User talk:Softlavender

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 5 as User talk:Softlavender/Archive 4 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

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

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• 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.
• 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, email us 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.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Section closures

Remember to put the archive top after the section headers. Thanks for the help though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no actual need to that I can see, or rule that that has to be the case. I usually do, but when the post shouldn't be there in the first place, I place it over the whole thing. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lo Mein AfD

Hello, thanks for your edits on Lo Mein (book), I'm wondering if I can ask for your input, I don't know how much of the AfD your read, so I summarize.

I am the paid editor who wrote the article and I'm finding that the notability guideline, WP:NBOOK, is woefully inadequate. The author's article, Robert Eringer, is virtually untouchable due to his notoriety. My thought was to create a collection, two books, one fiction one non-fiction (Draft:Ruse (book)) for the author under WP:BKCRIT #5. Lo Mein also has two glowing reviews from two college newspapers, (the University of Washington and Notre Dame), so the book also appeared to pass WP:BKCRIT #1. With two glowing reviews, I thought that not providing other reviews would be pretty awkward for balance.

The AfD nominator is representing that (all?) college newspapers are not RS and that a WorldCat count of 11 is inadequate, other editors appear to agree. At this point, I'd like to see the guideline edited to reflect the opinion of Book Project so that other editors do not make the mistake of writing, or worse, defending article based upon the inadequate guideline.

For completeness, my latest revision of the article is here, [1] but as a paid editor, I'm not welcome to edit articles in the mainspace. Please forgive the intrusion, I contacted you because your username is not a repeat from the other AfD I've been through and your background. I realize that the project does not want these articles and I'm not here soliciting a vote on the AfD, but would appreciate your input on modifying the guidelines. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• The article appears to be a lost cause, because none of the reviews meet WP:RS standards (those college reviews do not meet RS per most editors' agreement), and the book is insufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article; it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, as several people have noted on the AfD. The best-case scenario would be expanding mention of all three of these novels on the author's wiki article. In terms of the notability guidelines themselves, you are free to ask questions on those guidelines' talk pages. Lastly, there are no guarantees on Wikipedia, and by posting on Wikipedia you are automatically agreeing to have the content edited or even deleted by other editors if Wikipedia as a community agrees that is appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response, as I've mentioned elsewhere, editing the author's article (Robert Eringer) is contentious, he's had a running feud going with Putin and Prince Albert for a few years now. I was actually hired to add balance to the bio, which was a one-sided hit piece, every edit was met with opposition. The claim to notability here is WP:NBOOK #5 as a "discriminate collection" supported in (WP:DISCRIMINATE). Eringer's non-fiction is notable in Carroll Quigley Bilderberg/secret group genres, but he writes fiction now, so a fiction article in the collection would be representative. I have dug up a few items (guidance on college newspapers etc.) and posted a closing statement in the AfD. [2] Thanks again for your input, I trust it, as you don't appear as a regular on the deletion squad. ~~ Cheers ~~ 009o9 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

your ANI closure

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_fork_issues... was a discussion you closed by stating I should look at the top of the page to find where to go. Well, the reason I didn't know where to take it is because the issues on the pages fall into several categories:

• Two pages with similar names about the same topic - content forking board
• Apparently started as POV forking, and there's an edit war three edits in on one page - dispute resolution board
• A page was moved, deleted, and apparently written over - admin needed move board
• Two distinct histories - history merge board

I see four potential boards, and if I knew where to go, I would have gone there. Now, I've contributed here for about a decade, so I generally know my way around, but I'll let the insinuation you made that I don't know what I'm doing slide. So where in particular should I go with this, if you're convinced ANI is not the place? I don't want to be bouncing around to four different boards, either, mind you. If you don't have an answer, I'd appreciate you reopening the ANI thread. MSJapan (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ANI is not for content issues or questions; it is for recurring behavioral problems that require administrative intervention. If you look at the top of the ANI page, there are several venues you could take your issue/question to, both in the "Page handling" and "Other" categories. Merges do not require administrators, but this isn't even a merge situation. The situation you describe is not a content fork issue, but a duplicate article issue (the two articles are identical). The merge should go to National Grand Lodge, as the duplicate article (Prince Hall National Grand Lodge) was created only three days ago. To effect the merger, you need to start a merge proposal at WP:MERGE, and follow those instructions to the letter. It is not anyone's place to worry about what may ensue. The edit histories do not need to be merged -- only the content, as with any merge proposal. As far as the actual name of the article, that's a separate issue, and if editors believe it is mis-titled, that is a matter for WP:RM, and a public discussion would have to be opened there, following those instruction to the letter, if someone desires that the article be re-titled. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC); edited 07:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: MSJapan, since this was a clear case of article duplication for no reason, I have redirected the duplicate title back to the original article, and alerted the admin (Anthony Bradbury) who took care of another duplication of the same article two days ago. If someone wants to re-name the article, they need to go through all of the very precise steps in WP:RM. Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! MSJapan (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Softlavender. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the mystery continues

Now this is very interesting. I wasn't aware that there was any such thing as "Wikipedia staff."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.14.115.38 Ladysif (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

IP tracks to West Chester, PA, Stern's Twitter location is in West Chester, PA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysif (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, those posts are pretty odd and self-contradictory. I'm not sure what they allege or who they purportedly contacted (there's always WP:OTRS and WMF Legal). At least the article has been tagged. Anyway, thanks for bringing all this to light in the first place .... I also left a comment on your talk page -- I do agree with the info an unrelated IP added to the Jones article. Softlavender (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• shrug* I liked the part where they turned from unintelligible English and threats to an attempt at sounding professional. Ladysif (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it really belongs in the Sweet Briar article, maybe JJ's, but whomever edited that article before did not do a very good job of it- if you read the actual "FBI letter" none of it made any logical sense and all of his claims seemed to just be using the "terrorism" buzzword in order to advance his own political campaigns. I agree with the idea that something malicious was underway with the former admin, but I don't think that someone who moved immediately to an attack on Herbalife (and had been publishing similar investigations on LinkedIn for some time, albeit the "FBI letter" about SBC and most of them have now been removed and I don't have time to pull up the archives) should be taken seriously? His allegations don't really belong anywhere else but his own page. Sweet Briar should not be affiliated with any politician, with the unfortunate exception of Mark Herring, though his assistance did lead to the prevention of the actual closure.Ladysif (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at the WP:RSs and see what should go where. In terms of Herbalife, that organization is apparently a dangerous fraud as well. I have a very sensible, serious, and circumspect (overly so) acquaintance who on Twitter posts almost nothing but environmental opinions and Herbalife-scandal updates, and if it gets him riled up, then there's definitely something to it. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh I know Herbalife is illegitimate but I don't think belligerent "anti-terrorism" letters are going to amount to much in the end. Like.. when you title your "investigations" with things like KILLER TERRORIST FRUIT I don't know how any reasonable person could take that seriously. Which is maybe why they're all down now. Who knows. Ladysif (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think my point is mostly that accusations with no immediately available proof don't fall under neutrality standards? Ladysif (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Briar College

@Softlavender: I noticed your edit.

1. Please take a look
2. misleading edit summary ??? I beg you pardon, complaints should be addressed to the reFill tool. Thank you for your time.

Lotje (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Lotje It was a misleading edit summary. reFill only does references. You had to change the image size manually on refFill's result page. Only do references with the reFill tool.

The image policy for removing px sizes is relatively new. Not all of us old farts either know about it or have a hard time doing it. I'm still correcting people who do fixed sized reference columns or list columns. It's been a couple of years since those were changed. If you are removing px size in images, best if you say why in the edit summary, atleast for several more months. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tod und Verklärung quotation

Actually, the horn does state the "transifiguration" theme as the soprano is singing (or at least the first five notes of it). Of course, a more complete statement does occur after the soprano in the violas/English horn. I have always wondered why the focus is on the complete statement after the soprano sings. I find it interesting that little is said about the horn statement of the theme in counterpoint to the soprano "ist dies etwa der Tod" as well as the premonition of the end of the theme (E-flat, D-flat, C-flat) that is heard in the violas and sung by the soprano at "Wie sind wir wandermüde." It is almost as if there are glimpses of the afterlife as the soprano passes into death before a complete statement can occur - but that is too much purple prose for Wikipedia, right? Profbounds (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sorcerer's Apprentice musical example.

I respect your desire to prevent clutter with too many musical examples. With the one remaining example, would it be better to change it to the more familiar bassoon statement of that motive or leave it as is ( the motive's first appearance in the work)?Profbounds (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Profbounds, these sorts of questions or comments belong on the respective articles' talk pages rather than on user talk pages, so that others may also view and/or participate, and the reasoning behind decisions and consensus may be seen. Thank you! Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your fan's handiwork

Is this your dog groupie's handiwork? If not, probably was the evil Hafs doing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. Wikipedia is all about blame and block so by all means blame and block one of them. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom: You may be interested

Hello, based on past interactions at Syngenta and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Grins

Hello S. Thanks for this revert. I think the IP was thinking of the sequel Brideshead with a Vengence :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Apparently. I haven't caught that flick yet. I hear the villain isn't as good as Alan Rickman though. They should probably use actual German actors for those roles. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So true S. OTOH this wonderful commercial speaks to why Hollywood goes with the Brits. I'm sure you've seen it numerous times but I like this full length version. Speaking of Rickman I recently re-watched The Barchester Chronicles. One of his early TV performances he displays many of the talents that make him such a good actor. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't obvious, I have watched the first three Die Hards -- I was just playing along witcha.... Something crappy has happened to my computer and for the past four days the audio doesn't work -- it's all chopped up and I just hear blips and blops. I don't know who to ask about this; my old computer guy has moved and I haven't felt like chasing him down with a call; and the two times I took my computer to SuperGeeks here they made things worse. Does anyone know what to do? I don't know the cause -- the only thing I had done differently is I listened to the opera Saturday via headphones rather than speakers because I had my doors open. *sigh* Anyway, thanks for that full-length clip -- I'll watch it when this gets fixed. I don't even recall hearing about The Barchester Chronicles, even back then. Rickman is an interesting fellow. I have learned a good deal more about him in my researches of Ian Charleson; they coincided at the RSC, and even then Rickman was a very creative, non-conformist type, and is more or less responsible for Ruby Wax's (another RSCer) career: he insisted she start giving comedic mini-shows back then and directed her in them (is evidently a talented director). Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't say for sure without actually seeing or hearing it, but initial suspicion is that the connection between the computer and the speakers is loose, or in the wrong port. Try pulling it out and plugging it in again, making sure you have it in the speaker jack and not the headphone (or microphone) jack. If that doesn't work then it's possible your computer never switched from headphones back to speakers, in which case you'll need to go to Control Panel --> Sound and manually switch it back. Third possibility is that there's something wrong with the sound driver, in which case you'd need to uninstall and reinstall. That'd take a bit longer to do so I can describe how if it becomes necessary. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks J. Just FYI, I plugged my (Walkman) headphones into the headphone port on the righthand speaker itself, rather than into the CPU. And the speaker cable was and is still in the "green" port on my Dell (I had re-checked that yesterday). But just now I decided to plug and unplug every possible cable connected to my speakers (waiting 20 seconds before re-connecting each), and that seems to have done the trick. I don't know if one of them was loose or what (seems like the power connection plug was wobbly on my APC UPS, as it's not perfectly level), but the sound is working now -- I hope it stays that way. I also noticed the top of that righthand speaker is very hot -- I've never noticed that before. Anyway, thanks for your help -- it sparked my taking action to test and fix it. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, to MarnetteD, thanks again for the full-length clip -- most fun. I noticed that whats-his-name (what is his name? I'm blanking) pronounced the word "Jaguar" in a manner somewhere in-between the British ("jag-yew-ar" -- ick!) and American ("jag-war") pronunciations, I guess since the promo was attempting to appeal to non-Brits ... or at least was attempting not to offend potential American buyers. LOL. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is Mark Strong. I go all the way back to Prime Suspect 3 with him. He has played several baddies over here in the last decade. He is part of a marvelous cast in Stardust (2007 film). Speaking of casts look at the lineup in Our Friends in the North. This serial is among the my all time favorites. Unfortunately it isn't available in the US. Getting the DVD set for my library was one of the things that spurred me to get a region free DVD player. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Prime Suspect 3 ! The one where Peter Capaldi plays a drag queen! I nearly pissed myself when I read the closing credits on that two years ago, and I had to go back and watch the whole thing over again! :-) I've had Our Friends in the North on my to-watch list for fucking ages, but I haven't found a free or cheap-ass way to view it. I think at this point I'm mainly remembering Strong from his two recent major 'international' forays: TTSS (which wasn't a patch on the original miniseries) and The Imitation Game. I'll keep your reccie of Stardust in mind; thanks! Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Pete's performance is amazing. I forgot to mention something - a habit with me. Regarding your Ian Charleson learning if you can find a copy of this you will get a chance to see a few clips of him onstage along with some memories of those who acted alongside him. There are also tons of other clips as well as live performances by actors old and young. It becomes a "how fast can I recognize each person" game. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I do have a copy of that, and also the companion piece which I can't remember the name of which also has mention of, and I think a clip of, Ian (might be one of those two DVDs). Since the pissy BBC iPlayer for TV isn't viewable in the U.S., at the time those two things were airing, I sent out a plea on Twitter, and a Brit who I had literally never said a word to ripped them for me for free and sent them via DropBox. Lovely to see the mini-clip of Ian and Lindsay onstage; would have been a dream to watch their Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. My favorite performance or clip of the night though was Andrew Scott in Angels in America (clip here) -- mesmerizing, and blew the whole tiresome HBO miniseries out of the water. Nice also to see Judi Dench onstage and also the talented and underrated Penelope Wilton; and everybody else! A couple of clunkers, but mostly an incredible compilation. I may go ahead and get the DVDs, now that you mention it, thanks .... Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• To any Brits listening in: [3]. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that you have seen the National Theatre at 50 special. The second disc is a documentary produced for the Arena (TV series) show. You are right about the AS in AiA clip. You are also right about Penelope. As a fan of hers I hope that you have seen the 1977 TV adaptation of The Norman Conquests where she is part of a wonderful cast. This ia another "behind the scenes" show worth seeking out - if you haven't seen it already of course. Tick-tick-tick getting close to new Who :-) MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the Arena broadcast is the other thing I got. Might be more convenient for me to have the official DVDs. Right now I keep getting messages that my DropBox is full and I've been too lazy to burn those things to discs. I actually didn't become a true Penelope Wilton "fan" till I saw her on that NT at 50 show -- so riveting onstage, and so different from her (also very good) Downton persona. I have not seen The Norman Conquests; added it to my watchlist. Theatreland looks good but I am so totally over Waiting for Godot (I mean, seen/understood it once, seen it all ...) that I'm not sure I'd be into a lot of it. BTW, lately I watched two miniseries that included identical eras and some of the same historic characters: Jennie: Lady Randolph Churchill (trying to write a wiki article on it because it was James Cellan Jones's major success) and Lillie (partly a re-watch) .... As a major contrarian I have never watched a single Dr. Who episode, and tho by dint of over-exposure to its fans I know what a Dalek and a TARDIS is, that's about the closest I'll probably ever get to the series .... I wouldn't know where to start anyway, and might end up with a dud series/episode. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have both the series you mention. It is interesting to compare and contrast the writing and the casts of the two. We sure get to learn about "Professional Beauties" :-) Lillie is an all-time fave. Francesca Annis is a long time crush for me. DYK that she first played LL in a couple episodes of Edward the Seventh? The makers of that series were so impressed with her performance that the wrote the second series to expand on Langtry's story. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Lillie is a longtime fave of mine, and in the 1980s I even read the spin-off book, which goes into a lot more detail about various things such as her relationship with Sarah Bernhardt, etc. ... Peter Egan is my favorite Wilde ever. Also, I really love the portrayals of Bertie in those two miniseries. And yes, Edward the Seventh is one of the very best historical miniseries ever -- so very well done, so informative, and so enjoyable! .... Round about the same time as I recently watched Jennie: Lady Randolph Churchill and Lillie, I watched a brief related factual series called Million Dollar American Princesses, wherein I learned about Consuelo Vanderbilt, who is now on my watch list. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC) PS: I am in love with Warren Clarke as Winston Churchill in Jennie: Lady Randolph Churchill. I kept wanting him to be onscreen all the time. And for him to have his own Churchill movie or miniseries. I loved him in that even more than in Dalziel and Pascoe, which is quite something. So sad that he passed away in November, right after his death scene in Poldark. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have the book too! Back then the "doom and gloom crowd" liked to say that TV would bring an end to reading. For me it was the exact opposite as each new Masterpiece Theater would send me to the bookstore to buy the source material. I still have most of them in a box somewhere :-) Egan was superb but, since I was lucky enough to see Vincent Price in his one man show as Oscar more than once I have to let them share the honors as the best. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 11:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again S. If you saw Prime Suspect I hope that you also watched Robbie Coltrane in Cracker (UK TV series) back in the 90s. If you did I think you will get a kick out of this. even if you didn't you might get a grin or two. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, that's great. Yes, Robbie Coltrane is one of my favorite actors ever (by dint of that show), and Cracker likewise one of my favorite mystery series; I was most disappointed when it stopped airing .... Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Template that might be of use

Hi again. I saw your note on Montanabw's talk page. If you can find a place for this template

User:X!/RfX Report

I think it will help you when more than one AFD is going on at the same time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Superstar

I've unwatched the article again, but if you need my help again in the future, let me know. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks Ssilvers for your help on it! I'd probably do some further tweaking of it myself, but I haven't listened to it in 30-odd years, so in order to go further with it I'd have to do substantial research, mostly via those somewhat costly books. Thanks again, and for the heads-up. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that with a modest amount of Google research you could supply some of the missing links which is, I think, the most urgent thing that the article needs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could add to my statement above that my current level of interest in the subject is rather low. :-) It's an oldish and rather passé musical, and an article I simply wanted to remove problem stuff from. In terms of supplying the missing material, I lack interest and prioritization at this precise moment. :-) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Of note

I don't think he has ever edited that article before, as far as I can tell. But it is my top edited article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BRD

I believe you are misapplying BRD in your latest reversions to the applicable article. Specifically The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D" - reverting during the course of the discussion is very much *not* part of BRD and is, in fact, contrary to the guideline. If you're going to use that as your reason for reverting, you've missed the point. Risker (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted because in all of his blatant and persistent edit-warring 7 removals against consensus, despite repeated reminders of policy (BRD and CONSENSUS), IDHT continued to replace the FA status quo ante with his desired version without the least bit of discussion on his part. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no exception in BRD for FAs or any kind of "status quo ante". In fact, quite the opposite. The entire point of BRD is to discuss after the first reversion, and specifically NOT to return to the status quo ante. I don't know what principles you're using (edit warring on FAs is also unacceptable, especially for matters that do not affect the content of the article), but they're not BRD. Risker (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BRD says Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante).. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Finish the quote...."but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." That's what you were doing. You were edit warring (you aren't alone in that). BRD does not condone this. Risker (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have also seen WP:BURDEN applied. But SL, don't go over 3RR - not over this. I've been amazed at your kindness and support throughout this, and I am grateful but don't get yourself in trouble on my account. (Risker, you ned to know that my RfA is pending, and at the moment, getting a lot of !oppose.) Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that, Montanabw; I've pretty much walked away from RFA because of the WP:OWN behaviour of some people who participate there. Risker (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

But the point is that I'd like to see the accessibility policy in question here, I'm open to changes, but where they are claiming there is a box with a gray background and I don't see a gray background (only a gray line around the box), that's an accessibility problem I can see with my own eyes. The edit warring is an issue, but not one I can effectively address right now. We both strongly suspect he's baiting me by editing now at the article I have the #1 most edits on to see if he can trigger my alleged "ownership" issues and "battleground mentality." Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several recommended colour testing processes for accessibility in the guideline; give them a try. The colours you are using would definitely fail; they're practically hallmarks of bad web design (okay, not as bad as fire engine red, but still far too dark and saturated). Pale colours are usually recommended on white pages. Risker (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think color and accessibility discussions should all be on the article talk page (where anyone can view them); perhaps they can be copied there, and if need be create a separate sub-section on these matters. My own view is that if policy does not specifically exclude or deprecate them, I pretty much genuinely liked these colors as they are; at the same time, we could test slightly paler versions if desired .... I think a side-by-side view, or posting color options on the talk page, might also be useful. Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with that, post compliant lavender and green shades there an we can talk! As we now know, my monitor isn't real color-sophisticated, so what looks "normal" to me might well be "neon" to someone else! Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong.

Prove that it isn't. This too can also go a different route. The Only Material uploaded on that page has been the same tracks. Ive subscribed to the page since about 2012 or 2013. Your "week" old theory holds no water.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho's transgender sister Juliet

Her brother transitioned to a female and changed her name from Jacob to Juliet. The Condran ref (footnote 8) notes that Jackie has an older sister now. Here is Juliet's Twitter account (note Jackie in the rear in the photo): https://twitter.com/j_evancho_ Jackie even made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmmSYvShuCc All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ssilvers, I totally read the sequence of revisions wrong, and recently reverted to the wrong version. I was trying to uphold whatever you had added, knowing you have been carefully curating that article for quite some time, but I got it wrong . In order to avoid reader confusion, I believe it would be best to state that her brother Jacob transitioned to Julie, or to list her sister as "Julie (formerly Jacob)". After all, Jacob sang on Songs from the Silver Screen (and is credited as such on the album and mentioned several times in that article), so we can't just obliterate the name Jacob from Jackie's article. And that other editor is correct -- there needs to be a citation about the transition and new name. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's discss on Jackie's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing/Edit Warring on Phil Driscoll

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Don't template the regulars, Red, see WP:DTR. Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Phil Driscoll

After two weeks of full protection there was no productive discussion of the issues on the article talk page. I let the protection expire to see what happened. The edit warring started back up. I have been asked to fully protect the page again. I do not want to protect the article from all editing so I have decided to try a different tactic. First I am going to restore the article to the version that I had protected, I know, it is the wrong version. Now, you are warned that if you edit anything in the article concerning the tax evasion conviction without first getting a consensus on the talk page, I will block you. I recommend trying some form of Dispute resolution. If you question my actions you can discuss them at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- GB fan 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

My sincerest apologies for being melodramatic in response to your balanced appraisal at the ANI opened into my behaviour. I was allowing my ego to override what should, by now, be my dictum as an experienced editor.

P.S. If you're not a cat person, feel free to lob a whale in my direction!

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Iryna Harpy; the IP was a douche and Drmies made a good call. I think it's often in the nature of WP to be dramatic, especially when called up on dubious charges on ANI lol. PS: Unlike some Wikipedians, I am not allergic to cats and love kittens, thanks! Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Being Harpy by nature, I do feel compelled to call in a Greek chorus to make moralising noises in the background from time to time. Give the kitten a tickle from me. What a little bundle of cuteness... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't revert my edits

You will be blocked. Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:Notnow did not apply for my RFA. Thank you. Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI discount books and DVDs

Hello S. I hope that you are well. Based on out past talks about Brit programs I wanted to make you aware (unless you already are of course) of Daedalus Books They are a discount seller of books, CDs and DVDs. I have been able to add several UK series from the 70s onward to my collection at remarkably reasonable prices. Of course they don't have everything but different old programs become available all the time. The books and CDs on offer are a great prices as well. At this time of year they also have fun little knickknacks and calendars and I am able to get stocking stuffers and other gifts in a one-stop-shopping place. If you are interested it is worth getting on their mailing list. If not no worries. Have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Marnette! I looked at the DVD prices, and they are very cheap! I bookmarked the site, and I'll look into the finer details a bit later. BTW, since we're trading information, my one-stop shop for books (both the best prices for any book whether in print or not, and the most exhaustive inventory even of extremely hard-to-find OOP books), is Bookfinder.com. It's a clearinghouse of all booksellers, so it's the only place I need to look. If you forget, it's on my userpage, under the painting. It has saved me hundreds of dollars, and also hundreds of hours of fruitless searching. The prices include shipping to your location, so it's easy to figure out the best deal. (PS: Since booksellers often input data variably, the least amount of relevant info input into the search field, the better -- i.e., omit initial "The" or "A" and subtitle; if adding author only use last name, etc.) Thanks again! Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A big thanks to you for the link. Looks great. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Caitlyn Jenner family of articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Hopefully by now this is water under the bridge but if you have questions, please contact me directly on my Talk page:

Checkingfax (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Softlavender for arbcom?

Wise words on Figaro! For background, read the Wagner discussions (May 2013, "I am certain that an infobox would damage the article"), or - if that seems too long - Joseph (opera) where an arb repeated what you phased much more elegantly. Softlavender for arbcom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Gerda, you are too kind. Not the first time you have praised my Solomon-like wisdom. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am selfish and want people for arbcom who can say something simply. Miss Floq who could. Makes me think I should not ask candidates 3 questions but: how can you say something simply? - Had you heard before that an infobox damages an article? We came a long way from that statement to a mere "otious" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I miss Floq too and hope he comes back soon. (I miss Malik Shabazz as well, but am less sanguine about the likelihood of his return, at least anytime soon; and by the way, he also had an excellent, succinct, and always fair way with words.) It's been a weird year for excellent admins. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My sad list is long, I was only referring to arbitrator. How would you have answered my 3 questions? Missing Dreadstar dreadfully, Laurence Olivier talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes on the first two; the third would of course depend on the context and the merits and the facts. But I'm not running for ArbCom; I don't even want to be an admin (not that that is a necessary prerequisite). Just being a civilian on WP is distracting enough without other stuff on top. (BTW, I think Malik would have made a good Arb.) Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes to a question of what you see in a diff? (An arb saw a reason to ban in it, DYK?) - Sad but acceptable that the people who would be good are not running or even left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I answered the three questions I saw at the top. If you want me to answer the three questons at the bottom, it may have to wait; I'm in the middle of a couple of things .... Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions at the bottom: (1) A strange collapsible "Metadata" template/navbox at the bottom right of the ELs, which was a hidden infobox in disguise, was moved to its correct placement as an infobox at the top. (2) If that was the only reasoning, I'd say that was absurd, because it was a definite improvement to the article. (3) Again, if that were the only reasoning, banning would be absurd and I would !vote against it. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Be very careful! By these answers you show solidarity with someone whose disruptive editing was considered so obvious that no (other) evidence seemed to be needed, which makes you (again without further evidence) a person who needs "to better conduct themselves", like me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you or whomever should edit that infobox template so the parameter field looks like the film infobox. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All requests to change it should go to the template TALK (linked twice from Figaro). Keep in mind though that it was a compromise reached in tough discussions, - study archives of project opera, where you will find what will happen if I mention granularity one more time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you mean this repetitive "by" after every parameter, I won't go for it. Example |chorale= in {{infobox musical composition}}: sometimes the exact hymn (perhaps even with a link) is known enough to be shown, sometimes we would rather only say "by hymnwriter", especially since most often Bach didn't pick the first stanza of a hymn. Example pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about, and no interest in finding out. Not going to discuss unrelated infoboxes or fields. I'm talking about the "Based on" fields both in the film infobox template, and also the one currently in the opera infobox. I'm not interested in discussing any other fields or infobox templates. Softlavender (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that enlightenment: {{Based on}}, will use that! Had no idea it exists! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Exceeding 1RR on Caitlyn Jenner

Softlavender, as you well know the Caitlyn Jenner page falls under Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions. You have reverted two edits in the past hour. A few weeks ago you reverted five edits within 24-hours.

As for her image, you could have just moved it back up instead of spending one of your allotted reversions by reverting my edit.

The 1RR rule applies in aggregate so once one makes a reversion one cannot make a reversion on any other DS article for 24-hours. Ping me back. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"As for her image, you could have just moved it back up instead of spending one of your allotted reversions by reverting my edit." No idea what you mean by that. You duplicated the image in the infobox in the body text, making it appear twice in the same article. Perhaps you did that accidentally, without realizing that the image was still in the infobox. I simply removed the erroneous duplication -- as you know, images cannot appear twice in the same article. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else should have made a decision about which image to delete, since you had no more deletion quotas left under 1RR. Look at the timeline. We posted at nearly the same time. Since the image had been deleted from the infobox I moved it to the body which was a reasonable thing to do.

And, a couple of weeks ago, you made made five reversions in less than 24-hours when you're only allotted one if that. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Formal notification of Adminstrative Appeal re: Ruritanian romance edits.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding false accusation of edit-warring. The thread is Ursula LeGuin.The discussion is about the topic Ruritanian romance. Thank you.

When I'm wrong I admit it and...

.......offer an apology for not getting it but yes...this does indeed require a formal RFC (Caitlyn Jenner image debate). Specifically, it needs discussion to see if other agree or disagree that Non free content criteria can be met with the specific disclaimer of NFCUUI (see talk page), but this will likely have ramifications on a few rare articles, such as Chelsea Manning.

I am going to seek some advice from another editor I think we are both aware of, who has taken part in discussing these types of issues and the best way to frame an RFC. Let us look at my last thread on the talk page as a straw poll to see what input is given on the subject, in preparation for a formal RFC. I will be sure to ping you when I begin the discussion on how to frame the Request for Comment. Thanks and, again, sorry for not getting your point sooner.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that such a discussion (re: using a recent magazine cover as the image in a BLP infobox) is more the purview of Copyright policies and Image Use policies and legal requirements than it is a discussion (even an RfC) for an article talk page. And since such use would not meet the "non-replaceable" qualification, it would automatically fail. If you like, I can try to contact Jenner's management via IMDB Pro (I have a current membership), and see if someone there will release a photo. Or I could try one of her family members. I don't really know who she is close to or not (I have never watched KUWTK or I Am Cait [and I haven't had a TV for 5 years], although I did watch the Diane Sawyer interview and the award acceptance speech). It really doesn't have to be a professional photo; it can be an iPhone grab. I really would rather put energy into finding another photo than trying to subvert well-known legal policies and then being shot down later. BTW, I have noticed you've been adding to that Talk page discussion but I have been too busy to look plus sometimes I get tired of the endlessness of that talk page. :). Anyway, there's my thoughts for the moment. I can try to contact or figure out some image-copyright mavens on wiki if you like, or where such a discussion/RfC should take place, if you still want to try for the magazine cover, but frankly I don't think it's going to fly .... Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I read all the way through, I saw this and wanted to comment; "using a recent magazine cover as the image in a BLP infobox" is outright covered under what is acceptable in the infobox. I am very familiar with image use policy but that is not the point. There is not issue with using the vanity fair image in the infobox except whether it passes the specific criteria for a living person. It is a necessary part of the discussion. Whether either of us agree that it should be used (don't really care what the consensus determines, just that it be determined by our actual non free content policy) or it just be left blank, but this is not a copyright issue. Vanity fairs logo is not a concern. The fact that it is a magazine cover is not a concern. There are no legal requirements to meet in this issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

" And since such use would not meet the "non-replaceable" qualification, it would automatically fail" No. Nothing on Wikipedia "automatically fails" but outright vandalism. Non free content is reviewed and discussed. However when this is brought up, I will also be pinging Masem, who is perhaps the most active editor at Non Free Content review.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contacting the management of the subject, in other words...contacting the subject..over this dispute is not advisable. It is the photographer that has to release the image not the subject. That can be done by going to flicker and requesting the release of an image. I also would strongly urge you not to involve Jenner's family. Please do not believe I am trying to "subvert well-known legal policies". I kind of find that offensive. Sorry, not trying to be a dick, but I am familiar with the legal precedent called "Fair use" and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as well as the foundations beliefs and support of using non free content within reason. I respect copyright and understand our non free criteria and add input regularly on discussion of image use, non free content and copyright issues. I could go either direction as far as supporting no image or the Vanity fair image, but the discussion needs to move forward and I wish to do so on the same page as you in one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've answered the infobox image-use questions on the article Talk thread. Yes, of course the photographer has to release the photo, but agent/management is how to get a photo (and contact the photographer) in the first place. There are no usable images on Flickr, just a some images illegally uploaded by fans and a couple of non-usable (non-modifiable) ABC images from the award-acceptance speech. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know your level of understanding of this subject and you don't know mine, however...regardless of that...there really is a manner in which this must be done. I am concerned that you would try to contact the subject over this, believing that the subjects personality rights trump that of the photographer. If you believe that an agent or manager is how to get a release, I will support your effort and be happy if you are successful. Unfortunately, my experience in the entertainment industry, as well as my interest in photography, copyright and fair use tell me it is not the best course....considering that asking for a simple change in Creative Commons license from several images is all that is required.

I don't dislike you. While we have recently butted heads over the Caitlyn Jenner Article, I know you to be part of the overall consensus that we have all agreed on. I ask only one thing. Don't let your reaction to me or my opinion control what you support or oppose. Let it all sink in first and then let us discuss the issues, because frankly, I don't know where you are coming from, any more than you understand where I am coming from. A true test of neutrality is how we both accept the facts as referenced and how we move forward on the content dispute itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Grandfather of Beethoven

Dear Softlavender,
You have renamed Ludwig van Beethoven's grandfather from Lodewijk to Ludwig. You may have had a good reason for this, I nevertheless find it unlikely that someone born in Mechelen in 1712 would have been christened Ludwig - in the Church archive in Mechelen you will probably find Ludovicus, and in regular text Lodewijck. The German Wikipedia, in this case, does what it uses to do with all those Lodewijk, Ludovic, Louis... Also Louis XIV is called Ludwig in the German Wikipedia. Are you sure of your modification? Kind regards Riyadi (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Riyadi, you appear to be confusing me with someone else. I made no such edit. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, the edit was indeed made by someone else, just before yours. Riyadi (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI_2

Re: [4]

The article talk page is locked to editors with fewer than 500 edits. I cannot "engage with the editor".--Sanstalk (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

See my post on your talk page. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Might this editor be a sock who was previously involved in editing in this sticky subject area? It definitely seems that way, when their first edit is to ANI to complain about another editor. GAB^Hello! 15:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect storm

Hi Softlavender - thank you for your intervention on the matter of British monarchists qv. Noticeboard, which somehow had quickly developed into an argument with allegations of POV etc, the main perpetrators being quite familiar and who seemingly spend much time quashing neutral POVs and being particularly vocal should there be the slightest connection with Jeremy Corbyn.
Upon reflection and with regards to the point you raise, I am not sure that this category is a good one for Wiki to maintain: most British monarchists are not overtly political so unless there is a hidden agenda it seems to me, especially in view of the recent hostility, that it should be determined what constitutes a British monarchist before proceeding further on what has been made to be a contentious matter. Please advise - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've said all I needed to say on the Noticeboard thread. Please don't post further here on my talk page, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But what is the answer to who constitutes a British monarchist, since it is not a term used whereas, just by way of example, anti-monarchist or republican is used in the UK? Please advise before shutting down the conversation - many thanks for your thoughts on this matter. M Mabelina (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Required notifications

It looks like you forgot to notify the editors who you brought up at COIN. There's a template at the top of the noticeboard for this. Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ducky

You say there are more than "one of MarkBernstein's antagonists, blocked/banned or otherwise"? Like who? I'll do the SPI if you folks don't want to. Doc talk 10:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Ask Mark. I didn't say or imply that he even has any, because I have no way of knowing, but if he does, that would be the logical place to look. Softlavender (talk)

Why isn't he banned yet? It's interesting how someone are untouchable because they have a very leftist/progressive viewpoint. I guess that just reflects the majority of powerusers, bureaucrats and admins. Jørgen88 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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 Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Conspiracy

Maybe you should see Conspiracy before you accuse me or others of being a sock. Just because foaming at the mouth progressives tried to protect criticism against Kotsko months back and blocked me without any proof, doesn't mean that I am a sock going after Bernstein (as if I'd waste my time on someone like that). If you have any serious accusations, you're free to take them up the proper way. Also, back when I started to edit the Norwegian Wikipedia years ago, I had a completely different username than the one I made on the English Wikipedia, which means you can't compare my two profiles. Jørgen88 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. 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/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RFA.

Ignore the naysayers at the RFA, continue to vote. Admins and bureacrats like Wjbscribe know better than to engage in mortal kombat with a voter on an RFA talkpage like they did to you. Dont let it get to you, they'll all the bit soon enough. 2602:30A:2CAB:9070:7DB9:24C0:4059:F4D4 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your restoration of content by 7 BANNED users

Your restoration of content by 7 BANNED users - yes, I edited BBB23's page. Surely a handful of barnstars awarded by banned sockpuppets shouldn't be left as is? Or if you think so, why? What about Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits? --Elvey^(t•c) 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Joseph McBride

Thanks for removing the notability tag. I almost immediately realized it wasn't necessary after I clicked "Save page" and was in the processing of removing it myself when the phone rang. Also, feel free to revert my attempt at clean up if I took out too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, how lovely Haffy! I thank you very much. I've been thinking about you recently, and all the joy you give to others. Blessings, Softlavender (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bless bless, 7. Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Colin Welland

Not sure what you're going on about the birthplace. I didn't touch it. The NYT obit had his death place and full birth name, which I added. Connormah (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Connormah, when I saw that you had removed (moved actually, not removed) all of the references from the birthplace in the infobox, I erroneously (and overhastily) read that as changing the birthplace back to what the NYT and every other obit erroneously has it has. (As you'll notice on the Talk page, it has taken us ages to get to the bottom of his correct birthplace.) Anyway, I restored your citation and mention of London in the body text (missed the infobox, but it's there now). Thank you very much for finding his middle name, that gives further proof of his birthplace being Liverpool. Anyway, the citations and footnote in the infobox need to stay or else everyone will be changing it back the way the obits have it, which is incorrect. Thanks again. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh! Eh! Alright! Lavvy. If you add in any more reliable sources for his birthplace, people will start to imagine that he had dark curly hair and a moustache wore a shellsuit! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Collateral damage from rangeblock

Hi Softlavender,

I'm writing on your talk page because you took part in the discussion about the extension of a range IP block, there're less than 2 hours left for the new block to start and yesterday I added some information making a summary at the end of the section: may you please join back the discussion and give your final opinion about the matter?

Thank you in advance!

Centocinquantuno (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bethel, Alaska

Hello. Could you please explain why a fire that destroyed two schools in Bethel, Alaska does not belong in the towns history section? How exactly is the destruction of two schools a run of the mill fire? It certainly belongs there more than the Taco Bell hoax, which nobody seems to have a problem with. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an interesting place

I have a close friend who had a devastating "brain accident" several years ago, rendering her partially aphasic. When confronted with particularly puzzling behavior (usually inappropriate behavior), she styles it as "interesting".

Here in the Oz we call Wikipedia, a teacher can be summarily blocked in 2 seconds flat for something that causes no damage, but we must debate for hours headed into days over what to do with an editor in a position of trust that has done things over the course of many years and thousands of articles that I would not tolerate from my 6 year old son.

An analogy was made and summarily dismissed about that kind of behavior in a workplace. Well, I run a non-profit and am its only paid employee. I have a rotating irregular staff of about 60 volunteers. If I got that scatological, I'd be gone. Immediately. If I tolerated that kind of behavior from any of my volunteers, I'd be gone. Immediately. Yes you can fire a volunteer. They don't have a union. It's not hard. Why is it so hard here? Yes, my friend would definitely say, "Wikipedia is interesting." John from Idegon (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally think he should face a (long hard) block. I don't know whether I should propose that. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That too was dismissed as "punitive". Bull. If a person (the only thing I have agreed with in the whole thread is that it is a fair assumption said person is male) lacks the common sense to not engage in that kind of behavior, then their lack of common sense becomes something to prevent. In other words, CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• One more thing, John: I believe that, based on recent rashes of events, two things should be added to the behaviors that are considered WP:DE: Mass creation of redirects, and mass removal of prods. We have recently had at least four editors caught out mass-creating redirects, and at least three to five IPs mass-removing prods. It's time to make a stand and put it in writing that these activities are not allowed. I don't know where to make such a proposal though. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor administrating

I'm afraid your repeated accusations on ANI reflect rather badly on you. First you falsely accuse me of not notifying the user [5], then you falsely claim I removed material from an article three times [6]. I assume good faith and don't think you were intentionally dishonest, but definitely lazy as ten seconds of fact checking would have sufficed. Try to check the facts better in the future, thanks. Coupled with your refusal to discuss the issue at the article talk page and your willingness to overlook NPA violations if they come from people who share your view, the overall picture in my view is of an admin who is not currently doing a particularly good job. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea I am an admin or that I share any particular person's view. My points still stand, although I appreciate the correction -- you removed the material twice, not three times. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you were an admin. Well, that's certainly an embarrassment for me and a touché for you; I stand here an equally bad fact-checker myself. Let's call it a draw. Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Deal. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And of course I should not have removed the material more than once, I'll gladly concede that point. It happens, but it's no excuse. While far from a 3RR violation, I should just have discussed after having been reverted. Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well the discussion page is open and I have provided my reasoning, I'm very much interested in how you are going to twist this Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

False edit warring

There is no edit warring except when Jezzip came in to start and edit war

>Users are expected to collaborate with others

I did exactly that. You can see it for yourself.

> rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Jezzip is the one beign disruptive, there was no edit war on the article except when and the Tip came in,

Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So now you are siding with the other guy when I clearly showed you my reasoning of EDITING, which Dr.K undone it and I brought it back, thank you for stabbing me in the back it helps Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, policy (especially WP:BRD) is very clear. You must discuss on the article talk page, and gain WP:CONSENSUS, before repeatedly removing sourced content. If you revert again, you will likely be immediately blocked for edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>before repeatedly removing sourced content
It was false source content, the content was sourced from "giving gifts", rather than "Manumission was discouraged", this is the twisting of the Hadith
>If you revert again, you will likely be immediately blocked for edit warring
I'm not reverting again, so calm down, and good for you standing with them even when I explained my decision and you still falsely accuse me, I never was part of disrupting editing in the article, Tip and Jezzip are there because they are following me around. and Undoing my work, which had it's reasons explained
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also why did you deleted my source content? You never explained that yet you are there reverting the article to Jezzip's version, I'm in love with how BIASED you are, great work Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't delete any sourced content. You did. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I improved the article my removing the false source content that was referencing giving Eadith and not manumission discouraged after a user complained and I added three hadith of manumission encouraged and you removed those hadith I sourced in favor of the giving hadith taking a biased stance in the article, but as usual, I have to deal with your kind and I'm dealing it in the talk page now and bring the sources with me right there. In my opinion you should have left the article the way it was with my edit, since the burden of proof lies on Tip and Jezzip to provide evidence that manumission was disocuraged and NOT ENCOURAGED, which I did provided it in Dr.K user page that is why the page hasn't seen an edit war since TIP and Jezzip started editing without giving their reason, yet you blame me and REVERT my edit, GOOD JOB Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please look at my two edits: [7], [8]. I did not remove any sourced content. Please stop saying that I did. It was you who removed content, multiple times. Please stop posting all this material on my talk page. If you want to discuss the content of the article, do that on the article's talk page, not here. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to discuss it here, because I'm not understanding why you are siding with them, you clearly removed the way the article it was even though you didn't remove ANY HADITH, I'm baffled by your back stabbing. So what was wrong with the way the article was when I fixed it and THEN go to the talk page or do you have to side with the others, please bring forth your neutrality Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking me

The extent to which you stalk me across articles is a little bit creepy, particularly as WP:ABF seems to be your standard approach to me. You don't need to like me or my edits, that is mutual. I think your overall contribution to WP is negative and the project would be better off without you. But when editing articles and talk pages, you would do well do stop misrepresenting other users, editing without bothering to take the time to read what others say, and always assuming bad faith. Jeppiz (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>The extent to which you stalk me across articles is a little bit creepy, particularly as WP:ABF

You are tasting your own medicine now, how you feel, besides he is an administrator so show some respect. let him do his job. Are we as editors suppose not visit any articles you visit?

>seems to be your standard approach to me

Crying foul now?

>You don't need to like me or my edits, that is mutual.

WHAT?

>I think your overall contribution to WP is negative and the project would be better off without you.

That is what you think about everyone who is against you.

>But when editing articles and talk pages, you would do well do stop misrepresenting other users, editing without bothering to take the time to read what others say, and always assuming bad faith.

Another bunch of false accusation, the disrespect on you is amazing. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Did Softlavender pulled the tooth of the lion? Incredible. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A rose by any other name...

Re: "Why is this case titled "Improper redirects" and not "Neelix"?" — There is a tendency for ArbCom to depersonalize disputes by removing names of parties from the case title, for better or worse. I do think that in some situations such a move might help to lower the level of public posturing and rhetoric. It also allows the expansion of the case if there are other parties who come to light (for example, if it proves to be that more people than Neelix are creating masses of problematic redirects).

This naming protocol probably should be made into a formal rule if it is something ArbCom feels strongly about — the fact that this naming rule is applied unevenly is the chief cause for complaint, I think. best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks Carrite. In the past I had seen titles, even initial titles, like "Kww and The Rambling Man", etc., so it didn't make sense for me. Also, as I had mentioned in my post, the Neelix problem goes way way beyond the redirects. Also, Neelix is the fourth uer this month to get called upf for creating tens of thousands of redirects, so if it was only going to be about mass redirects, the core of the Neelix issue would have been missed. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted

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/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping clean up the Neelix mess. Your link to Wikipediocracy is what I had also used to understand the situation. Those folks are quite perceptive. As always it is useful to remain skeptical of what others write when they have an agenda. Nevertheless, when Wikipediocracy complains about something there is often fire behind the smoke. It's easier to call somebody out, ridicule then and send them away than to clean up the resulting mess. Thank you for concentrating on the latter. Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment

This statement is plainly incorrect. WP:GAR states that the GA icon should only be removed after the delisting. Just because an article is very different from the version that passed GA does not mean that the GA icon can be removed earlier. sst✈^discuss 05:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Champagne Charlie (1944 film)

Did some work here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Good work, as not in my "wheelhouse", you certainly have done a nice cleanup. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have Maltin, Leonard. Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide 2009. New York: New American Library, 2009 (originally published as TV Movies, then Leonard Maltin’s Movie & Video Guide), First edition 1969, published annually since 1988. ISBN 978-0-451-22468-2. Champagne Charlie doesn't appear there, so I cribbed from the TCM site. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'm trying to provide a date though, for the article. Check this: [9]. Since the VHS was apparently not available until 1989 (I'm seeing that as release date on Amazon UK), even in the UK, he must have first reviewed it in the 1990s in my opinion .... Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

He probably had a review in the older editions, but as the number of films increased, in order to keep the volume manageable, some articles were deleted, I guess. Champagne Charlie does appear, however in the Timeout Review c. 2004. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to log off as I am off to a NHL hockey game. Go Jets! (BTW, I really enjoyed this!) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK have a great afternoon! Re: Maltin: There would have been no reason for him to review it in his book guide unless the VHS was available (the review tells viewers to look for a certain performer), hence it is appearing in the 1990s editions on GoogleBooks, but not prior to that. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Made the cite into a Harvard citation with a MLA reference notation in the bibliographic tracing (whoops, I'm talking librarian, here – LOL.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, looks fine, although I think it would also be good for the reader to have the TCM version to view, so the reader can see that we are quoting the review in its entirety, not just a snippet. I personally in that case usually use a parenthetical note in the citation that says "(reprinted: [])", but that perhaps won't work as well with this kind of citing. I'm all about the reader, and I like viewable refs, which is why I don't usually use that kind of citation. PS: also re: Maltin, I think I misspoke above, plus I also slightly misunderstood your point. There appear to be several different movies called "Champagne Charlie", and I don't actually know when the VHS of this one came out because I was accidentally looking at the Hugh Grant movie. But we do have proof that Maltin reviewed the film as of, or in, his 1995 book, so that suffices .... Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate your editing style as I am predominately a writer and have only dabbled at line editing in the real as well as "reel" world. I did edit one book and was the editor of a trade periodical and an online historical journal, but it is not my forte. Maybe we can collaborate again on some article; this one came about serendipitously. ... and the Winnipeg Jets won! (It was the oddest game as Jets 2.0 were playing Jets 1.0; there is a story here to someday chronicle.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad everything turned out serendipitously (although frankly I am baffled by the Jets conundrum LOL)! Thanks for all your great work on the article, it's pretty sharp now! I think it might do well with a current review that is positive (Maltin and the other one are pretty negative), if a good quote can be found, but otherwise fine. Cheers and see you around the pedia. :) -- Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Today

St Cecilia's Day

A Boy was Born

Thank you for the cello suite help! Did you know the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I may have heard some of them on the radio, but no, I'm not specifically familiar with them. Plus I'm not particularly up on Britten, to be quite honest. ... Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why yes, it is St. Cecilia's Day! (I'm a little groggy.) I would listen to Handel's Ode but something pretty is on the radio right now .... Happy day! :-) There's some good poetry about this as well but I'd have to look it up. Softlavender (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am kinda partial to Gounod's St. Cecilia Mass to honor the day. I listened to it while my coffee was brewing this morning. They are all good choices though. I hope that everyone has a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, G. I may check that out as well .... Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap, M, I thought you were Gerda. LOL. Thanks for visiting on this fine St. Cecilia's Day! Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries S :-) I just hope that the music strikes your fancy if and when you get to listen to it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Gerda: I've frequently heard that the problem with Bach's cello suites (and violin sonatas/partitas) is that it's hard for performers to get a grasp on them as there are no obvious musical phrases, instructions, or themes, so it's hard for a performance to "cohere" and the performer has to make sense of each movement for themselves (out of whole cloth), and the "sense" isn't provided by Bach. I've alluded to that now in the lede. Is it OK for me to state that, without citation (yet)? We can probably find a citation somewhere about why they are so difficult musically (as opposed to technically), but I don't know what to search under to find that. Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I like to listen to them but don't really "know" about them. Stating that in the lead is MUCH better than the list of performers we had so far. - Thanks for reminding me of the mass, my last Christmas present to the community. The Boy was supposed the 2013 one, but I still am not over missing the image and Britten's title in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• OK Gerda, I tried to talk about the music in the lede, like you wanted: Cello Suites (Bach). I'm kind of tired now so I think I'll leave it at that. I hope I have done St. Cecilia justice. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your musical rescue work on Bach's cello suites

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This was my reminder, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt What! Another person is re-preciousized, yet again. I'm starting to think you are toying with me and want to cause me anguish. I just told my wife that somebody on Wikipedia was being mean to me again. She said, "Dear, that's because you deserve yet." I'll go sulk in the corner now. Bgwhite (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

My doctors and family tell me that I have to focus, so I can't be fair. If that translates to mean to you, I am helpless. Get out of that corner, hug your wife, and pass Precious again" to others generously - it's easy and for everybody - and know that's not mean ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For contributions "above and beyond ..." on Champagne Charlie (1944 film) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you, Bzuk! That is very much appreciated!! Softlavender (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dog article

I can't remember... you are into dog articles? Buccleuch Avon popped up and looks suspect.

I was looking at your user page to see if dogs were mentioned. I didn't know you were an oooooooold grandma. I'll try and write louder so you can hear. I won't mention that I'm close to your age. Nope, won't mention that all. Just stay off my lawn. Bgwhite (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not actually a dog-article maven, only got into that at one time because of the troll who I tracked after they had posted a Tom & Jerry screenshot on an unrelated article. For me, Hafs and Phil are the dog mavens. Anyway, I put the Buccleuch Avon article on my watch list in case it has further problems. I'm a Baby Boomer, and we never grow old ... Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Archiving AN/ANI

Softlavender, please do not archive cases so quickly. There could be a number of editors, including the filer, who would like to see how a case is resolved and there is no hurry to move them off of the page. I'd allow at least 24 hours after a case is settled before archiving the discussion to allow editors to see the resolution. There are cases where editors are unsatisfied with a case closure and want to reopen a case or they provide additional comments to it. Thanks for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I'm a very experienced archiver on ANI. I am archiving quickly for the WP:DENY issues, as is appropriate. Other threads I leave for at least 24 hours after close. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major opera composers (2nd nomination)

User:Kosboot has withdrawn his nomination. I think everyone is in agreement to "projectify" the article so WP:WikiProject Opera can work on it. Can you help?4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What a team!

Why don't we nominate [10] and [11] as chair and co-chair of a new anti-bullying taskforce? EEng (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• EEng, I do NOT need this when I come back from vacay. You should know better. Where's my "Happy Thanksgiving" message? My "We missed you" message? My "Hope you are OK" message? Just for that, I hope you get an anti-bullying tag-team trailing your ass and posting War and Peace–sized walls of text at you that quote the Bible while fulfilling Godwin's Law. Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)