User talk:Softlavender/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Untitled

I post just post hear shortly . I hope you saw my reply ( emily bear article) at the cullen talk page, there everything is explained.

Greetings (Eifelochse (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC))

update: The concert/event list was not made by me - it was already on the page. I would never put a list like this in. So I even did not update it. I could have done it - but this is really inapropriate! Thanks for the better design now.

As I saw on your page you have been working in journalism in New York for many years So I think you know many people who know Emily Bear - ask them if you don't believe me, or some people from NPR who organized this event in NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmuth385VLw

Oh! I forgot to put the infos into the article ;)

or this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laMctBcvHoo (Performance Santa Fe, composed and orchestrated when she was 11)

or ask Richard Rood (concert master here, somewhere I read also concert master New York opera)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNLZn8UN950 Enough!

(Eifelochse (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC))

Eifelochse, when you post a new thread on a talk page, click the "new section" button at the top of the page -- do not post inside someone else's thread. I never said or implied that you had added the performance list to the Emily Bear article. I have no interest in Emily Bear or her work, and comments about improving that article should go on the article's talk page, not on user talk pages. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

My english may be poor but I think a have a great more knowledge than you in scientific citing.? Why did you delete my recent statement. I will not post anything mor here on English wikipedia - its a scientific joke. Btw. are the Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Jackie Evancho managment promotion articles etc etc etc articles under supervision. Compared to them - despite my English laguage - my updated article is first rate stuff and you know this. It could much better then rewrite it in perfect style. But please not again the third party argument. Every prof at a serious university would laugh at and makes jokes about you. Btw where were my fault in my recent Zuill Bailey update ;) You cannot find anything serious I think.

Pleas send me links to any of your articles. If I take them apart.... (Eifelochse (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC))

Exception

I can write "except for the song...the lyrics of which...", but "whose lyrics" is incorrect English, and therefore needs to be fixed, one way or another. Rags (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. Buy a decent grammar book or do a Google search. --John (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ragityman, you are thinking of the interrogatory use of the word "whose" (as in "Whose boots are these?"). In normal non-interrogatory use, "whose" means "of whom" or "of which": [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

• News and notes: Wikimedia Switzerland's board and paid-editing firm; passing of Ed Dravecky

• In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps

• Traffic report: Purple

• Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks

• Arbitration report: Two editors unbanned; Wikicology case enters workshop phase; Gamaliel restricted from Gamergate at his own request

• Recent research: The eight roles of Wikipedians; do edit histories expose social relations among editors?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

IP at AN

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editing. Fences&Windows 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another 'forgot'. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

• News and notes: Affiliates' nomination of WMF trustees announced; FDC's straight talking to WMF

• Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil

• In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post

• Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one

• Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs

• Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others"

• Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:ANI threads

YOU WROTE "Hello, I've closed both of your ANI threads. Please do not open any further ANI threads. If you do so, it will constitute disruption and you will likely be blocked from editing. The editor Grayfell is an experienced editor and I'm sure he will gladly continue to answer any questions you have about Wikipedia. Alternatively, you may wish to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE for more help and information. Lastly, the best way to learn about Wikipedia is to register an account, and then you can request mentoring and all kinds of other assistance. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)"

So in summary: He is experienced and couldn't possibly have abused his position of trust.

DISBELIEF AND DISMISSAL: Isn't that the same approach the Catholic church used for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk)

This page is not the best place for content discussion. — Etimena 01:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Striking comment by indefinitely banned sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No, in summary: people have looked at what he's done, and he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Unlike the Catholic Church, Wikipedia has no dark corners where bad things can happen out of sight. Everything's right there in the history for everyone to see. Please take Softlavender's advice. EEng 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Lol

Guess who Orangemike templates with his block notice. Me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Don't come lolling around to me on my talk page about that. If Orangemike put it there, you deserved it. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Another venue discussing DVD/VHS dispute

You chose not to continue at FFD but to remove the FFD caption. I nominated the DVD image as FFD because I want it replaced. I could not talk to the other guy who removed the VHS image because... I could not stand him personally. I don't want you to become another person whom I could not stand. I just want the effort not to go to waste. I don't want to plan resignation from Wikipedia, but everything that's happened to me leaves me no choice. I don't want this dispute to affect me. I just want the VHS and DVD co-exist in the article. If you are unwilling to do that, you would trump me. I'm tired of cooperating with hostile people anymore, and hostile people have greater influence than ordinary, hard-working, good-willed people. Actually, intimidation is predominant and strong. I don't want to think of you as part of that, but your tone says otherwise. --George Ho (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(TPS, from the guy George "could not stand personally): George, just stop creating issues all over the place. It's better if you spend time improving pages rather than trying to fix things that simply aren't broken. And scooting off for page protection just because you didn't get your way really stinks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I had the VHS image deleted. Allow me to re-nominate the DVD one as one of FFD? --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bach Brouhaha

Hi Softlavender. I was wondering what you think of my alternative proposal at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Restricted to 1RR. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Voceditenore, I'm back from a bit of a wiki-break. It looks like that proposal has broad support already, so it doesn't look like my participation will matter or make much difference. Thanks for your consideration and participation in the dialogue and attempted remedies. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Softlavender

Thanks for your help at my user talk. I regret that you have had to divert your attention from more important tasks. See ya 'round Tiderolls 12:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are all so very important and everything here is very serious! LOL. Anyway, no worries, TR. There are advantages to being in a weird timezone in the middle of the Pacific, and also staying up well past midnight. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

• News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting

• Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director

• In the media: The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly; Wikipedians' fragility; Street Sharks hoax

• Featured content: Eight articles, three lists and five pictures

• Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian

• Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee

• Recent research: English as Wikipedia's Lingua Franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies

• Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride

• Blog: Freely licensed magic at Eurovision

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello S. I don't know if you have BMK's talk page on your watchlist so I wanted to make sure you got my thanks for you help with the person that was trolling me yesterday. I have been trying to follow the "I" of WP:RBI in dealing with this person so I appreciate all the research and posts you made there and on the ANI page. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

• News and notes: WMF cuts budget for 2016-17 as scope tightens

• In the media: Jimmy Wales on net neutrality—"It's complicated"—and his $100m fundraising challenge

• Featured content: Overwhelmed ... by pictures

• Traffic report: Pop goes the culture, again.

• Arbitration report: ArbCom case "Gamaliel and others" concludes

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video Games

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

noticebox dispute

Please see my comments before making a fair and complete decision64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Iselilja (given name)

I see the creator is now trying to list the article at AfD, which is a nightmare without Twinkle, really horrible. I thought I'd offer to delete it if they like. That is assuming you wouldn't mind having your contributions to it go away so unceremoniously. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

I've created many many AfDs, all without Twinkle. The fact that the editor made several other wiki edits rather than creating a deletion discussion means the AfD tag needed to go. You or s/he can do whatever you want to with the article. But if an editor tags as AfD, a deletion discussion and rationale must immediately follow. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant to ask if you value your own contributions, and I suppose you're saying you don't. I'll speedy per G7, then. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

(ec)Bishonen but if you are asking should you delete it summarily without discussion, my preference would be no. I think a community discussion is in order, because there are several options, plus some editors might feel it is either useful or notable, plus I don't know the rules on names. Softlavender (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

For god's sake. Fine. I've told the creator I can delete it if they wish, but I can retract. I'm going out now. I've spent too much time on this already. Bishonen | talk 11:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

LOL TELL ME ABOUT IT. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

• News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov

• Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group

• Featured content: From the crème de la crème

• In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing

• Op-ed: Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing

• Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle

• Blog: Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Archiving resource requests

Thanks for your work on the list of resource requests. When you use OneClickArchiver, it archives to a different location, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Archive 1, than all of our other archives (most recently Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive 28). That isn't the end of the world, but does make the requests you archive difficult to find. If you can tolerate {{resolved}} and {{stale}} requests briefly, ClueBot III will archive them automatically within 24 hours of them being tagged. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I know; I realized that afterwards and have posted a query about it at WP:Village pump (technical)#One-Click Archiver sending threads to the wrong page.27s archive. One-Click has never messed up like this before, so i can't figure it out and I'm not a techie, but I'm sure someone can figure it out. Anyway, I won't use One-Click there again until it's fixed, and I will use the templates instead. Also, I think eventually I will move the misplaced threads to the correct archive. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I like a lot of things about automated archiving, but it isn't perfect. You'll have to be careful about asking people to "please mark with the {{resolved}} template". Even enclosed in nowiki tags, the bot saw it in your comment and promptly archived the thread. It may be safe to write "{{resolved}}" using the tl template, or you can just leave out the curly braces. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Titty obsession"

• [2] I think this strayed into the territory of a personal attack and is inappropriate in a deletion discussion... Deryck C. 13:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're either joking, or have been away for awhile. Neelix's titty obsession (and that's the only appropriate term for it) is well known, has caused enormous amounts of time to be wasted, and is justifiably kept in the collective WP hive mind as an object lesson. EEng 16:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hive mind? Are you sure you don't mean swarm intelligence? Although an object lesson in titty obsession does sound somewhat intriguing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Deryck C. 11:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Just spotting the title to this thread ... my reaction was that it would be about this Cheers to Martin and SoftLavender! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your comments in the AN/I thread I started. I think we share a number of views about the whole sorry situation. I feel it is as resolved as it's going to get, and I hope things can improve going forward. Unlike some people involved, I certainly wouldn't mind bumping into you again at some point. Bye for now, Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI

why are you planning to block me , if I just may criticize , and I have someone wise not to revert otters edit without consesus , we live here in a dictatorship , and this is also uncollegial. BerendWorst (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Varkey Foundation

If it is in Category:Educational charities based in the United Kingdom it doesn't need to be in Category:Educational charities. This is a heirarchical system. Rathfelder (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussions belong on the article's talk page, not on user talk pages. Also, don't directly link categories on non-article pages like you just did; use colons to render the links inactive (I have fixed this for you above). Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversial statements?

I don't think so. This is the summary from the O.U.P. book of the musicologist Russell Stinson:

collapsed

The Orgelbüchlein is simultaneously a compositional treatise, a collection of liturgical organ music, an organ method, and a theological statement. These four identities are so closely intertwined that it is hard to know where one leaves off and another begins. This is from later on in Stinson: The Orgelbüchlein's highest purpose, however, like that of Bach's music in general, is of a religious nature: service to God and the edification of humankind. It is summed up by the rhyming couplet—essentially a dedication—that concludes the title, and that bears repeating here: Dem höchsten Gott allein̍ zu Ehren, Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren (which Hans David and Arthur Mendel poetically translated as “In Praise of the Almighty's Will, And for my Neighbor's Greater Skill”). Like other previously discussed portions, this couplet, too, may have been borrowed from an item in Bach's personal library, the Gesangbüchlein of Michael Weisse, published in 1531, which ends with the couplet: Gott allein zu lob und ehr / Und seinn auserwelten zur leer (“For the praise and honor of God alone, and for the edification of his chosen ones”). Not only do Bach and Weisse express the same message, but they also use the same phraseology and rhyme scheme (“ehr” and “lehr”). And in addition to being a hymnal, Weisse's collection, like Ammerbach's Tabulatur, also parallels the Orgelbüchlein in its use of the term “Büchlein.” Any connection to Weisse, however, is of secondary significance compared to the couplet's apparent biblical derivation, which would seem to reveal its true meaning. The scriptural source in question is one that has always occupied an important position in Christian liturgy. Known as Christ's “Summary of the Law,” it reads: “Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40). Basically an extension of his more common slogan Soli Deo Gloria (“To God Alone the Glory”), Bach's little couplet proclaims that his music has both a divine and worldly purpose, in accordance with Jesus' teachings. Ultimately, then, the Orgelbüchlein may be understood as its composer's response to the New Testament. This is what the musicologist William Renwick writes, in a commentary on BWV 614. Bach’s art is frequently intertwined with his religious convictions. The consecration of time through music, which is part of the Christian tradition, is seen in his great cantata cycles, in Clavierubung III, and in the Orgelbuchlein. Indeed, the Orgelbuchlein, in its extensive conception though incomplete real- ization, contains his most detailed exposition of the theological expression of time. In many cases Bach’s compositional process was a matter of taking the text or theme of the hymn as a basis for selecting topics that could be trans- lated into musical terms and then built into contrapuntal structures.10 In Christian theology, the supreme action is the God-Man event, the incarnation. New Year, with its implications of rebirth, is a central point in the twelve-day Christmas cycle that extends from the Nativity to the Epiphany.11 This is the divide between old and new. In the spiritual life, this is worked out by turning away from a sinful past and toward a future promise of redemption. This concept may well be reflected in the change of tonal orientation that “Das alte Jahr” embodies. But despite our best intentions, each new year, each new beginning always ends up as a retracing of our old follies. The dividing point of the new year is in fact a mirage; we are helpless to reform without the intervention of God. In the same way, the ending on E inevitably points us back to our starting point on A. The old year closes, but the new year opens at the same time. Our bit- tersweet regret for the past is mingled with our dared-for hopes for the future. When we look back at the past, it inevitably makes us reflect on our future; when we look to the future, we reflect back on our past. Each reflects the other. In a like manner, the open-ended tonality of “Das alte Jahr” is self-reflective: E searches back to A for its context, and A searches forward to its hoped-for resolution on D. The year may be complete, but time marches on. The music may be complete, but the tonal implications continue beyond the double-bar line. “This type of ending awakens a desire to hear something additional.” A performance of the hymn of course has several verses. And here we sense the connection of the end of one verse to the beginning of another; it becomes a cycle, just as the end of one year leads to the beginning of the next. But in an isolated performance of Bach’s chorale prelude, the impression is rather more of a single transformation, from before to after, from the past to the future. Whether one primarily understands the former or the latter shape, they are both facets of the same process: in one case mirroring the endless cycle of the year, in the other mirroring the single yet ongoing transformation that is at the heart of the Christian experience. Perhaps indeed, the ascending spiral is the best analogy to this progressive yet cyclic movement. This discussion brings us back to our starting point: grasping Bach’s expression in this pivotal composition. I suggest that Bach is intentionally reflecting upon the complex meaning of new year, in both its philosophical and theological contexts—a turning point; a Janus-like reflection backward and forward; regret for the past and hope for the future; the place between before and after. An attempt at a perfectly unified view may miss the point that this chorale melody in its later version is about transition and change. The opening A provides a successful bridge from the ending of one verse on E to the beginning of the next, in D. A is the common denominator—and the reciting note—but it is not therefore to be construed as tonic.

In the main body of Orgelbüchlein I quote part of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. The main body also contains Bach's own dedication which reads, "Dem Höchsten Gott allein' zu Ehren,/ Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren." There is also a verse translation. Stinson and Renwick are both expanding on the first line of Bach's dedication.

Nothing in Stinson or Renwick is controversial (except possibly Renwick's Schenkerian analysis). On the talk page on June 4 the administrator Fences and windows already told Francis Schonken to discontinue making comments about "religious POV". She pointed out that one would expect exactly that in a collection of harmonised hymns.

At the moment I am midstream in editing some quite complicated mathematical content (Uniformization theorem), which requires finding and checking multiple sources. It also took a while to write A solis ortus cardine, the Latin plainchant hymn from which BWV 611 is derived — translating 5th century Latin, finding images of medieval sources, etc. None of this editing is easy. Proxy-editing is a lot easier. Mathsci (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci none of this gigantic wall of text belongs on my talk page (therefore I have collapsed it). It belongs on the article talk page. Please remember WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" and that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." And please stop complaining about your contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is voluntary. No one is forcing you to edit Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I know how to edit so please reserve this kind of advice for new editors. You tag-teamed/proxy-edited on behalf of a sanctioned editor, manufacturing an edit war, and then templated an experienced user's talk page. Your reference to "controversy" in edit summaries was capricious. You knew that this was an unfinished article in an active state of creation, with large amounts of detailed content being added.[3] Your editing forced me into adding a quote to the article in an as yet unwritten section: I am not at all happy with it, but at least it served to pacify you. Ledes rarely have citations for uncontroversial statements and that was the case here. I have no idea why you chose to make all this fuss about an acknowledged musicologist writing that Bach was making a "theological statement" in writing Orgelbüchlein. To give you credit, it was not quite as childish as posting a "religious POV" tag at the top of the article. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The claim, which was a major, unsubstantiated, and controversial one (see the article's talk page, where the statement has been challenged since 2012) and needed citing, was uncited. It was tagged as uncited by two experienced editors and you edit-warred to keep removing it. We are required by WP:ANEW to warn editors on their talk pages before reporting edit-warring at that board. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

My Apologies

It was not my intent to be disruptive but to be helpful. Once I read through some of the Wiki policies and procedures I immediately corrected my error. Stryker1981 (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for your input

Can you please reply here: User_talk:NeilN#diffs? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no comment. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, I'd like to reiterate that I will not be participating in the linked thread on your userpage; however I'll add that my choices/actions now and previously have, and have had, absolutely nothing to do with Winkelvi (I am not in communication with him, do not follow his actions [or vice versa] or have his talk page watchlisted, and I didn't even know he had been blocked until it was mentioned more than two weeks later on someone else's talk page). Moreover, I'd like to add that I think you are being played and have been from the beginning; this is unfortunately one consequence of being away from Wikipedia for several months and then trying to step into a scenario which Floquenbeam and others were apparently handling. I don't have anything further to say, and would appreciate not being further pinged from that thread. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You should ask User:BenLinus1214

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.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Apparently that user goes by User:Johanna now. Repinging them since I don't know if I would be notified when someone pinged my former user name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tommy's Honour

On 2 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tommy's Honour, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actors Peter Mullan and Jack Lowden, who portray pioneering golfing legends Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris in the 2016 film Tommy's Honour, had no prior experience with golf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy's Honour. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tommy's Honour), 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

• News and notes: Board unanimously appoints Katherine Maher as new WMF executive director; Wikimedia lawsuits in France and Germany

• Op-ed: Two policies in conflict?

• In the media: Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source

• Featured content: Triple fun of featured content

• Traffic report: Goalposts; Oy vexit

• Blog: Jimmy Wales names Emily Temple-Wood and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight as Wikipedians of the Year

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Can you please stop entirely removing my edits to the Brandon Semenuk and Brett Rheeder pages? I follow biking very closely I just didn't add references yet. Also when you get your sources from old web pages or newspapers, that most likely is inaccurate info, and is not providing the reader with good up to date information. Rileyschneider (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Rileyschneider, as we've mentioned to you before, you need to provide the citations when you add the material, not later. Create a draft in your sandbox or on a userpage draft, and mock it up there before posting. That will give you an opportunity to compose the text and add and format the citations. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

I'm a little confused. When the block on the IP (CrazyAces) is over, and the IP edits again, do I report it to ANI again? It still would be CrazyAces evading a block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick: I'd recommend reporting it first directly to Bishonen if it's the same IP making the same kinds of edits (that is, targeting you or known CrazyAces topics). If it's another IP doing similar things, I'd say you might first run it by Bishonen, and if it's not eventually taken care of then you might report it as block evasion on ANI. Personally I wouldn't go looking for trouble though -- don't track the IP's edits, etc. Just let things be unless you are affected. That's my opinion anyway. Softlavender (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do. I only reported the first time as a last resort because he kept continuing to target my articles. If he leaves me be there will be no trouble. Thank you for the advice.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving discussion marked DoNotArchive

Hi, you archived a discussion that was marked "DoNotArchive". The discussion was only temporarily closed and can be reopened "if desired". Is there a way to un-archive it without pinging every single user mentioned in the discussion? It would be a bit ungainly to re-start the discussion from scratch and have to bring everything up again. Furry-friend (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It might as well be archived, since nothing's going to happen to BMK :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• The "No Archive" text preceded the close and was only for the bot which automatically archives threads that are unclosed but inactive for more than 72 hours. Newyorkbrad's close meant the thread could be archived after at least 24 hours (otherwise he wouldn't have closed it). I tried to let the thread stay for much longer than 24 hours after close, but it was taking up an enormous amount of space on the page, and so I eventually archived it. If there's any reason to bring the thread back after BMK returns from his wikibreak, you could probably consult Newyorkbrad and he would bring the thread back to the board. Bringing it back wouldn't re-ping anyone, because WP:PINGs only work when you physicially type four tildes at the same time you post them. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you! With the length of the discussion in mind, I'll re-open the AN/I on the 10th without copy-pasting back the entire discussion. Furry-friend (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. That may or may not be the best solution ... because eventually you could be accused of being selective of what you chose to copy. I still suggest that you consult with either Newyorkbrad or NeilN as to how to precisely proceed if you want the discussion to continue when BMK returns .... Maybe run by them your exact plan, or simply ask them what they advise. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend, I'm pinging you to make sure you see this. Copying only part or parts of the former ANI thread would be against Wikipedia policy. So if you want to continue or revive the discussion when BMK returns, your options are: (1) Have Newyorkbrad restore and unclose the thread. (2) Start a new thread, and within it mention and provide a link to the old thread. (3) Start a new thread, that contains a collapsed version of the old thread (using the Template:Hidden archive top codes) at the top. Again, I encourage you to speak to Newyorkbrad or NeilN before you proceed. Softlavender (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do (2). Furry-friend (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

required arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#I wish for some resolution of the harassment, wikihounding, wikistalking, and attempts to WP:OUTING of me over the approximately last 60 days by user HappyValleyEditor and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

ani which you may be interested in, includes diffs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

NAC

You chose to ignore my question. That's fine. But this should have been a "clue".[4] Don't revert my thread closures again as a "NAC" closure. Don't be a hypocrite. Cheers. Doc talk 08:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing. You seem to think by ignoring me you're "above" addressing me. Or something. I recommend that you reconsider this approach. I'm not going anywhere, and you're going to have to deal with me one way or another. Doc talk 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If I may

So, you're suggestion that Maybeparaphrased and Fouette are more than simply acquainted. I think I'm starting to believe it. First, I took a look at all the article Fouette has edited and all the articles Maybe has edited, they never cross. They may have first met at AfD, for the same article, I want to see if I can pin their first interaction. Right now, July 5th seems to be an interesting date. If I come up with anything that could be used for SPI do you mind if I notify you, on your talk page? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter either way. There's more than enough evidence that they could easily be the same user. Softlavender (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There may be enough evidence, but, that would need to be presented, else CU won't accept it. Sorry, I just got curious. One person mentioned at AN/I, quite pertinently, that editors like Carrie and FRDJT would likely be well prepared for this event. Ah well, could be paranoid. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to interject that anyone with a stupid Frenchified name like Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant was bound to be trouble, especially in pink script. EEng 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouttés ronds de jambe en tournant are actually really fun, albeit badly overused and tacky. FourViolas (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your thanks

LOL! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was going to volunteer to do it myself – again – but frankly at that point I would have requested secretarial wages, especially considering your highly lucrative activities of late. Ha. Softlavender (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned you on my user page

I know that we've butted heads recently, but I really do respect you as an editor. It's that respect and your wise words which led me to mention you on my user page. I hope that mentioning you there is okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That bit is on my user page and talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the call-out mention. As for "butted heads", whatever it was wasn't that recent, and I don't (or try not to) base my interactions with people on whether we have agreed or disagreed in the past (unless the person is a long-term irredeemable lout LOL). I try to focus on content and policy and best practices, not editors. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up and mention! :-) Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016 recommended reading

16 July 2016

... on a centenary of a performance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah Gerda, this is clickbait, isn't it? I'm not falling for it! As I recall, the Reger Requiem is very beautiful, reminiscent of Fauré's (or am I thinking of the Rutter Requiem?). If you have sung it, I hope you enjoyed it. That's a nice image, too. Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what it is with you and stories ;) - Yes, I've sung it, three times, and it changed my life, especially as the first time, we walked up the steps to the same organ loft that the composer had used, and a friend in the audience was dying of cancer, - it was his last time "out", and part of the music played at his funeral 8 weeks later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds amazing, Gerda. After I logged off, I realized that I was actually thinking of the Rutter Requiem and that I don't recall anything about the Reger Requiem or even if I've ever heard it. I'll have to give it a listen .... Thanks for the link to the Reger-Cor. Softlavender (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

... what we are here for: link to new info and music, - hope you will have enjoyed to find that there were three compositions called Requiem by the composer who died 100 years ago, - joyful Psalm 100 - a symphony - to come in about five weeks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, I just listened to this on a YouTube video [5]. It's very interesting. But the end seems odd -- like I'm not even sure that that was the correct ending (the uploader noted that the audio is from an old unidentified MP3 that was on his computer) -- it just drops off. Is that the correct ending? Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Without having listened: probably not, you can see in the score that it has a well-defined end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's complete and ends in peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well peace is relative, for modern music. Here are the last 1.5 minutes of that 52-minute YouTube video [6]. There's a loud tipani burst, and then a minute of rather intense or forte singing, and then it ends. It's just not a normal expected drawn-out melodic ending though -- that's why I'm not sure. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess we hear different things even when clicking on the same. Soloist, choir and orchestra all conclude together, singers on "Toten" - for me. I have to be quiet right now, so can't check. You could compare other recordings, and the score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I see that you think I am incompetent? You said earlier that "that [I] should possibly be topic-banned from AFC reviews if this is the level of [my] reviewing". That's quite a charge.

I'd like to explain that WP:BLP1E does refuse notability for these sorts of claims. Perhaps you disagree. The musician in question fails WP:NMUSIC. Perhaps you disagree on that, too. Finally, I misspoke in my comment: I meant to say that name-dropping is a cognitive bias, not a cognitive disorder. So I'd like to work out this apparent misunderstanding. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: To clarify, I took offense at your comments. I'd appreciate a response. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

• News and notes: Board faces diversity and skill-base issues in new FDC appointments

• Discussion report: Busy month for discussions

• In the media: Women in science editathon gets national press; Wikipedia "shockingly biased"

• Featured content: A wide variety from the best

• Traffic report: Sports and esports

• Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks

• Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality

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

Signature issues

A few weeks ago, you directed me to a board for the issue with signature self-conflicts. At the time I figured it was mostly an issue that affected me, but I've also begun to see multiple half-signatures which display the date and time but not the name. If you we direct me there again, it may be a good time to indicate to someone that there is a bug about. TimothyJosephWood 00:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:VPT. By the way, if you see signatures that only display date and time, it almost always means the person typed 5 tildes instead of four. -- Softlavender (talk)

Clarification Needed

Hi soft lavender, regarding your recent revert on the Sri Chinmoy article, from the information I have researched it is obvious and clear that yes, Chinmoy lived in Queens, New York City and established a meditation center there. However 'living among' his followers suggests an ashram style of spiritual community which is not information that can be found anywhere about Chinmoy's organisation. Can you provide a reference that would say that Chinmoy and his followers somewhat lived on the same, land, property, or abode of any type because none of that information about 'living among' followers is in reference 3 at all. Thank you.RabbitBucket (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, Instead of putting a template I will give you this message about a recent edit war at 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round you have been involved with. Please resolve the issue at the article talkpage instead of edit warring, you know better than that. Take this as a clear warning and further disruption may have you reported and blocked. Qed237 (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I Apologize

Hello, Softlavender. I apologize for being so trigger-happy with Twinkle lately. (The ANI discussion was closed before I could comment on it apologizing there.) Please forgive me for my behavior. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries, G, thanks for the note although it was unnecessary. For future reference, though, the exact steps of edit-warring cases need to be followed, and even the ANEW board requires that the following fields be filled out: (1) Discussion opened on article talk. (2) Formal WP:WARN template on the editor's page. (3) Then only report if they continue edit warring after you post the warning template. It is entirely unfair to report people if you haven't formally warned them and given them a chance to desist. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Template

The NAC is for AFDs. It says it in the first line. Read the damn instructions and stop altering my edits just so you can look important on ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Secondly, dont slap edit-warring templates on my talkpage when you started it by using an inappropriate template then reverting once it was removed. Its deliberate trolling and you should know better by now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please refrain from wild accusations in edit summaries like you did here – I know exactly what that guidance says (FYI I closed the last RfC on the matter). Removing a box that doesn't link to the page that contains the box is a basic operation according to that guidance, so I didn't misquote anything. But here we are... you don't have a suggestion to remove your offending language from the page history I suppose? So, please think twice before accusing a co-editor of whatever in an edit summary the next time.

On the content of the matter: yes, a consensus can overstep this particular guidance quite easily, but you'd need at least a local consensus to do so (not edit-war with offensive edit summaries). I see no reason to not follow the preference expressed in the guidance in this case (nor for any of the similar cases using that box), nor a consensus justifying an exception to the normal guidance in any of these cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Francis, please read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. It does not say "remove navboxes from articles which are not listed in the navbox", nor does it say "navboxes are not allowed on articles which are not listed in the navbox". Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't misquote anything. In fact you do in your reply above, putting words in my mouth which I didn't write nor imply. The edit summaries of your reverts remain offensive, which you refuse to acknowledge. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Punctuation belongs outside quotation marks on Wikipedia

Thanks for the info and link; I'll definitely keep that in mind. Sorry for any trouble! --Andymii (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Andymii, all of us Yanks do that until someone pulls our coat. Cheers and happy editing, Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

• Editorial: Wikipedia policy suppresses sharing of information

• News and notes: Foundation presents results of harassment research, plans for automated identification; Wikiconference submissions open

• In the media: Paid editing service announced; Commercial exploitation of free images; Wikipedia as a crystal ball; Librarians to counter systemic bias

• Obituary: Kevin Gorman, who took on Wikipedia's gender gap and undisclosed paid advocacy, dies at 24

• Traffic report: Summer of Pokémon, Trump, and Hillary

• Featured content: Women and Hawaii

• Recent research: Easier navigation via better wikilinks

• Blog: All-new notifications page helps Wikimedians focus on what matters most

• Technology report: User script report (January to July 2016, part 1)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis

Are you looking at the content of the changes that you're reverting? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A birthday

Precious again, your help to celebrate the birthday of Albert Ketèlbey on 9 August, a lovely collaboration!

I am sorry that you read my cry for help as "pressing", while I just had to leave for the day and could not do more. Thank you for finding sources! In a Chinese Temple Garden just went to DYK, coinciding for a few hours with the TFA, better than nothing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Would that be outing?

Regarding "anonymous edits ... have been most of [a certain user's] edits in recent years", The editor in question suddenly stopped posting the other day. I suspect that he simply went back to anonymous editing, but If I searched for evidence of that, would I be violating WP:OUTING? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't think I'm the person to ask. If you found evidence, you could just state that you found evidence, and submit the evidence privately to ArbCom via the mailing list, which if I'm not mistaken is arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org [7]. - Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help on the Ruggero Santilli 2nd delete discussion. I think the issue was aired fairly, and while the consensus is not what I wished, we did actually air the applicable arguments this time and we got participation which led to a meaningful consensus. loupgarous (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks loupgarous, that was certainly unexpected! Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to ruin the good mood here, but that list of sources you provided at the bottom of the discussion began with business publications which either paraphrased Santilli's corporate press releases (four of them are part of the NewsRx corporate family with essentially identical editorial policies) or quoted them verbatim. I think that's WP:PROMOTION at one remove. The three sources at the bottom were WP:RS compliant.

However, events prevented me from drawing that to the group's attention before discussion was closed. I doubt seriously this had a major impact on the "Keep"/"Delete" tally, however. We did have a good consensus.

I think you're an honest broker, and would appreciate hearing the reservations I had about that list directly from me.

There's a thriving "news" industry that simply repeats what the subject says about himself either in paraphrase or direct quotes from his press releases, with little or no critical or independent analysis. It's hardly a new phenomenon, "trade" magazines are usually pretty lazy on fact-checking claims made by subjects of their articles, some to the point of active sycophancy.

As I understand the wikipedia guidelines for notability, this isn't what we mean by a "reliable secondary source." Perhaps this is something the project ought to discuss, because it doesn't seem to have been anticipated in the guidelines. Best regards, loupgarous (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless an article is a press release (from Business Wire, PR Wire, etc.; or labeled "press release" in the article as Reuters and most outlets do when they reprint press releases), it is considered independent. I'm not actually interested in discussing any of these subjects (the article, the AfD close, the links I posted) further, so if you want further input you should post on the article's talk page, the talk page of the closing admin, WP:DRV, and/or WP:RSN. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your notes on my Talk page. I am hopeful an appeal in 6 months will be successful but we'll see... Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite welcome, Jytdog. I'm sure your appeal will be successful. I'd prefer if someone appeals on your behalf before then. I considered doing that myself but somehow lost sufficient energy (which might pick up if I come across a sufficiently egregious COI case). Anyway, let me know when you or anyone files an appeal. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

will do and thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

• News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses

• Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica

• In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising

• Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks

• Traffic report: Olympic views

• Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)

• Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bells Across the Meadows

On 19 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bells Across the Meadows, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bells Across the Meadows (title page pictured), a characteristic intermezzo by Albert Ketèlbey, was rated one of Your Hundred Best Tunes in 2003? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bells Across the Meadows. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bells Across the Meadows), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Robert Perless bibliography?

I am very disturbed that editors have removed critical elements from the Robert Perless page. Somebody has removed all the photographs in the Gallery, although the author of the article was told that his source (perless.com) was adequate at the time he posted it. Robert has sent Permissions the proper forms and hopefully they will soon be restored.

Why have you removed the bibliography? It is very important to a living artist that articles about his work be available and one of Wikipedia's important functions is as a reference point. I am sure you had your reasons but it would be much more like other artists' bios if you were to restore it.

Thank you.

Eperless (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

These discussions belong on the article's talk page, not on user talk pages. Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Updating by rote, tripped myself up and missed that it was NOT the "Stage" company. Thanks for the quick catch. Jmg38 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, no problem. I thought that particular one was intentional like the others, and spent a long time investigating whether the two companies were the same. Glad that was OK with you. :) Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

MH case

[8] You might want to try your edit again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WTF? Baffling. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

hello and hi

Can I talk to you for a bit? need some advice. I know you told me to go to Oversight, but I do not want to disclose my email and they require email. I have tried the IRC channel but no response. The problem is that I want to contact an admin. I have spent 6 months gathering data on a group of people who have created an off wiki group to get thier combined edits through. They discuss getting together on requests for comment, how they will get other users banned, how they can push through thier edits etc. It is a completely illegal tag team editing group and as far as I can see some of them are getting paid for this as well. Now I can just post screenshots of thier most recent conversations and be done with it, but the problem with this is that wikipedia has a non disclosure policy and a non outing policy and most probably these guys will get away. So I want to contact an admin so I can send him the screenshots and he can actually catch them red handed the next time they try to tag team. TouristerMan (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not tell you to go to Oversight; I said to email the admin of your choice. Use email and change your Wikipedia email address to something anonymous, like TouristerMan@gmail.com. Gmail is free, as are a number of other email providers, and you can have the gmail account forward to your regular email account so that you are alerted when you get a response. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy page: 'Controversy section' - response to your points and a question for you - thanks.

Hi softlavender, and thank you for letting me know and pointing me to the previous notes on the neutral point of view policy about segregating information off to be 'controversial' or 'critical' sections. As you can see I have seen this technique of creating controversial sections in quite a few other Wikipedia articles so I am not sure why that is allowed in those articles that I listed above plus quite a few others? I do feel that the paragraph that I recreated in a different section is not 'biographical' and is not about Chinmoy's life as such so could you comment on any of Wikipedias guidelines to do with unbiographical information weaved into a biograhy section? I feel that the paragraph is in the wrong place as it is mostly about someone elses (Jayanti Tamms) book about Chinmoy not about Chinmoy's life. I think there could be a better place for that paragraph. I am not arguing that it should be removed but just placed better. Please if you could comment that would be great and thank you once again.Spinach444 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Softlavender. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC). 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.

- NQ (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please start a proper merge discussion

With templates on the top of both pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

JLAN kept the same discussion and date on the merge tag he replaced-- the discussion is there on the target article talkpage at the thread I linked to. You may keep your existing !vote there, or change it. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing editors

I think you'll find Viriditas is a 'she'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I thought perhaps so at first too (we had numerous interactions when I first joined Wikipedia because we both live in Hawaii), but he has always called himself a man. In at least one or two threads he has specifically stated "As a man ..." (e.g. [9]). -- Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC); edited 01:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, interesting.Very interesting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe he changed. This is the 21st century, you know. EEng 01:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli

Hello. It appears you posted some sources half way down this AfD page [10]. These are PDFs from "International Journal of Hydrogen Energy", and other links to Progress in Physicsm Biotech Week, News of Science, Energy Weekly News, and Gulf Industry, and so on. It seems someone changed these to wiki links that go to their respective Wikipedia articles. Do you have the correct external links so that one may view these sources? Also, if someone did this to undermine the discussion then that seems to me to be POV behavior -unless you intended these to be Wiki links, which does not seem to be the case. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No one has altered my post. All the external links are there. The first nine are numbered 2–10; the last five are not numbered. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Première

On the page A Month in the Country (play), "corrected" the "première" to "premiere". The standard is with the diacritic, as indicated in the Oxford English Dictionary. It may be the case that informally premiere is more common in the US, though the OED does not describe the alternative as an Americanism. Wikipedia does not priviledge such differences either. Would you please restore it? Many thanks,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it certainly spells privilege correctly, I can tell you that. EEng 08:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

DionysosProteus, the OED is not the "standard" for anything (except the OED), much less Wikipedia. Please keep all discussions of article content on the article's talk page, rather than on user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

By all means. Though you are mistaken in that view.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 04:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I'm looking right at the OED entry itself [11] and it gives premiere and première as alternative forms. EEng 04:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Tommy's Honour

I see we are having a fun-filled time editing the page. Magioladitis gave me a heads up. Most of the time we are not aware of an edit skirmish, especially with these types of edits. Next time, give a yell on one of our talk pages. Though, if you are going to yell loudly, do it on Mgioladitis' page :)

I'm unable to find anything where Google has a problem with apostrophes in article titles, thus requiring _INDEX_ to be set. However, Wikipedia's search function is crap.

The only thing _INDEX_ does is to instruct Google to index the page by overriding mw:Manual:$wgArticleRobotPolicies. Google is already indexing everything in article space, so there is nothing to override. I don't see how this would have any effect on apostrophes in the title. I usually ask Redrose64 for technical questions, so maybe he can help.

BTW... we are removing unneeded magic words because of Visual Editor. In WMF's lack of wisdom, they have it so anybody can easily add magic words, even if the don't apply. Some are _NOEDITSECTION_ (don't add edit links), _NEWSECTIONLINK_ & _NONEWSECTIONLINK_ (only goes on talk pages), _DISAMBIG_ (marks an article as a disambig page), _FORCETOC_ and _INDEX_ & _NOINDEX_ (which in theory, does nothing). Bgwhite (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I can document the Google problem if you want -- I spent untold amounts of time trying to find someone who understood it and to find a solution to it, to no avail, until I realized I could add the INDEX magic word. The magic words NOINDEX and INDEX definitely do something. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I normally refer to H:MW, but Bgwhite has already done that. I think that the action of __NOINDEX__ varies by namespace: in some (like the Draft space) it does nothing because that namespace is already noindexed; in mainspace I believe that it does nothing because something in the MediaWiki software causes it to be ignored (we want all articles to be indexed); but in others, it is definitely acted upon. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

NOINDEX definitely works in userspace; INDEX works in articlespace. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What does __INDEX__ do in article space that isn't already done by default? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It causes Google to index new articles that have apoostrophes in the title, which Google hasn't been properly indexing for at least a year. It's a problem specific to Google; Bing and Yahoo do not have this problem. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tommy's Honour is still listed in a Google search. INDEX is no longer needed after its on Google? I checked several articles with an apostrophe on the new page feed. All but one weren't listed on Google or Bing. ‎Coeur d'Alene School District is on Bing, but not on Google. I went further back, Santa Maria dell'Itria, Ragusa is only on Bing, but everything else is on both Google and Bing. I'm not seeing where an apostrophe is causing a problem with Google. Maybe fixed? Bgwhite (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, not fixed, as you've noticed. Google indexes Wikipedia instantly, in real time. New articles come up immediately and are the #1 or #2 spot in Google results. As you mentioned, that's not happening. Tommy's Honour is now (and still) at #3 and has a Google infobox -- my adding the "INDEX" magic word finally got it to index properly. Now that it's indexing properly, hopefully it will continue to do so even without the magic word. Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not instantly, people have complained why their new article isn't seen by Wikipedia after six hours. It's usually within two hours. Articles are rarely listed at #1 right away. Being on Wikipedia is only one factor on where an article is ranked, other factors are.... how many sites link to the Wikipedia article, how an AI views the article, if SSL is turned on by default, if it is disability accessible and many others. It is common to have Wikipedia articles list #5 and below. Having Tommy's Honour listed below IMDb and the film's website is also common. Star Wars is ranked #3, The Room is #2, Prizzi's Honor is #2 and Logan's Run is #1. Logan's Run and Prizzi's Honor don't have _INDEX_ and are ranked fine. Having _INDEX_ just doesn't affect ranking. As I mentioned above, all but two articles I checked with apostrophes where listed at Google and Bing. Santa Maria dell'Itria, Ragusa is on Google and probably was yesterday as it's ranked lower. Coeur d'Alene School District is still not on Google. I'll ask at WP:VPT. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's just not true nowadays in my experience (it was possibly true 6–10 years ago). There's no dependency on other articles linking to the wiki article, and so on. If people can't find their article on Google, it's because they aren't enclosing it in quotation marks when searching. INDEX does affect proper indexing -- before I used it on this article it came up #10 or so on Google -- even after huge viewer spikes from being on DYK, Google Help Forum, VPT, etc. The folks at VPT are even more clueless -- I already inquired back three months ago and those people don't even know how to use quotation marks either, or how to set their searches to 100 results. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I listed it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Question on INDEX and Google.. I've seen articles not show up on Google for a few hours and yes I know about quotation marks. Some articles can be 20-30 down, even with quotation marks. Google ranks all pages on how many outside links there are to the page. Wikipedia articles follow this also. If there are more outside sites linking to the article, the higher the rank. All Wikipedia articles go thru the same ranking programs as all other sites do. Wikipedia, IMDb, .edu and many home sites get an advantage as Google marks them as trustworthy. There are many more variables in the page rank equation. Again, Wikipedia does go thru Google's ranking process, just Wikipedia gets some advantages. I cannot see how _INDEX_ affects page rank. Just two different things and the page is already listed by Google... It's already "indexed". I can't see how adding _INDEX_ get's it seen by Google, unless there other things at play that cause pages not to be seen for awhile. Bgwhite (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a bug ticket for Google not indexing some new titles with an apostrophe. It's at T106793. T112425 also has the same thing, but was closed as a duplicate of T106793. A patch for the problem was submitted last Friday.
Adding _INDEX_ does nothing to solve this. About six hours ago, I added _INDEX_ to Coeur d'Alene School District. It hasn't shown up on Google. The patch is to fix how MediaWiki encodes the apostrophe. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I also linked phab:T106793 in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 147#Google actively blocking an innocuous Wikipedia article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a recent thread at VPT where the post by Murph9000 (talk · contribs) made at 12:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC) is particularly relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration propossed decision

Hi Softlavender, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.82.186 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit

• In the media: Wikipedia in the news

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

• Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens

• Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét

• Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination). Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Nisha Ganatra Page

Hi Softlavender,

I am a new user and I am trying to update the page for Nisha Ganatra because many journalists are not crediting her work properly and I am tracing it back to the misleading information on the wiki page. Would you be willing to discuss this? I see that every time I have corrected the title for her work you have undone the edit. And i did not know how to get in touch with you - but now the page is locked and the information is not correct and this has consequences that are larger than you or I getting in an "edit war" this has real life consequences on a filmmaker and her career. Thank you, PollyNYC — Preceding unsigned comment added by PollyNYC (talk • contribs) 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@PollyNYC: Discussions of article content belong on the talk page of the article in question. Remember to sign your posts by using for tildes: ~~~~ Please also be advised that continuing to edit-war and continuing to use unreliable sources will result in being blocked from editing. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Again I am not interested in "edit Warring" with you. I have contacted you here in order to understand what it is that you need for me to help you see that your content is not accurate and to be unblocked from your accusation of edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PollyNYC (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Is our friend back?

• Social work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Child Protective Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And a RFPP] Jim1138 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

• News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna

• Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input

• In the media: A news columnist on the frustrations of tweaking his Wikipedia bio

• Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017

• Featured content: Variety is the spice of life

• Traffic report: Debates and escapes

• Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What a read

Hello S. I hope that you are well. Thank goodness that got dealt with swiftly. After reading through all of the posts at the Debussy talk page I wondered if those would ever work on the judges at the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition to convince them to name me the winner :-) Cheers and have a wonderful week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Heh. It certainly was a lot of sound and fury. Don't know that it merited all that acrimony, but hey, this is Wikipedia. Hope things are well in your neck of the woods. Hey, did you happen to see Hunt for the Wilderpeople, starring Sam Neill? To quote a line in the script, "it was the best". -- Softlavender (talk)

Things are well here as we are experiencing nice autumn. As far as I know the film hasn't hit town yet. I did see Sam on Graham Norton last night and they showed a clip from the film. Add that to your enjoyment of the film and I am looking forward to seeing it. MarnetteD|Talk 03:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's there now, M! [12]. Here it only came to the arthouse Palace Theater, but they kept changing the date because of a projector snafu so I just said fuck it and bought it on Amazon (streaming, in my case). It's a delightful refreshing change from normal movies. Anyway, speaking of the Samster, I imagine you have seen Reilly, Ace of Spies. I'm thinking about re-watching it; although I'd have to either buy the DVDs or watch it on YouTube (I originally watched it via Netflix, which I am no longer subscribed to). Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, oops, I called you an admin on ANEW [13] – I thought MelanieN made your edits; I find the female "M" name and the final "D" or "N" easily confusable (in fact I used to confuse you two frequently back in the day, before I realized that if it was film- or actor/filmmaker-related it was usually you). The fact that your posts on that user's talkpage were just warnings and not blocks should have tipped me off .... Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Great minds again S. I did my google search just before watching Poldark and found it at that theater. Sadly, my experiences there have been rotten. They leave their overhead lighting on low (they claim it is a city ordinance) after the film starts and it washes out the picture. It happened when I went to see The Girl with the Pearl Earring - of all the pictures to ruin the color on! I had to walk out and get my money back. Then I couple years later I tried it again and the result was the same. Rest assured I will be adding the film to my DVD collection when the time comes. Thanks so much for taking the time to search it out though!! I had missed the fact that you had elevated my WikiP status until reading this :-) My latest DVD treasure is The Voyage of Charles Darwin I had seen it a couple times in college and had hoped for years and years that it would get a release. It is even better then I remembered. Filmed at many of the places that the HMS Beagle actually sailed to and they don't dumb down the science. I watched my DVDs of Reilly a couple years ago and enjoyed it as much as before. Leo McKern is a favorite of mine so I am always happy to see him again. Cheers again

I see it at two theaters, M: Denver West Village and Landmark Chez Artiste. Don't know which is the "bad" one but hopefully the other is good. Whichever one is the bad one, perhaps you could contact their corporate office. In any case, it's out on DVD already [14]. Anyway, that Darwin miniseries looks good and has excellent ratings. One of my favorite books is Irving Stone's The Origin -- an exhaustive and intimate biography of Darwin, so I feel like Darwin and I are old and very good friends. That reminds me, the Darwins and the Langtons and the Wedgwoods constantly married each other (that's covered in Stone's book), and so I was reminded of that when I spoke to you some months ago about Emily Langton Langton on your talkpage. One other thing -- a Darwin connection was brought up to me again because I recently finished reading The Signature of All Things, by Elizabeth Gilbert (yes, her), which is contemporaneous and delves into those matters and the naturalists of that time. Lastly, I'm rewatching Reilly Ace of Spies right now on YouTube. :-) Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

DWV is the crummy viewing place. CA is a tiny theater - more of a screening room but it is a possibility. But the fact that the DVD is already available is wonderful. Once again thanks for doing all of the web searching!! The Darwin-Wedgewood connection is noted in the series in a pretty big way. I too read Stone's book and enjoyed it. Thanks for the info about MG's book. I have forgotten to say thanks - lots of those in this post :-) - for recommending Bottle Shock. It was marvelous - Dennis Farina's performance was so different from his usual roles. When I purchased the DVD Amazon offered this book so I picked it up as well. I haven't started it yet so I will let you know how it is when I get to it. I'm glad you are watching Reilly again! Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 14:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the things about books and movies is that I'm always afraid one is going to spoil (or even ruin) another – I've had that happen so I'm very circumspect. Like, I read and adored Stone's Lust for Life so I've never watched the film (starring Kirk Douglas, whom I just can't see as gentle Vincent), or Vincent and Theo, or etc., and only my great love for Cumberbatch (before the untenable mania) and my desire to be a completist at that time caused me to watch his Van Gogh: Painted with Words, which was wonderful because the entire script was verbatim from letters, and it showed lots of artwork (and Bendedict was wonderful). I've toyed with the idea of reading the source book for Tommy's Honour (because it gets raves while the movie gets lesser accolades, and because before news of the U.S. release in 2017 I despaired of ever seeing it anytime in this decade LOL), but I think I'll wait to see Jack's performance and not have it spoiled (even though I already know the skeleton of the plot). Consequently I've also avoided films about Darwin since I hold allegiance to the Stone book. But if you liked that miniseries after reading Stone, and since it gets such amazing ratings, I may watch it. :-) Gilbert's book gives an amusing look at some historical figures like Joseph Banks and Captain Cook. Glad you enjoyed Bottle Shock. That book looks quite good also. I had more thoughts zooming through my head but this should suffice for now! Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Your description of the BC film (which I haven't seen) about Vincent sounds a bit like Vincent (1987 film). That film has John Hurt reading from the letters and is filmed in the locations where VvG created his paintings. I know what you mean about books and films. While I have several examples where I like both, even while making allowances for the differences in the art forms, there is one book/film combo that transcends that. Marilynne Robinson's Housekeeping (novel) is unlike any book that I have ever read. For me her use of the English language is unique. Seven years after it was published Bill Forsyth directed Housekeeping (film). It too is unique and has a marvelous performance by Christine Lahti. Unfortunately, the studio tried to sell it as a comedy and, while there are humorous moments, that is one thing that it is most definitely not. It's marketing was also a victim of the turmoil that was going on between David Puttnam and Columbia Pictures. Either one can stand on its own merit but they also compliment each other in ways that no other book and film in my experience ever have. Two words that always come to me when I am reading the book or watching the film are "poignant" and "melancholy" and they both express those well. It was filmed in and around Castlegar and Nelson, British Columbia and, as with Forsyth's earlier film Local Hero, the scenery is stunningly gorgeous. As we've discussed before our tastes are different so I know that neither of these might strike your fancy but I did want to mention them after reading your post. Well it is time to go and check my watchlist so I'll just say cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL, why do our conversations turn endless? As usual, your post brings on several new things to talk about. Speaking of the Puttnam/Columbia saga, I read Fast Fade: David Puttnam, Columbia Pictures, and the Battle for Hollywood a couple of years ago and it's very good -- the author did excellent research and is studiously neutral while maintaining interest and drama; it's very much an "insider's" tale. Speaking of Forsyth, I adore Gregory's Girl but disliked Local Hero. So sue me. :-) My best book/film combo has been Dead Man Walking (both are great and inform the other; I read the book after viewing the film). My worst book/film combo has been My Antonia -- for over a decade or more that was my favorite book. Then in 1995 I watched the TV movie, starring Neil Patrick Harris and it was just ick ... no. Scarred me for life, so that's why I am wary. Anyway, I've put both the film and book you mentioned on my watch/wish lists, so thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: This is what I was trying to remember to say before: Longitude (2000), if you haven't seen it, is an excellent adaptation of an apparently equally excellent book. It stars Jeremy Irons and Michael Gambon, and was written and directed by Charles Sturridge. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes Dava Sobel's book and Charles Sturridge's series are both wonderful. Two facts that I love about Charles is that we got to see him in front of the camera in Edward the Seventh as a youngster and then his directorial debut is Brideshead. He certainly has given us some wonderful things to watch since then. MarnetteD|Talk 01:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ack forgot to say thanks for making me aware of Fast Fade! MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sturridge was such a hottie! I was shocked when the credits rolled on the early episode of Edward the Seventh (which I first watched about 5 years ago) and I found out that was him. Yes, quite the talented little (and old) bugger. I actually didn't even recall that he had written and directed Longitude until I looked at the wiki article for the link. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hey-o, M, I just watched the 13-hour BBC historical miniseries Fall of Eagles (1974). I was going to ask if you'd seen it, but now I'm hip to the fact that I can scour the wiki article's edit history and tell if you have. I quite enjoyed it and learned a lot, and finally the immediate cause of WWI makes much more sense to me (although frankly I think Willi was much more authentically portrayed in Edward the Seventh [1975]). I thought Fall of Eagles was somewhat uneven however, and often too much time was spent on a single note (one problem was the different writers and directors for each episode). Plus some of the more dramatic developments were not reenacted because of budgetary limitations (assassinations of the Archduke & the Romanovs; triumph of Bolshevism; etc.). But it was nice to see familiar actors like Patrick Stewart, Gemma Jones, Michael Bryant, Gayle Hunnicutt, Barry Foster, Denis Lill, and an unrecognizably young Michael Kitchen. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right on all counts S. It aired at the same time that I was taking a couple European history classes in college. While I have always aware that dramatizations like this one aren't documentaries they did (and do) help broaden my understanding of events. I still have the companion book for FoE in a box somewhere. BTW the 2014 series 37 Days (TV series) makes a nice companion to FoE. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that recommendation; I hadn't heard of that one so I put it on my Watch List. Also, I want to give a shout-out to Mahler's Trauermarsch and whatever it was of Shostakovich as the opening and closing themes of each FoE episode. Well chosen. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

So true! MarnetteD|Talk 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Please amend your notice to read that it is a conduct dispute as per my initial edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The bot is working

• Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

About your report of trouble with the bot. Please see recent history of Archive936, which is the most recent ANI archive. It looks like the User:lowercase sigmabot III runs every day around 02:00 but occasionally at 12:00. Some days it runs twice. It has not completely missed any days since I first saw your trouble report. Let me know if you perceive any ANI threads that won't archive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston. It looks like it's working properly now. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Request help on an archiving issue

I need some help from a more experienced editor on an archiving issue. An RfC was incorrectly closed and archived at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Archive_11#A_call_for_consensus_on_McMullin_and_Castle and then restored but now there are two copies of it (one active and ongoing, the other in the archive). Should the duplicate copy in the archive be removed, or should it be collapsed with a note explaining what happened, or should it be replaced with a note linking back to the active RfC or something else? The admin notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfC_Closure explains part of the situation. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to remove it from the archive when I re-opened it and replaced it on the article talk page. Thanks for the reminder. I've fixed it now. Hope that solves that part. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, someone has linked to that extra archived version from Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Protected_edit_request_on_29_October_2016_.283.29. Sparkie82 (t•c) 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Christ, why is life so complicated? I've now fixed the link and replaced it with the link to the incorrectly "closed" version before it was prematurely archived. I've also put a couple of notes about it on the thread. I hope you can take it from there. :) Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Softlavender (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Malleus

Hi! :) Could you please correct {{see also}} template that you have corrupted here: [15] ? --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Weird. Don't know what happened there. Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for separate comments, but I would appreciate a lot if you could also remove the closing html tag (-->) in the source. I have just noticed that you left it there. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

--Asterixf2 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing own comments after a reply

Regarding your comment, it is explicitly described here that it is allowed in the way that he had done it.--v/r - TP 19:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

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.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

My sincere thanks

Hi, Softlavender. I won't draw this out and risk bringing unwanted attention to your page, but I did want to take at least a quick moment to express my gratitude for your comments at the ANI, especially insofar as they brought a needed resolution to the issue--but also for the fact that you were willing to take a firm position on the conduct issues involved. I know you did it as a matter of principle, like any committed volunteer of this community, and not for my benefit in particular, but under the circumstances it was still very meaningful for me to see someone say what you said, and I'll remain grateful for it. Happy editing, and I hope you have a relaxing weekend! Snow ^{let's rap} 07:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Finally, a new CTO; trustee joins Quora; copyright upgrade impending

• In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage

• Wikicup: WikiCup winners

• Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?

• Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content

• Featured content: Cream of the crop

• Traffic report: Un-presidential politics

• Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities

• Recent research: Why women edit less, and where they are overrepresented; article importance and quality; predicting elections from Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Kerala IP

Hi! I lost track of what happened with this IP back in May. I've stumbled across them engaging in the same activities on the Physicist page, though, and I remember that the ANIs from a few months ago recommended SPI/LTA investigation - did anything happen with that? If so, could you point me in the right direction so I can add their recent activity? Cheers. Marianna251TALK 18:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marianna251. Jim1138 may be the person to ask; he has kept up more of a list and has been tracking things. I got tired of it and haven't kept up with it, largely because I don't usually edit sociology articles (I only got involved originally because of Jim1138's first thread on ANI), and also because of some unwarranted obstructionism a long while ago from a bureaucrat who refused to look at the evidence. Here are some ANI reports that were filed in the spring of this year: [16], [17], [18]. I haven't done too much tracking since then, but Jim1138 can no doubt fill you in from there and help you file a LTA or whatever is necessary. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC).

@Marianna251: I haven't been watching either. I do have a few watch pages, mostly social articles, and lots of Huggling which I have noted edits a few times. Looks like he gave up on social articles. Jim1138 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both! It's been a few months since the social work debacle, so there's probably not enough recent evidence to file LTA/SPI right now. I'll keep watching. Marianna251TALK 10:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for at Garage rock article

Thank you for your interest in the Garage rock article. I want to thank you for voicing what you felt to be in the best interests of the article. I know that you are busy, but I hope that you will remain involved in the process there. And, I hope that once we can send the article to FAC, that you could be part of that process as well. I think that with your experience as a professional editor you can bring a lot of helpful things to the table. Thank you once again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Hillmann

Hi Softlavender. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Bill Hillmann since it is one of your posts which has been copied and pasted there. FWIW, I have been trying to clean up the article and help the creator with things related to the article both on their user talk page and on their Commons user talk page, and am aware of the AfD result. I just don't agree with the battleground approach he is taking. I also only removed "your post" the first time because it was improperly copied and pasted into the article without proper attribution and it was not addressed to the person for whom the post was originally intended. I added a link to the AfD discussion instead even though there is one at the top of the talk page already because that would show the post in its proper context as it was originally intended. It is your post, however, so if you are OK with it being used like this, then I guess it's a non-issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Forums and outside help

Hope I haven't offended you by disagreeing, in part, with your ANI comment: I do appreciate your posting. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Softlavender. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

About your move protection request on my talk page

Hi Softlavender, and thank you for your message.
Unfortunately, your request has been declined at this time. Please file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and then complete Form 1 and Form 6, and arrange for service of said forms to the applicant, the respondent, and the registry of the judicial or quasi-judicial body competent to make the orders for relief so sought.
And I am Marie of Romania.
Pete "not actually one of the Crowned heads of Europe" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Following WP:ADMINACCT, I guess I'm obligated to point out that I did in fact move protect those pages. And that I am neither Dorothy Parker nor Marie of Romania.

Stupid wise-ass admins. Are you open to recall? Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I can just about recall Shirt58. One of our best admins, I think you'll find. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

your change

was just asking here if you could explain why you chose to delete my change to the organizational behavior article- you did not discuss it. Ethnology is as related as any other discipline.Happydaise (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC) It would be good if you replied instead of attacking me. Ethnology is definitely a contributing discipline FYI.Happydaise (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Bill Hillmann

Hi Softlavender. Since you've been doing most of the clean up on Bill Hillmann, I figured I'd ask your opinion on something. Do you think it's possible that this article started out as an autobiography or that someone connected to Hillmann created the article? The subject is notable for an article and multiple editors have been involved in cleaning things up, so I'm not suggesting it should be or needs to be deleted; however, this post makes me wonder whether there might be a connection that needs to be clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I considered the possibility, and some things raised suspicions in my mind. But that post on Commons does not; it merely claimed that "This is my photo [i.e., a photo that he uploaded] and should be kept. It is also the author's bio photo. The subject Bill Hillmann who owns the copy right has given permission to use the photo." Also, it's very important to note that Hillmann is a sophisticated, polished, masterful writer, whereas this editor's writing, both in the article and off, is third rate at best; more like fourth rate and remedial. If Hillmann had written [or even commissioned, in my mind] his own wiki article, it would have ended up quite different than this: [19], [20]. Also, this edit is not something that would in my mind have proceeded from Hillmann (at least not the top part): [21]. It's more likely in my mind, especially given that edit, that the editor is a Chicagoan who attended or attends the same school that Hillmann did (or lives in one of those two neighborhoods), and is a fan. It is possible that the editor is or has been in touch with Hillmann, but even if so, I think whatever communication there may be or may have been isn't very continuous or close, or we wouldn't end up with these very substandard edits and writing. I don't think there's anything that needs to be done, except to keep an eye on the article and keep out the cruft and the uncited. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your take on things. Your point about the difference in writing ability between makes perfect sense when you think about it. It would be rather unlike a professional writer to pretend to write in substandard way or even encourage another to write on their behalf in such a way for something such as Wikipedia, simply because any edit made can simply be undone by another with a single click of the mouse. Regarding the article itself, I understand that its important to cite as much as possible, especially for BLPs, but I am wondering if it starting to get close to WP:OVERCITE or WP:BOMBARD. The string of references added from number 12 to 35 are for a hodge-podge of articles, videos, blogs and other UGC, event listings, etc. in support of content which might be close to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I was going to go in and clean the citation formatting up a bit per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful, but figure I'd see what some others think first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In terms of the content itself, I'm personally OK with all of it (unless it's incorrect). If you wanted to find substantiating citations that are more secondary, that would in my mind certainly be fine. My main personal feeling about the number of citations is that the single items with four citations don't need that many citations for one single piece of information (unless they are pertinent reviews which could possibly be quoted later on if the section were expanded to include review mentions). I think some of that comes from Yngvy moving Further Reading entries into citations rather than deleting them. It would be fine to trim those, although I would suggest saving the removed noteworthy articles or writings that have actual substantive content -- saving them in a section on the talk page, for instance. I started collecting some items at the top of my sandbox (User:Softlavender/sandbox), for instance, but haven't finished my list. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Shirley MacLaine

You reverted and wrote "spelling of Beaty here is correct". I didn't change the spelling of Beaty, I changed the spelling of the L in Maclain to MacLain, to make it consistent with the other instances in the page (see the infobox for instance) and every souce I can find. Please check again. Kumagoro-42 06:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. check again: [22]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Kumagoro-42, you've been on Wikipedia for more than 9 years. You need to always leave an edit summary for each of your edits. And you need to sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~ so that your username and talk page are clickable in your signature. In addition, please do not completely misrepresent what other editors have written: [23]. As it happens, your utterly unexplained change happens to be correct, so I will now reinstate it. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, I wanted to revisit the grammar of the following: "and had her likeness has been sculpted in wax." It seems to me the sentence should read either "and had her likeness sculpted in wax" or "and her likeness has been sculpted in wax" but in my view the former seems more consistent with the tense of the paragraph than the latter. Thanks for reviewing.6BravosToros (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That first "had" was obviously a typo, and I have now removed it. Of course she did not personally have her own likeness sculpted in wax, so that was incorrect. The sentence is now correct. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry …

… about this – I see you've put in a lot of work there, which may now need to be partly or completely discarded. I'll probably roll it back to this version, your edit of 11 August 2015, unless anyone wants to rewrite. Please let me know if you'd like me to do that (roll back) straight away. Whatever happens, it's a waste of some of your time and effort, and I'm truly sorry about it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi JLTN. No good deed goes unpunished; I only created the article because it redirected to canvas, which was idiotic, and that redirect was the only Wikipedia edit Gonzafan ever made (LOL). My actual content contribution to the article stopped in December 2014 (before the copyvio), from then on out I was merely keeping a bit of an eye on it. I wash my hands of the whole affair. That said, I do think it's important to have some version of the article on Wikipedia, since Guy Kawasaki, who is now on the Board of Trustees of WMF, is the company's "chief evangelist". If nothing else, I suggest rolling it back to the version you suggested above. And giving a stern talking-to to the person who added the copyvio, if you have't already. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, step 1 is done (I had to remove another bit added by a different editor too) so over to you if you want to do anything more to it. I'm still working through the contribs of the first editor, probably not enough of them to need a CCI. And yes, there'll be a talking-to. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Garage rock article and FAC

I am thinking about nominating the Garage rock article for FAC, and I think it's just about ready. I've never nominated an article before, so I don't know that much about the process. From what I gather, several reviewers will be involved. Are they selected by the FAC coordinators or do they just come in and review? You'll notice that I've trimmed about 120Kbs out of the article. I hope that I didn't trim too much, but I can always bring things back in if necessary. I was wondering if you have any thoughts about the whole process or have any advice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Garagepunk66, I've never involved myself in FANs or such (although I opined on one of Neelix's walled-garden of articles that was undergoing FAR). Or even GANs or GAs. You'll notice I have no gold stars or green blobs on my userpage. So I'm not really the person to ask. My suggestion would be to ask someone familiar with the process, like Montanabw (who has been very helpful to you so far), or anyone she recommends. (By the way, that wasn't a ping, so you'll have to contact her yourself. You might also ask Binksternet, since he is familiar with the topic and has several FAs to his name. Hope that helps! Softlavender (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, Garagepunk66, your refs are problematical now. Most of the book references don't work at all (whereas before they worked perfectly and went right to the page in question -- I spent hours fixing them). Plus most of the non-book ones do not list the source or venue or site (i.e., AllMusic, or whatever). Those things need to be fixed. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone went in and simplified the refs, taking out the detailed info that I had put in. When I was doing my reductions, I was careful to keep the refs detailed and complete--but I noticed that someone went in and over-simplified a lot of them. I'm glad you brought this up, because I noticed the same thing. Now that we've reduced the article's size, we can put certain things back in. Thanks for your help. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is an archive of where the garage rock article was before the trimming.[[24]] If you see anything in the refs that need to be put back in, then you are welcome to do so. Or, you can send me a message if there is anything you'd like me to do. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Brideshead Revisited

I don't know whether you've noted my comment on the Talk Page (5/12/16). But your reactions would be of interest. I think a re-reversion is justified - subject to correction of the single error you pointed out. Valetude (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Julius Harrison

The article has passed its GA review. Thank you very much for all your help getting it there. Best wishes for the coming holidays. BTW did you know that where I lived in France my house was so close (only about 20 miles as the crow flies) to Mont Ventoux that it looks as if was at the bottom of my yard? Across all those lovely lavender fields in the Luberon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Kudpung. I enjoyed working on the article – a quite interesting fellow. Thanks for your story about France; I had to look that up and it sounds great: [25]. Eons ago (in 1973) I spent a summer month in France with a French family -- half in Versailles, and half in the Alps in Haute-Savoie within sight of the Mont Blanc, overlooking a valley, near the towns of Annecy and Annemasse. Indelible memories. Anyway, just for the record, my screenname actually refers to the color lavender, because soft lavender is my favorite color. I do indeed love the essential oil of the lavender flower as well, but here in Hawaii I haven't found any that wasn't rancid (vinegary smelling), because apparently it gets too hot in transit (e.g. sitting on the docks or airport tarmacs here, first in Honolulu and then in Hilo) from the mainland. It was actually Hafspajen that added all those lavender-field images to my userpage (including this one of what you just described: File:Lavender field and Mont Ventoux.jpg); just this week I was thinking about removing them, but maybe I'll let them stay a while longer. :) Happy holidays to you too! Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Softlavender,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much Gareth! All of the very same to you! Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Softlavender! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the holiday greetings, M! Wishing you a warm and cozy and happy Christmas season yourself! Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

• Year in review: Looking back on 2016

• News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

• Special report: German ArbCom implodes

• In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

• Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

• In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

• Featured content: The Christmas edition

• Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

• Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

• Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

• Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Buon Natale!

May you have very Happy Holidays, Softlavender

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, V! Softlavender (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Seleni Institute

Seleni Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is eligible for WP:CSD#G5, do you want it kept? Otherwise I will nuke it. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion on the article itself. It seems to be a nice charity that helps women and women's issues and promotes awareness of them, and heaven knows the world needs more of that. As I think I recall reading or seeing somewhere, it got the direct blessing of at least one of the Obamas (Barack or Michelle ... Googling it seems to be Michelle [26]). If I had an opinion I would say keep and possibly re-write somewhat. Softlavender (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Softlavender! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oy Vay!, Softie, me ol' china ...

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Drop-in Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda a Gwyliau Iddewig Hapus

---

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true star... and even your own rocket ... !!

Cheers, Martin. --- Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks Bzuk! I'm not actually sure what "Canajian" (with a "j") means (is it just fun slang based on idiosyncratic pronunciation?), but I hope you have been well and happy this many a day. Very happy holidays to you! Softlavender (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Silent Night

Hey, amigo, If you are going to go around claiming "myth" about the church organ, then you'll have to fix the dueling claims about he organ in the bios of both Gruber (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Gruber) and Mohr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mohr). Rosspz

December 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Drmies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Come on now Softlavender. The guy is a volunteer, not a conscripted editor like you or me. Aren't you supposed to be soft, as opposed to the usual hardcore lavender I remember so well from the Provence? And while you take this warning to heart, I wish you happy holidays, and much marzipan, which is the true reason for the season--or so many people are saying. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

FFS. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• :) Well, did you get some marzipan? And DYK that Earl Grey tea now comes with additional lavender flavor? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Marzipan? Pfui -- overrated. How can I think about marzipan when the Carnegie Deli is closing in five days? *weeps* -- Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What?? That was one of the main reasons for visiting NYC in the summer of '17, and it is going? FFS! Irondome (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I know. Manhattan has lost its meaning. Thank God there's still Zabar's. But still. Is life still worth living? I don't know .... Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A major pisser. I'm a London EastEnder, analogous with N.Y.C's East side. London and N.Y. are in many ways similar. You have Atlantic City, which roughly parallels Southend-on-Sea, which was (and still is) the seaside escape of East Londoners. Southend is about 30 or so miles out from London's East End. Southend has the longest pier in the world, (you call them boardwalks) but was sadly ravaged by fire in the 80's. I lived in Southend for a while when I was a kid in 68-70, and the pier was a miniature city. It had its own train system, and I still remember the excitement riding it at night. I see many similarities with N.Y and London. There were a couple of good Delis' in Southend as well, cos of the high East End Jewish population who migrated there. All gone too. Happy memories..Irondome (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC) we

Thanks for the info, Irondome. Hopefully if you are still going to NYC next summer, you bought tickets for Hamilton a year ago. :) I've listened to all the songs, with lyrics, on YouTube, which is a reasonable substitute, and watched the PBS special about it, but beyond that there's no decent way of viewing it online *sigh*. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited to add: Oh, I forgot, Hamilton is coming to London next year. Obviously I no longer live in NYC or anywhere that will get a roadshow, or I would have snagged some tickets somehow by now. :) Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)