User talk:Softlavender

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:Softlavender/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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.[1] 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".[2] 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 [3]. 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 [4]. 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 [5]. - 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

[6] 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. [7]). -- 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 [8]. 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)

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)

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)