented which led me to think there would be no administrative actions necessary. Now since you've reverted my close it will sit there for 3 more days. But thanks for your comments here and attempting to keep some order and structure on ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated things very often come up on ANI threads, and they don't belong somewhere else unless there is a specific administrative noticeboard for them (and if they do belong on a different noticeboard, that should be pointed out so that discussion can be moved there). It's important not to shut down conversations simply because one issue seems to have been resolved. Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you deal with the "fake admin" attacks?

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been active on ANI a bit more lately. I've been posting there on and off for years, though, and only recently noticed an upsurge in attacks on me for making (admittedly an unusually large number of) non-admin comments in threads I'm not involved in, coming from something like four different users in the last three weeks, only one of whom I was proposing a BOOMERANG against. I don't know -- have you experienced this?

(Also pinging User:Mr rnddude, who is third after me and Softlavender in terms of good-faith non-admins who I know make a lot of comments in ANI discussions that I happen to have noticed; there's one other who I don't have any problem with, but who I suspect wouldn't like me pinging them.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hijiri88; I figure that this is because of this thread and subsequent discussion on Bishonen's talk page (courtesy ping). Well, I don't recall ever being accused of being a "fake admin", though I have, along with other non-admins, been accused of abusing my admin privileges. The ones I don't have. In terms of having been "attacked" on AN/I it has happened about three or four times total. The end result of these has always been more heat than light. The thing I would recommend, if you come under fire and you're not doing anything inappropriate, just ignore it and don't respond – hard as it is to do. There's no use in defending yourself; the person attacking isn't generally going to be willing to listen or reason with you and you just have to trust that the other editors involved (especially those of us who are regulars) are paying attention and can see bs when it's there. Maybe respond if it's an editor who is usually willing to reason and might have had a heat of the moment response, but, mostly just ignore. I spent time to go through a bit of the AN/I thread I linked above. There are moments where the long posts (looking to be pushing 5k on a couple occassions) don't do anything to bring clarity and just further an already pointless discussion. Consider the section entitled "Another arbitrary break" (started by you), it headed in the wrong direction almost immediately. Your first post was fine, but, it was met with hostility from AlexTW. You tried to engage with them to no avail and no productive outcome (repeatedly). From what I read in that section AlexTW was looking to carry-on the fight with you. By responding, you were just feeding their aggression. After that the two IPs show up and join in. No idea who they are or what they want, but, I agree with Bishonen that they aren't just randoms. The only thing you could have done is recuse yourself from the discussion. Might have saved you some grief. You've self-imposed a ban from AN/I for the duration of one new archive. I'd say that's about a month PBAN. Might do you some good to get away from the drama for a bit. Beyond that, there's not much you can do if somebody decides to attack you beside either cop it on the chin and move on or request action. Personally, I usually just cop it on the chin and move on. They'll get themselves blocked sooner or later. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have an answer because I haven't really had any problem. Everyone's interpersonal experiences are their own and should be dealt with as their own. Softlavender (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Votes

Hi. I've lately been getting used to nodding silent agreement with a lot of what you say around the site, but your vote on the current RfA left me a bit baffled. Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your outstanding negotiating and mediation skills. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Figureofnine submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate User Softlavender to be Editor of the Week for her outstanding negotiating and mediation skills, which recently resulted in her reaching a compromise that resulted in resolution of a particularly thorny user conduct issue at AN/I. Softlavender's proposal received near-unanimous acceptance among the warring factions, thereby resolving for the time-being a longstanding issue. There was considerable antagonism expressed, but she maintained her equanimity. Softlavender has honed her diplomatic skills through ten years on the project, 54,000 edits and creation of 82 articles. Thus it is my great pleasure to nominate Softlavender as editor of the week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This award is very much deserved! Congrats Softlavender. I know you will keep up the good work in the years ahead. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm away for a few days and I come back to this? This is quite a surprise and unexpected delight. Thanks very much Figureofnine, Lepricavark, Coretheapple, MarnetteD, and anyone else involved! :-) Softlavender (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Congrats! Very deserving. Buster Seven Talk 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks Buster! Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Softlavender. The award is well deserved.  – Corinne (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Corinne! Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So glad to nominate you for this. Long overdue! Just the kind of editor it was designed to honor. Thank you Buster for creating and administering this award. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Softlavender! Thoroughly well-deserved :) And thanks to Buster and the nominees for keeping this great booster on the road! Irondome (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, very well deserved! Huldra (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep up the good work WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 22:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Irondome, Huldra, EEng! I am preparing a speech, which will include a sit-down chicken dinner for all invitees and gatecrashers (until we run out). Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, Softlavender. Hope you do Southern style for us gatecrashers. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have rented out the Elks Lodge Banquet Hall! It's not gonna be fried chicken, but the dessert is gonna have whipped cream! This is gonna be legit professional. I guarantee it! Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I third the nomination. She gives great advice too. Too bad some of it in ANi is ignored so quickly. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Softlavender, you and Buster both should be administrators. I nominate both by acclamation. Do I hear a second? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Why would you inflict this on Softlavender (or Buster, for matter, whoever that is)? What have they ever done to you? EEng 23:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Much Thanks to MarnetteD for re-awakening the distribution of a plaque to go along with the award. See Editor of the Week Hall of Fame Buster Seven Talk 14:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll cheer for that! It was an honor for me to receive an EOTW, and to get a mention in the Hall of Fame, am glad to see it go to Softlavender. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender

Scenic Lavender Field

Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 27, 2017

A hard-at-work 10+ year veteran with over 60,000 edits. 82 articles created. Her excellent diplomatic skills are a true example of the type of editor that is the backbone of this encyclopedia.

Recognized for

Outstanding negotiating and mediation skills

Notable work(s)

Creating and maintaining articles over a wide range of topics.

Nomination page

Oh myyyyy (as George Takei might say). Well, I'm speechless. My, my, my. I may have to wear my Sunday best while giving my speech at the Elks Banquet Hall. Thanks very much to all concerned. I really love that plaque! That is a very cool thing. :-) Thanks again! Softlavender (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Very well deserved! Bishonen | talk 17:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Bish. You're invited to the chicken dinner too. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! —PaleoNeonate - 03:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack removed

In stark contrast to the above section, I have removed the personal attack / stupid bad taste joke you made at WP:AN. Please think twice before posting such things in such discussions, and please at least react when someone indicates that they have a problem with your post. Such comments do nothing to help the discussion and only confuse the situation, as they lack all context and are misplaced there. Fram (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Tory Burch

I got this. El_C 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I was, thanks very much, El_C. I was going to give you "thanks" a ping but sometimes that's hard to do with protections. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are you reverting the semiprotection template, twice? El_C 10:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you had reverted the sock, which was what I was trying to do. I restored the semi icon as soon as I realized that was the diff, just now. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, cool. El_C 10:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, forgive my oversight; I'm in the middle of a Twitter DM (direct message) conversation with a historian which is indirectly related to some Wikipedia articles, so I've been toggling between a dozen windows and missed that little detail. :) Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks

for your work on the fox family

i got into a bit of a problem some months ago where I was trying to be more even handed about the naming convention of james fox (actor) and got interrupted mid way - and havent re-visited the scene of the crime - any suggestion e resolving the untouched remains - gratefully appreciated - if any of this makes no sense at all - can be more specifici with diffs (if I can find them ) JarrahTree 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree, If you could be more clear (and also use correct capitalization and punctuation), and also link whatever articles you are referring to or wanting help with, and also be more precise as to what you are actually requesting, I might be able to reply cogently. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been recently editing articles relative to the Fox family. There is a problem there. In the last half hour you have edited Laurence Fox, James Fox, Edward Fox (actor) and Freddie Fox (actor). However lets leave it at that. Thanks for your reply. JarrahTree 03:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

JarrahTree, no one can read your mind and see a "problem there" if you do not describe what the problem is and what kind of assistance you would like. In addition, you have been here for more than 12 years and made more than 142,000 edits; please learn to nest your replies correctly under the post you are replying to using the appropriate number of colons. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your remark at Arbitration request

Without going into the content there, can I ask why you deleted the content I added to your first message? Thanks. Be good!238-Gdn (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I see now that you just moved it. Thanks. 238-Gdn (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am inexperienced, but I am willing to learn from my mistakes. What steps do you suggest I take at this stage?238-Gdn (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@238-Gdn: I suggest focusing solely on content. I've given most of my advice in my posts at the ArbCom case request. You could start by choosing one issue which you feel is insufficiently resolved or insufficiently discussed, and starting a completely neutral and completely civil thread about it on the article talkpage, in an attempt to determine community consensus. If there is a deadlock or insufficient response, then neutrally request additional input from one of the WikiProjects listed on the article-talk banner, or ask for help from admin Zero0000. If that doesn't resolve the issue and establish a consensus, then choose a form of WP:DR to use. Since you are very new, you may also want to seek advice at the WP:TEAHOUSE. IMPORTANT: Never discuss article content on user talkpages -- only on article talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI - content dispute

That was one of the best edits I've seen at ANI for a while (I don't frequent it, but still). I've not always been that impressed with your contributions, so take this as very high praise. You've gone up in my estimation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, although it's the same thing I post on ANI or ARC constantly. Maybe you need to get out more? ;-) Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that is for sure. See my talk page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

2017

I intended to remove that "poll" once anyone presented any argument at all on the talk page, but got distracted away before doing so. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Debtors Anonymous

I do not agree, not even ANI or AN leave discussions without any new comments open for three months, maybe at BN but I suspect too long there also, 3 months is rediculous, but have it your way. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

AN

Why do you archive discussions at AN and ANI? You do realise there's a bot configured to do this automatically at the appropriate time? GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Many threads go unattended to or under-attended to, especially by admins, if there are too many threads on a noticeboard, especially if many of them are quite long. Without closes and one-click archiving, ANI grows to 70–100 threads. With closes and then one-click archiving 24 or so hours after that, we are able to keep it down to, on average, less than 30 threads. Without closes and one-click archiving, many items do not get addressed or responded to at all, because they are lost in a sea of nearly a million bytes of black and white. (The purple-box closes also allow admins and other editors to easily see what does or does not need attending to.) All of this holds true at AN as well; although there is less of a need to one-click so quickly (because AN is less busy; however, bot-archiving is six days rather than three days there so it can get crowded), it's still important to clear the decks substantially when there is too much going on there and many huge threads are obscuring a few short ones. This system of purple-box closing and one-click archiving has worked very well, especially on ANI, for the past few years; we have increased the level of actual engagement with threads by a factor of 10 or more, rather than letting people's concerns get bot-archived without being addressed. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so fussed about ANI, I guess, which tends to the dramatic-but-not-that-important. For threads at AN, some are quite important notices to administrators - do we just trust that you don't archive such things too quickly? GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see this question till just now. I'm a Master Editor III, I've been here over a decade and made over 60,000 edits; I've made 3,523 edits to ANI and 345 edits to AN. If something very simple and perfectly straightforward is resolved, it's resolved, and doesn't need to stick around more than a few days. If you have any qualms about the threads I one-click archive you are free to revert, the same as I did to SNUGGUMS a couple of weeks ago: [15]. – Softlavender (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:BP (Band) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:BP (Band). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I found the mainspace version, did a merge and redirect. Your edits were quite helpful.

I appreciate your calm and insightful contributions and I'd like to run a little friendly experiment with you. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, I do not accept your running "a little friendly experiment" with me. Please do not do so; this is your only warning. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

So sorry I was hoping to get some constructive feedback or thoughts on how to handle that. Experiment is long since over. Sorry it was not helpful for you. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. That template should not be removed before there is consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Erlbaeko (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack

That article is subject to one revision in 24 hours. You made this and this which is two. I'm not sure about this as it was removing something added without consensus so I have brought it up at WP:AN in the section titled "Khan Shaykhun chemical attack". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

All human knowledge

Thanks. Did you see at the Village Pump Tech that here's an __INDEX__ template at the bottom of the page which overrides anything at the top? He's pretty stubborn. MfD? It's got about 60 userboxes linking to it. Maybe it should be somewhere else, but it shouldn't be indexed. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. He's already breached 3RR removing the noindex/userpage codes. It needs to be summarily deleted, because he's just going to keep flouting Wikipedia rules and we can't babysit the article. Clearly he doesn't care about wiki policies. I'm taking it to ANI or AN. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

From ANI

I don't really want to do this at ANI as it's a bit public. You need to calm down and check things. To pick up on a few things from your comment at ANI:

• I didn't say your notification of Erlbaeko was tit-for-tat; rather that his notification of you was.
• The general sanctions on Syrian Civil War are not authorised by the arbitration committee and you can't take enforcement actions to the AE board (at least you can, but no-one will be interested because they're not arbitration remedies).
• The processes around GS are not as well-documented as AC/DS, but even with AC/DS it is not necessary to alert an editor if the editor has given the same alert to someone else in the past year - see point three of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. In the case of general sanctions, there is no requirement to notify every twelve months and, according to that very useful log, Erlbaeko has received a notification previously (from EdJohnston in 2015).
• If, as you say, GS notifications are required and necessary before reporting someone at AE and so there is nothing wrong with you having done so, what is the big problem with Erlbaeko having notified you - especially when it is now well-established that you had just violated the GS in place? He has a fair history of issuing such alerts and you can hardly claim that he's singled you out. GoldenRing (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• There is no need to search through someone's contributions to see if they've left notifications because they're all supposed to be logged in the central notification log, which is why we're all here in the first place. In the case of Erlbaeko, a quick search through the current text of the notification log you were editing would have told you all you need to know as his name appears many times.
• It is very much bad form to post a non-required notification and it can be the basis for sanctions - see WP:AC/DS#alert.dup.

I have not conflated anything; you appear not to have actually read the policy related to general sanctions, discretionary sanctions and alerts. GoldenRing (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The thread is not about Erlbaeko's talkpage template to me; it is about his logging at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but you appear to keep talking about his talkpage template to me, which is not what is under discussion, and since I had not logged at the GS/SCW, that wasn't tit-for-tat. Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received "more than one alert per area of conflict per year". As for everything else, please read my reply to BU Rob13. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you're supposed to log all GS notifications in the central log anyway I still really don't see the point of all this. If you didn't know about the log, fair enough. I've added a note to the relevant template's documentation pointing people gently in the direction of the notification log. As an admin who's activish in arbitration enforcement (and as Rob said at AN) I value the central logs; as you rightly point out, manually searching a user's history for notifications is a pain (though the DS notifications are at least meant to trigger an edit filter that makes searching easier; I don't know, off the top of my head, if the GS notifications do the same). I would gently point out, in response to your Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received "more than one alert per area of conflict per year" that you still don't seem to have grasped WP:AC/DS#aware.aware so let me spell it out: point 3 says In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Erlbaeko has given three such notifications in the past twelve months, according to the log. There is some ambiguity here, as WP:AC/DS#alert.dup only talks about duplicate notifications, not unnecessary notifications, which is why I described it as "exploring the edges of disruptive editing", not actual disruption. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am moving this to the thread because there is no reason toi have a conversation in two places. Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What's your problem?

Why do you object to both the AfD as-written, AND to any possible changes? Power~enwiki (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi Softlavender, Hope all is well, Would you say DreamLinker was in any way related to 118 alex - They'd created their account on the 4th of July and have been editing Delhi related things however they've now taken an interest in the Singapore bus terminals that I've AFD'd so wasn't sure if this was another Timothy S1 or whether I'm simply over thinking things ?,
Seems stupid to send everyone to SPI who edits a Singapore bus-related article so figured I'd ask you instead seeing as you're not easily fooled like some of us :),
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010, I'm not sure but that does look extremely suspicious. I'm not an admin; I suggest either running this by the admins who were involved in the previous blocks and/or SPI, or re-opening the SPI on 118 alex, or both. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack Lowden

Just noticed this warning[16] you gave an editor. Not many people would realise this. See also this. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Worrying misconception of the facts

Hi, I'm a little worried about the slanderous comments you've just made about me with regards to some "threats" I've supposed to have made on an unspecified date to an unspecified person. Could you please see your way clear to go back to ANI to provide a diff for these threats. This is a serious allegation and I'm keen to understand this further. If you've got this wrong, I'd be expecting to see a strike and an apology. If you don't, I'll bee seeking advice a couple of threads below my one. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)