User talk:Softlavender: Difference between revisions

Hello, I updated the article and included in it both Android and iOS apps. Please review it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs) 08:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HT

Re this, what's the alternative? Are you suggesting that we stop copying his comments? Do we recognize any right to a self-defense? If so, where is the line? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bourdain

Unsure why you removed the edit "In September 2017, outside an airport in Los Angeles, Bourdain threatened to poison U.S. President Donald Trump if given the chance ref https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwxBVX7HZtU /ref" Given that this is a factual statement, an event which occurred on video, and certainly adds to the section in which is was placed, discussing Bourdain's public persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glialsupporter (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Softlavender, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh 666 23:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

Humour: Chickenz

Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

Gallery: Chicken mania

Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

Traffic report: Fights and frights

Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN Thread

Thanks.

Other than the fact that there were some active FFD/CSD's I'd have asked you to monitor User:ShakespeareFan00 closely.

And thanks for letting the other party know about the AN thread. I perhaps should have left that notification myself? Time to take an extended wiki-break, to allow tempers to cool down. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen concerns

Hello Softlavender. Per the articleinfo results the person you are obliquely referring to must be User:A.S. Brown. In your posting to User:Drmies could you clarify if that is the case? Also, one would normally expect some discussion on the article talk about this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Softlavender. You have new messages at [[User talk:WP:ANI|User talk:WP:ANI]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy lead, redux

Please see Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, about resolving questions not resolved in the earlier RfC. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 17:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Cantagrel

Hi,

I see you've been working on Wiki for ten years. You should therefore know that no one can edit an article which bears the template "in use" which you nonetheless did which resulted in the loss of 5 references and 5 external links that I had added. Wiki being a collaborative encyclopedy, feel free to repair you error. Thanks; LouisAlain (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ships passing in the night

I was looking at your recent postings to ANI and though how sensible, those look like someone with experience around here. I then noticed on you home page that you have been editing for more than 10 years which confirmed my suspicion. So I ran interaction tool, and that is why I did not recognise the user name. It seems that the only time where we have previously posted to the same section in less than a day was an RfC on Talk:Simon Collins (I was only there to fire fight.) So not surprising that I did not recognise the user name. Keep up the good work. -- PBS (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Dispute

Hello, I am reaching out to you about a recent dispute you were involved in regarding the Smartmatic article. From my understanding, you commented on the case after user ZiaLater reported users Carriedevalle23 and E-Dem snoopy for a possible conflict of interest. I am writing an in-depth article about the management of Wikipedia and I am trying to learn more about situations like yours. Would you be willing to talk to me more about this situation? --Investigativereporter (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Investigativereporter has been indeff blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Month in the Country

Still haven't found a 60s screening date in the US but I have two more sources that establish it was filmed in 1967. The first is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald for 14 Jan 1968 about designer Lex Aitkin stating "Recently he has completed two houses for Susannah York as well as the sets for her new American film, A Month in the Country." The second is an article about Susannah York from the Detroit American 9 July 1968 stating she "appeared in the lead opposite her husband, English actor Michael Wells, in a screen version of the successful London theatre show "A Month in the Country," directed by Wells." There's another article about Susannah from the Chicago Tribune-Sun for 16 August 1970 talking about the staging of the play by York and Wells in 1967 but it doesn't say anything making a film of it which implies it hadn't been screened by 1970.

The earliest screening I can find is July 1978 on CBC Channel 9 in July 1978 where it was seen in both Canada and the northern US. If you want pdf's of all these I can email them to you.

A factor about the film that might be relevant is that is was the first colour TV film made for the American market - this is cited in the obituary of designer Alan Pickford in The Times 21 March 2003 - so it could be that the American TV companies decided not to screen the show until the use of colour TVs was more widespread? Nthep (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant sleuthing, Nthep! I appreciate it so much! Yes, it would be excellent if you could send copies of those articles to me. The Canadian air date comports with the IMDB release info: [1]. Also, I as well had seen somewhere (tiny snippet view of something on GoogleBooks I think) that it was the first color TV film for the American market, but I hadn't extrapolated to your theory, which is certainly plausible. I'm trying to remember the first color TV series from my childhood, and I came up with Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In, which began airing in January 1968. Anyway, thanks so much again! Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Nthep. I don't know if you have access to 1970s film magazines, but I've added two articles on the subject to my RX request: [2]. --- Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nthep (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, Nthep! Thanks so much for all of those. Especially the Stage article. I myself had read about it being originally performed at the York/Wells estate, and then filmed, but I read that info on a Google snippet or something a few years ago when I was originally researching this, and this week I could not find that info at all when searching again, so I'm so glad you found it for me! I'm not currently clear whether the filming of it was necessarily done during the live performances on those four days .... I think for the sake of audio and camera positions, they probably reprised it, without an audience, on a later date that summer, and that's what I think I remember other sources saying (although I'm not certain). It's also interesting that the Stage article also gives cast members; 4 of those 13 listed cast members are different from the 13 listed on IMDB, which also gives credence to the fact that the filmed version may have been a reprise and some of the cast might have changed due to not being available or whatever. The articles do give credence that the film took place at the York/Wells estate in Frankham/Sussex, although I think at least one mention I've come across said (probably mistakenly) that it was filmed in London (that was probably an American source -- to Americans, "England" is equivalent to "London" LOL). Anyway, thanks again! The puzzle is falling into place.
PS: It's weird per your provided newspaper page that it aired in Michigan in July 1978 (same as in Canada) on the local CBS affiliate, but no evidence to your knowledge that it aired elsewhere in the U.S. on that date? Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP Topic Ban

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP Topic Ban 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, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request for arbitration has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

I removed a duplicated comment - you clearly did not make the exact comment twice in the same thread with the same time stamp. I'm also not an involved editor in anyway at all so your revert of my close was mistitled. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marriage

The previous people involved in the discussion of Template talk:Marriage are being contacted to help gain consensus. --RAN (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

Humour: Guys named Ralph

In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

In the media: Facebook and poetry

Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bourdain

That's why you are removed my content about Anthony Bourdain? Do you think I'm lie ? Please try read about this information Ministry of Foreign affairs of Azerbaijan Republic. HajisoyE (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) https://www.cntraveler.com/story/anthony-bourdain-has-been-blacklisted-by-azerbaijan-after-visiting-disputed-territory[reply]

HajisoyE, this fact is insufficiently noteworthy to place in the biography of a living person on this encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austen Adaptations

With respect to your comment on my talk page, I found it rather rude, and I think you don't need to police Wikipedia in such a way. Everything I have added in my edits is true and verifiable, and fully relevant to and noteworthy for the subject of the encycolpedia pages. There is nothing wrong with saying certain literary works exist, when they do, and there is evidence to show that they do. There is no self-promotion in the text of my edits, any more than there is in any of the other listings of such works as I list. Bubbly1558 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cuomo image

Image has now been cropped by GRuban. I'm closing this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You wrote We don't use group images for infoboxes - can you point to where that is a policy or guideline? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are reserved for images which immediately and clearly identify the subject. Group images do not accomplish that. You are welcome to crop the image to remove the additional people (very common and very easy), or to place the group image in the body text of the article. Alternatively, you may start a discussion on the talk page of the article about using the full group image in the infobox of the article. The additional problem with having a group image in an infobox is that it is, or can appear as, a form of editorialization: (1) deliberately and initially grouping the living person with other public figures who may or may not have significant overlap in beliefs and outlook, or commonality, with the living person, or (2) as initially inflating a person's importance because the photograph may be with far more prominent people. Softlavender (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be an interesting idea, I don't think it's a rule. Here for example are two Wikipedia:Good articles which do exactly have group images: Bert Bell, Charles Cabaniss. I didn't have to go very far down the alphabet. Here are two Wikipedia:Featured articles the infoboxes of which don't have the person it's about in the infobox image at all: Hu Zhengyan; Jacob van Ruisdael. Here is a Featured article which does have the person it's about in the image, but he's hardly the focus: Henry Moore; you'll notice that image wasn't cropped only to him. --GRuban (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the group photos are on WP:BLPs, and none of the non-group–photos apply to group photos in a WP:BLP infobox. My points stand. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are five other Wikipedia:Featured articles about individuals in which the infobox is a group picture: William Hillcourt, Stanley Green, Alcibiades, Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Alice Ayres. I'm sorry, but I think you're making up this rule; reasonable though it may be, clearly many of the articles that we judge the best in the encyclopedia don't follow it. You are quite right in describing this as your point, I don't think the rest of the encyclopedia shares it. --GRuban (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the group photos are on WP:BLPs, and none of the non-group-photo images apply to group photos in a WP:BLP infobox. My points stand. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I've read WP:BLP, and can't see anything about group photos. Did I miss it? But OK. Wikipedia:Good articles with a group photo in the WP:BLP infobox. Susannah Constantine; Misty Copeland; Thom Darden; Obi Ezeh... --GRuban (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I've already explained to you why a random group photo in a WP:BLP infobox is contentious, and explained the other simple alternatives for using the photo. The images you just listed are not random group photos: the first is the subject with her professional partner, the rest are in-performance photos of a dancer and two athletes. If you post further here, I am going to move the entire conversation to Talk:Chris Cuomo, because discussions of article content should be on article-talk, not user-talk. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And neither was this, this was the subject with his professional partner, and a rather important interview subject (a senator; Cuomo's a political journalist). But, I guess that is the thing about being contentious, if you say it's contentious, it is. Cropped. --GRuban (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I admit it; the cropped photos actually look better in the two articles I put the whole one in. Here, I see you're working on Indigo children? Maybe this will help. It's not very good resolution, but, it's a free image. --GRuban (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally add images of the various authors involved to articles about concepts, much less fringe concepts. That image would belong on the article on the subject. I have commented out the image you posted above and am closing this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiThanks

A flower, then? Feel free to remove this too if it bothers you. I just want to say thanks for helping, despite my best efforts to resist. --GRuban (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's sweet! I appreciate it, and appreciate the cropping on both of the infobox images. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reaching out to me. I apologize for.the miscommunication. I haven't communicated with other users yet so it's still a bit confusing to me learning to navigate on here. I trimmed the Ali/Clay paragraph on the Malcolm X page and posted. I also corrected the Blood Brothers book citation. I appreciate the feedback. Twixister (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Thank you for reviewing my edit to Beethoven. While "irascible" may be a common adjective for you, it is not common for me. I had to look up the definition. I did know what deafness and bipolar disorder mean, yet links have been provided for readers who do not know their meanings. I suggest either replacing the word "irascible" with a more common word such as "ill-tempered," or "cranky," or add a phrase clarifying the meaning. I will watch this spot for other suggestions you may have for improving the article. Thanks again for reviewing my edit. Comfr (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To'ak Chocolate

That material had been challenged. I missed the earlier explanation by the original editor on the talk page, but there is still no consensus to include it. I don't see anything particularly useful in describing how chocolate is made and as far as I see there is nothing special about the description that is particular to this chocolate bar, so I agree that it should not be included in the article. Meters (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently at ANI...

Edit warring notice

You are edit warring at Pardon of Joe Arpaio and restoring a challenged BLP violation that was removed twice, claiming in your edit summary that the article is not a BLP. Please stop edit warring. You have been an editor long enough to know BLP policy, and have been asked to discuss making changes beforehand on the TP. You also need to revisit the source you cited because it is one person's "perspective" on Arpaio, it is not about the pardon; therefore, a questionable source. You have not attempted to discuss anything and chose to edit war instead. You are not even trying to collaborate in a collegial manner with others. I have taken the BLP vio concerns to BLPN.^{Atsme📞📧} 13:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return to where placed, please

I put my additional comments under my original request for a good reason: because it needs to be read by those reading the request and not lost in the comments below. I'd appreciate it if you move it back right away. Truth be told, you should have asked first and/or notified me since they are my comments (and I was clear in why I placed them where I did in the comments themselves). Thanks for your cooperation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can relabel it, but it needs to stay in the proper chronological place, per WP:TPG, especially since numerous editors had already responded. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly...

Why are you not an admin? GMG ^talk 01:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People have asked me to run, but (A) I don't like responsibility, (B) I spend "too much time" here already, (C) I don't really want any more buttons to push or tools to learn/deal with, and (D) I actually think I am more effective as a non-admin. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though! :) That's very kind/nice! Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh horse shit. It's not a symbolic gesture. The only thing I care about it the project, and it would be better off if you had buttons. Right now you're the only person I would consider nominating myself, because you're the only person I can think of where the nominator wouldn't matter. You're so qualified it's very nearly disrespectful not to stand. You're making excuses. GMG ^talk 01:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually a good number of experienced, longterm, highly wiki-knowledgeable, highly qualified, neutral editors who prefer to remain non-admins. Most of them are probably primarily content creators. I genuinely wasn't joking when I said I don't like responsibility; as I told Kudpung once, the thought of being an admin makes my shoulders tense up. I do appreciate the fact that you are very sincere. But we can't always have what we want: I dearly want Tokyogirl79 to run for ArbCom but she has had too many life commitments these past few years. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a good deal of fairly uncontroversial backlogs where admins are volunteering, because no one else will. It's not a kingdom; it's a soup kitchen begging for volunteers. GMG ^talk 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those backlogs don't interest me, and I sincerely appreciate those who have the stomach for it. Basically, everyone on Wikipedia gravitates to what they are most comfortable with and happiest doing, which is how it should be. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

Technology report: Searching and surveying

Interview: A featured article centurion

WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

Featured content: We will remember them

Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy turkey day

Haha thanks very much, Northamerica1000! Leave it to you to send food-related holiday greetings! ;-) Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, it's fun to send these to people who aren't in the U.S./North America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Datari Turner

Hey Softlavender, hope you're well. As I'm sure you saw, Datari Turner's page got deleted, but I appreciate you stepping in with your comments about WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT and WP:GNG. I am going to review a few of the guidelines with my client, and should we decide to re-submit to AfC, I wanted to see if you'd be courteous enough to volunteer your time to quickly review our draft to see if you think it passes guidelines for notability / neutral language? Would be much appreciated. Let me know. Thanks! JacobMW (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not interested. Softlavender (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles

@Megalibrarygirl: (pinging you since you also did some work on the article) Hey there, I saw you took an interest in editing Ruth Jones article. I have additional drafts at AfC, Deborah Gebhardt, Joey Vrazel, and Marsha Reall, if you are interested in improving them. I believe I have enough citations for notability, but if you think I need more, I can scrape newspapers.com or other sources for additional sources. Thanks for your work on the Purdue athletics articles, and if you do not want to or have time to edit these, no worries! Kees08 (Talk) 20:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kees08, good to hear from you. I don't think I have the time to help out on those drafts, but it looks like you are doing well with them. One thing I will recommend is using the {{friendly search suggestions}} template to help searching. Put the template at the top of your draft, and then click on the links to find sources. The main reason I mention that is that the link called "WP reference" is a Custom Google Search that cuts through a lot of nonsense and only returns notable sources. It's how I was able to quickly find the Washington Post mention of Ruth Jones. @Megalibrarygirl: might be interested in that Custom Google Search as well. I also just discovered this page which has some good searching tools: WP:Advanced source searching. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take a look, Kees08, though I'm running behind on a lot of things, so be patient with me. Also, thank you for the custom search info, Softlavender. I love search hacks. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail?

It's not because I particularly want a reply, or further conversation, but for curiosity and my archives: did you receive my e-mail, which I sent via the "e-mail this user" function yesterday? Bishonen | talk 17:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes ... plus one gets a notification via the red notifications. You can always also post a YGM on talk. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Softlavender. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chas. Caltrop

You are being notified because you participated in a previous AN/I report about this editor. Another report has been filed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Mora article

I see you redirected the article,but how long does that take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not redirect the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote this- Redirect to Nuestra Belleza El Salvador#Representatives in Big Four pageants, per NewYorkActuary, and full protect the Redirect. We've got a massive sock/meat farm constantly trying to pump up or recreate the entry (as evidenced even by the participation in this AfD), so we need protection against that. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

so I am confused,what are you doing with the article? keep or redirect?

the discussion is closed on the administrator noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not redirect the article, as anyone can see: the article still exists. You are either confused, or your English is not clear. If I were you, I'd stay away from the subject, as you are clearly a single-purpose account and your edits do not seem in good faith. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not editited the Julia Mora article anymore. But I have been watching you. Its obvious this article is going tp either be redirected or deleted. why is that still ongoing? do you ever sleep softlavender? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Julia Mora. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please don't

Please don't reply to other people's messages. It is rude. Thanks. And please don't talk to me again. Thanks. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 267: / Line 267: @@
 # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
 If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> [[User:Lacypaperclip|Lacypaperclip]] ([[User talk:Lacypaperclip|talk]]) 08:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
+== please don't ==
+Please don't reply to other people's messages.  It is rude.  Thanks.  And please don't talk to me again.  Thanks. [[User:Mister Sneeze A Lot|Mister Sneeze A Lot]] ([[User talk:Mister Sneeze A Lot|talk]]) 12:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)