Jump to content

User talk:Softlavender

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mjsullus (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 31 October 2018 (→‎Thank You). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 10 as User talk:Softlavender/Archive 9 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Eleven years of editing

Happy First Edit Day, Softlavender, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 06:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the music, in a supporting role. (She created a Strauss role, of a servant.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The World Only Spins Forward deletion nom

Hi, I'm a bit confused about The World Only Spins Forward: The Ascent of Angels in America being a content fork? I created the article because I had seen/heard quite a lot of coverage about it both before and after its release, in the Washington Post, NYT, on NPR, and in quite a few smaller outlets, but then found no article. However, I've never done much substantive editing on book articles, so I checked the WP:NBOOKS page before creating it, and found that it at least met the WP:GNG. I'm not sure why it would qualify as a content fork? I mean, certainly the book itself could be used as a source to help add to the content in Angels in America, but it's an oral history about not only the play itself but also the context and impact of the play in a more broad sense, and includes content about LGBT history, the AIDS epidemic, politics, etc. on a more broad level, so it's more than just a straight recounting of the production history. Certainly right now it's just a stub (I was planning on expanding once I'd gotten a copy of the book and had time to go through all the coverage on it) but as far as I can tell, WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POVFORK are the only unacceptable forks, so I'm not sure which one of those it falls under? Also, don't you typically merge forks, not delete them? Anyway, sorry for rambling, I'm a bit lost here, so I just wanted to understand a bit better about why you felt it should be deleted. Thank you! ElfLady64 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Zigzig20s! Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

???

"So whatever you are trying to say, the OED is saying that the English phrase "useful idiot" does not seem to correspond": I just said above that I did not feel "reflect" was a direct synonym for "correspond to" or even "mirror". And "trying to say" is rude when it should've been quite clear. Like I am spouting gibberish? Just like the OED may be wrong about etymology, English majors may be wrong about English. To embody, represent or reflect something requires that that something existed beforehand. Also consider what "reflect" means in physics in the sense of a mirror reflecting light. The light comes from a source, hits the mirror, and bounces off. And no this doesn't mean "mirror" is used to mean the same thing as reflect, I think it is used to mean more like "correspond to". Things can mirror each other at the same time, based on how we use the term. Mirror or correspond can be used to imply parallel existence but reflection implies prior existence. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Dear Softlavender, Francis Schonken does not seem to be respecting consensus at the moment.[1] That happened on a DYK hook created by Gerda, who has been helping me at her suggestion for two weeks or so (she asked me on her user talk page and I was happy to help her). Similarly consensus is not being respected in the accompanying article and the ongoing discussion, which involves reading a nuanced, carefully-written and lengthy chapter written in 2017. What is your advice? As encouraged by Gerda, I have contributed quite a lot to the main article and that is still happening. At the moment I want to write a brief paragraph about the Reformation in Strasbourg. It is easy to find reliable secondary sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly here.[2] On WT:WikiProject Classical Music#Split proposals regarding Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach there seems to be no consensus at all. Most of the content in Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach has been written by me and he has attempted to five sections simultaneously. Previously he attempted to move huge sections to new articles in January 2017, but consensus was against him in the archived discussion at WP:ANI. What is your advice? Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the involved editors need to work out the issues re: the DYK-nominated article amicably on the article's talk page. In terms of the keyboard concertos article, FS has frequently abused the "under construction" template to railroad unilateral, undiscussed, non-consensus changes into stable articles (most of which have been largely written by you), so at this point this is continued abuse of that and I have reverted. Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Francis Schonken's edits are continuing in the same way on "Keyboard concertos", ignoring WP:consensus. From what I can tell, Francis Schonken has methodically counted the number of reverts he has made and then waited for a certain time to start reverting again. From my general experience on wikipedia noticeboards, that kind of calculated edit-warring is not uncommon on WP:AN3. Sometimes administrators have referred to that kind of editing as "gaming the system". What is your advice? Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's up to you to determine what to do. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. On An Wasserflüssen Babylon, Francis Schonken seems to be trying to circumvent WP:consensus. In this edit [3] he unilaterally decided that were no issues with the lead so that he could remove any tags. In this case he used ]WP:BRD where it is not applicable. Indeed he was trying to stifle discussion, not to start any constructive discussion. Mathsci (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard concertos

Please don't invite other editors to edit war, like you did here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Claude Debussy

Well from your comment it is clear that you may not know much about Manuel de Falla, and even less about his music. If you cared to even read the article on Wikipedia about him, you can read this: "There he met a number of composers who had an influence on his style, including the impressionists Maurice Ravel, Claude Debussy and Paul Dukas". He is also mentioned in the article "Musical impressionism". If you want concrete examples his work Nights in the Gardens of Spain is described as "impressionistic". Also I understand that you might not know about the history of Spanish classical music, but Falla, like virtually every Spanish composer of the late 19th century and beginning of 20th century, completed his musical education in Paris, and was influenced by French music (other examples are Isaac Albéniz, Enrique Granados and Joaquín Rodrigo). What I thought would be discussed about my edit was whether Falla was relevant enough to be included on the list or not. I did not expect someone making a fool out of himself arguing about an obvious fact, that Falla was influenced by Debussy. I mean, I try not to opinate and argue about something I know nothing about, and I expected everyone to do the same. That's why your comment is surprising for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.236.52 (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP: Please read my edit summary, which advises you to make your case on the talkpage of the article (not here). Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits in Oh Shenandoah

Please, see WP:CON and WP:WAR. We can discuss any troubles and doubts about my/ your/ someone's else edits before such reverts: [4], [5], [6], [7]--Tamtam90 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Your advice please...

Greetings!

I took a look at instances where Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's editing conduct has been discussed at ANI. You made a number of comments last December, in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

I found this edit of yours particularly interesting.

  1. you mentioned a ruling connected with Betacommand. I am not familiar with this ruling. Where can I read about it?
  2. you told HW, paraphrasing, don't simply remove images that have a fair use rationale, instead initiate a (civil) discussion with the good faith uploaders, as the image may be eligible for inclusion under NFCC, if only you point out what is wrong with their rationale... have I got that right?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo Swan, I think you have my sentiments right. In terms of Betacommand (talk · contribs), the saga is too long and too far distant for me to encapsulate well. I suggest asking someone else, perhaps one of the participants on that ANI thread -- or doing your own research. I think one way of characterizing it would be that he was blocked/banned for disruptive over-zealous removal of borderline fair-use images, or images which had fair-use rationales that he disagreed with. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kiev/naming

The patience it takes to monitor the bimonthly thread where the next attempt (by the same players every month) to change Kiev to "Kyiv" will occur shortly! Thank you for your patience and persistence. --Taivo (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Taivo. The main problem is, the people who start the new threads do not realize it's been hashed over so many times. All *I* have to do is copy and paste the same close I've been using for the past 10 threads. :) Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANONYMOUS

mY Apologies for taking the liberty to write on your page, but I felt I must offer an explanation to your riposte.

I am aged 52, and have been writing this Wikipedian for over 15 years. Secondly, I wish to remain anonymous because of Vandalism and Abusive Offence on my pages that I have written.

Please DO NOT CONTA|CT Me again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvqnp940a (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You ave contact me again with another username/identity. This is precisely WHAT I DO NOT WANT. Please do not contact me AGAIN. Every time that i write in EDIT SUMMARY - there are persistent Vandalism, hacking, Deleting, and BOT junk e mails disrupting my account. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT at Parliament wiki pages against. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvqnp940a (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pvqnp940a, you can't forbid everybody from contacting you; Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and communication is fundamental to that. And you must use edit summaries. If you are not interested in abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I'm afraid your time here will be limited. All of your claims of vandalism etc. have nothing to do with edit summaries. Please provide edit summaries before you are reported to administrators. Thank you. Please also learn to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) Softlavender (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

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/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others' talk pages

Responding to this. You pointed me in the direction of the guidelines, so I went there and found WP:NOBAN:In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. This is jus in case you weren't aware of it. I'm not intereseted in debating this: I don't think messing about with the talk pages of others like that is very productive, but it's equally unproductive to be arguing about the title of a templated message that was posted last year to the talk page of a user who is now blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not and am not "messing about with the talk pages of others", I am correcting my own edit which the serial sockpuppeteer had changed to a completely POV, uncivil, misleading, incongruous, and nonsensical one, in violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Pepper lists/categories

Are you sure those moves are incorrect? After all, the category was emptied yesterday.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarek, I'm going to double-check those shortly via the three websites. I'll get back to you after I've checked them; and/or if I find them in error I may correct them myself. Thanks for the inquiry, as I realized after I changed one of them that I needed to double-check the company's/companies' official listings (which may in fact change over time). Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I also noticed on their list of brands that Peet's, etc., are now listed as KDP brands, instead of holding company brands, so the updating may need to be detailed. I'm almost afraid to help, because I'm worried I'll make things worse... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Sarek. I don't see Peet's in any of the on-wiki lists, but I had added Caribou Coffee, which is owned by JAB Holding Company. We can either delete Caribou from the list/navbox/category, or list it as a "partner brand" via JAB in the navbox. (It is listed on the new KDP website as among the "owned, licensed, partner, and allied brands" [8].) I'm fine with removing it (and also Gloria Jean's and Coffee People) altogether, which is probably the easiest thing to do. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went ahead and removed those three coffee brands from the list and navbox. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MLNV prisoners title

Hi Softlavender, hope you are doing well! I was thinking of changing the name of the article, long time is gone since the last consensus, and it is not accurate, and not descriptive. I was thinking Basque conflict prisoners should work out, without having to come to more controversial terms like political or terrorist. What do you think? Iñaki LL (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iñaki LL, I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask, as my knowledge of the subject has come simply from watching those articles for POV edits. The only way to get an official consensus to change would be to file an official WP:RM. It may be the case that the consensus remains to keep the easily identifiable English-language title. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the title lies with its linguistic and style correctness. It is easy to identify though. I will consider your suggestion. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Iñaki LL. You might start a simple discussion thread on the article's talk page to assess briefly whether anyone agrees with you about that. Even if someone does agree with you in an unofficial discussion, you'll still need to file an offical WP:RM before making any change, because even that change would be contested or controversial without a WP:RM. Hope that helps. :) Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Name

I really don't want to get in to this but forgetting the religious aspect, with your degrees I assume you are familiar with the Gospels. Thus you must know Nicodemus from John, and I can't imagine how the name is confusing. I could always pick The_Rake or The_Harlot but those days are over for me. Nicodemus (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldsilenus, I said your signature is very confusing [9]. It does not match your username in any way, shape, or form. If you want to use "Nicodemus" as your signature, please have your username changed to "Nicodemus" (right now your username is Oldsilenus). To do that, go to WP:RENAME. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Abject Apologies

I misunderstood what you meant--as should be clear from what I wrote. I will take care of things in the AM. It is rather late here now. You are the only person in 5 or more years to complain about this. I imagine anyone who references St. David's Day on their page knows about Nicodemus-- sorry about that also. Nicodemus (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I’m sorry but reverting once is not edit warring. But clearly it’s important to you to keep the brackets so I won’t change it. Rusted AutoParts 11:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Response to Your Question

User:Softlavender, I noticed where you asked me: "So now sincerely wanting to know the truth is peculiar to Yeshiva students?" Everyone is in search of the truth, perhaps though on different levels, and no one should be punished for that. I'm sorry if I insinuated otherwise.Davidbena (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calibre

Not worth my effort. Do keep the adds-nothing flannel. Ironman1104 (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of DS

Hi - I am posting the notice of DS to everybody recently active on Sarah Jeong who has not had a notice of these DS in the past year.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My typing

I typed correctly great Dane, but then I decided to make it Great Dane, and then I changed my mind yet again and meant to change it to great Dane but ended up deleting the first letter instead. I didn't notice it until Favonian replied. Ironic considering the section I wrote below. I used to almost never make mistakes when typing, while still typing at 100 wpm, but neither the speed nor the accuracy rate is as good as it used to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough (a phrase I hate as probably ungrammatical but there's no better way to say it), I was going to make the exact same joke but had decided it was too easy. So altogether better that you did so, as it wasn't your thread. Softlavender (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the play on words because it also expressed exactly how I feel about Favonian.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like and admire Fav a lot but I hadn't seen him around or interacted with him in eons, so good call. Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

Soft, thank you for your kind words at ARCA. I just wanted to say, the topic ban is from American politics, broadly construed.[10] Well, technically from "post-1932 American politics, broadly construed", but there's no real difference, is there — surely not in this case. I don't understand why you think it's too narrow. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks; fixed. Do me a favor though: Don't put me in your pocket, or Zilla's pocket, or whatever cavities exist in your various userpages. I would like an invitation to tea with The Lady, but I suppose that is too much to ask. Softlavender (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I understand it now. I guess I didn't click on those diffs in the appeal. How odd that none of them go to my actual ban. Or, maybe the diff offered for the log did show the ban, but it was broken (page not found). Cavities?? [Bishzilla stuffs the little user unceremoniously into the Victorian parlour.] Plenty of tea in there! [Listens to tiny squeals, nods, pleased.] Bishonen | talk 21:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Emily Langton Massingberd

Perhaps you could lead off your planned discussion of my edits on the talk page by answering my question for you - the reason you have for considering the additional information unnecessary. You could followed that by the reason my choice of words is not an improvement on yours - which are difficult to read and lack important information about the subject of the article. Eddaido (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of content belongs on the talk page of the article concerned. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I look forward to reading you contribution. Eddaido (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User/talk:Oldsilenus

Hello, I am curious to know that why you created User:Oldsilenus and User talk:Oldsilenus? I requested them to delete because user requested to rename to old username and redirect cause problem when we rename back to old usernames. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summaries. Also, please learn how to create a new thread on someone's talkpage by clicking "new section" at the top of the page. Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the edit summaries, but I bet you didn't saw the deletion log. Anyways issue has been solved now and thanks for your suggestion about creating new threads. Have a good day! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI close (Davidbena)

Shouldn't the closing comment there say that Davidbena has been topic-banned, not the filer? Maybe I'm missing something, since the filer also seems to be indeffed. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The filer was blocked for reasons that have nothing to do with the topic ban. @Softlavender, I took the liberty of replacing your closure of the first section.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse

Yw; let's see if it survives! Mathglot (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you're a vandal now

[11]Sheesh. Any ideas? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, that's up to those like you, Gerda, etc. who are interested in the article(s). I have all of those pages on my watchlist and I saw those edits last night. If you revert, I will support you, and if FS re-reverts he will be reported. Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be with you. I understand that the deal was back to square 1. - The major problem is that I think all edits introducing BWV3 (new numbers, declaring the others as "formerly", although they are still valid, and always will be, and I doubt the new ones will be used in concert announcements and recordings) were bold edits. 1RR? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're over-complicating things at present. The point is, FS is edit-warring to ram through a contested/opposed merge. If anyone objects to that, all they need do is revert him. Softlavender (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You probably watch my talk and saw that when I reverted him per WP:BRD (in the case described above, and on Classical music weeks ago), he decorated it with an edit warring notice. I will not revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't watch the notices on your usertalk. If you are afraid of FS's ploys, then you are under his thumb rather than using Wikipedia WP:PAGs. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not afraid (and of what?), but see that he doesn't understand what BRD means, and I am not able to explain. Take BWV 134a for example (edit summary of ignorance), and there are many others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he understands, he just wants to intimidate and overpower you and outlast you by bullying, edit-warring, false wikilawyering, falsely quoting PAGs, and gaming the system. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help

My AN/I thread that you just answered now has users who have WP:BULLY'd me in the past making arbitrary and broad complaints that are unhinged and even lies (than can be proven in my TP). One of those particular users that showed up suspiciously decided to 'noping' me when referencing my name. That is the same user that, on my TP, PA'd me for being a fan of the Washington Times, Fox News, etc. on the same day! Now there are two admins that showed up who say they are banning me!!!!!????? They want to ban me for the thing that you said wasn't wrong. I would appreciate it tremendously if you could see my rebuttal on that thread and help me out here. Thanks. -GDP⇧ 08:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An issue I'd like your feedback on

Hi, I'm contacting you because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Siskind and responded to W C M's lack of genuine effort/following of policy. I don't know if you saw their AfD comments targeted toward a project I'm involved in, WP:WPWIR, but I'm also contacting you because you're not involved in the project. For full disclosure, I had this ...discussion? with them here on this subject. I've noticed that ever since this AfD of his, they've gone from no AfD participation since May 2016 to 9 delete votes in the past two weeks, all on women's biographies, so I'm pretty sure they're stalking the Wikiproject's article alerts (their edits in Wikipedia: namespace). This doesn't seem to fit in any of the dispute resolution boards but I don't know if this is worth taking to ANI etc; since they don't seem to be familiar with notability policy/AfD, they're not very effective (or maybe they're trolling or just doing it to feel better?), but it really doesn't seem healthy or productive. Do you have any advice? Much appreciated. (Edit: Wow. Not to sound like the user above me, I promise I'm competent.) originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 14:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Originalmess. I think you may have a case considering their AfD stats: [12]. And considering they don't seem to do any research at all before !voting "Delete" on all of these articles. For instance, on Amy Siskind, their !vote was "Delete Clearly non-notable - there are zero hits in the news. Does not meet WP:GNG", which is patently absurd. They are clearly targeting women's articles and knee-jerk !voting for deletion with faulty and uninformed rationales. On August 11 TonyBallioni advised him to stay off of the discussions at WIR [13], and that's when he shifted to targeting women's articles at AFD instead. This could be considered bad-faith and/or tendentious !voting. In terms of what your next step might be, you may want to consult an administrator. Disclosure: I am not a member of WIR and do not follow or participate there. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your advice! I contacted you specifically because you're not a member and aren't involved in any way. I will contact someone, thanks again. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 23:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Hi Softlavender. Please see this thread at ANI, which includes a link to a previous thread you commented on. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lane weakens to tropical storm near Hawaii, but more damage expected

Thinking about you. Hope you are safe. Best wishes ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 19:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth! I was wondering when someone on-wiki was going to pick up on the fact that I have been in the path of a hurricane. Thanks for your concern. The good news is, although it was still a hurricane when it was closest to my island (the Big Island of Hawaii), I emerged unscathed. It dropped 50 inches of rain on my town (Hilo), flooding rivers and the bayfront areas, but because Hilo is always set up to handle heavy rain and tsunami-type surges, very few homes were flooded. My house-lot did not flood (much of this island has lava soil which has perfect drainage), and my house is up on stilts anyway. There were no winds at all; we were protected by the two giant mountains mid-island. So although it was a tiny bit nerve-wracking to track the information for three days, the concern has passed for my island. It may affect Maui and Oahu, but it is severely weakened now and its path has been diverted, which was the hoped-for best-case scenario all along. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is such good news S. I am glad that you are safe and sound. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Didn't know you were in Hawaii. Good to hear you are safe. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks M and S! We really actually need to thank the giant and high volcanoes on this very large island, which always shred and divert hurricanes, and also create a "wind shadow" so the hurricane(s) loses force. So perhaps we should be thanking Madame Pele for once this year. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So pleased to read this good news. You would seem to live in the best position in the state and probably in the United States. All the best! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 08:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, glad to hear the news is good SL: apologies, though, for some reason I always thought you were in...err!...New York?! Odd! Either way, I'm glad all is well and your air is cleaner 🌼 —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

consensus for courtesy blanking of libelous material

In regard to this edit: Where is the proper forum to seek consensus for a thing like this? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talkpage of the page in question would be the first place to try. If there were actually anything libelous on the page (there isn't), you could also query WP:BLPN. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so sure there isn't before the case has been made? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2018 (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.

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" WP:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health has been blanked and protected despite a unanimous consensus of 13 admins and experienced editors against blanking: "

This insinuates misuse of the tools on my part-- that I acted against consensus and then abused the community's trust to enforce that action. To be clear I responded to a request at WP:RFPP, saw what looked like a bizarre yet clear-cut need for protection and protected the disputed page. As the request was for indefinite full protection and I protected for two days, I think it was a measured, reasonable and even-handed response. I noted on the talk page at the time that I disagreed with the blanking and felt that other remedies were available. I would also like to point out that the protection was mooted by the number of admins edit warring on the page. Any of them could have unblanked. The only way I new about this insinuation was I was mentioned in the ANI thread by someone pointing out my lack of involvement. I would certainly appreciate it if you would notify me when calling my actions into question, especially on a notice board like ANI, or first raise your concerns on my talk page. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perche

Re this post: the RfC already did have a brief and simple question, and it may be found at the start of the section, preceded by the word "Brief". The upshot on the RfC listings is that one entry has been replaced by something that is not much different (in fact it is three words longer), and since the rfcid was changed, all the inward links have been broken. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fram

Honestly their comportment at AN/I is a big part of the reason I'm opposing the actions they're supportingLess receptive to your comments than I'd otherwise be. Notwithstanding that I suspect canvassing led to the influx of frequently correlated accounts all singing from the same songbook, their combative tone toward any dissent is really off-putting. Like they're calling me a liar because I disagree with them? No. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've just admitted to a bad-faith !vote. Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't. I clearly supported the first proposal with my !vote before Fram started attacking me. What I'm saying is that their comportment is making it pretty hard for me to see their side and I felt it better to tell you that here than going off on a tangent even further at AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Honestly their comportment at AN/I is a big part of the reason I'm opposing the actions they're supporting." Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly phrased. Rewording and striking through as appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Snyder

Hi, I'm the editor who started the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about using yearbooks as sources. Anyway, thanks for your participation. I see you've been editing Snyder's bio. Looks good. I'm writing because I added content in the lead, which I see you just removed, about Snyder's ubiquitous advertising. I did so because it's the overwhelming, or perhaps only, reason Snyder is notable. Therefore, I was shocked there wasn't anything about it in the lead. The Pittsburgh area has literally thousands of lawyers, but Snyder became notable because he completely saturated television and other media (radio, magazines, phone books, etc.) with his advertising. It made him very famous (or infamous, depending on one's outlook) and put his name recognition locally at nearly 100%, according to sourcing already in the article. So I felt it was vital to expand the lead to include why he became so well known and therefore notable. Without the massive advertising, he almost surely would not be Wikipedia notable. What do you think? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please confine all discussion of the content of the article to the article's talkpage, rather than usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God some sense

I couldn't have put it better myself. But there are people defending these daft and dubious stubs to the hilt... Sigh... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he was on a spree. If he created more of these uncited stubs re: areas outside of UAE, I'm afraid Wikipedia has a giant cleanup on its hands. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb, you should probably post a notice about the problem on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Arab Emirates. For convenience, you can just link to [14] if desired. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, I'm the only active member on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Arab Emirates - and one of the lapsed ones is Mr Geography. I'm onto Ras Al Khaimah next and it's a truly Augean task... The NUMBER of 'Keep, it might be useful' responses has amazed me and when I tried to create a similar stub for an EXISTING location, it got speedy deleted and moved to draft. Le sigh. Thanks for the smiles, though! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then if I were you Alexandermcnabb I'd find a relevant active Wikiproject; perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab world. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost done. I'll have a go at RAK tomorrow and if I find another pile of this stuff beyond that I'll take your advice and scream for help. Cheers! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb (forgive the pings: I'm not sure if you are watching), I am mainly talking about the AfDs. If people are using faulty rationales for !voting to keep articles on "places" that either don't exist or don't exist where the "article" states, then more knowledgeable people need to participate in those AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NP pings, watching for discussion. Agree, but so far most AfDs are (thanks to your additional interventions) going well. One was even turned into a passable-ish stub because my 'sarcasm' (exasperation!) stung one participant into finding reasons why one tiny community was notable. Which was, after all, a good WP result! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your voice of reason. After a long day cleaning out a very Augean stable, it's nice to know someone else agrees with the decisions! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A final and heartfelt thanks - I got to the end of the whole Ras Al Khaimah mess. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I'm glad you came to the end of the alphabet. My worry is that John Carter got ahold of other such pamphlets and created numerous nonsensical three-word stubs about other non-existent places. I'm almost afraid to look. Someone needs to look through ALL of John Carter's created articles. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're safe, it was just UAE. Here's my guess: in 1959, the Trucial Oman Scouts went around the countryside asking people where they were and to whom they owed loyalty. This was eventually used to create the borders of the modern UAE. However, in the intervening 60-odd years, places have come and gone, been subsumed by development or had originally either been encampments or temporary dwellings. The people of the time were often nomadic. Some place names are very funny ('Ku'far means 'unbeliever', so someone was having his inquisitive white British leg pulled. Those place names got copied down and repeated (many early Internet drop-down menus used archaic town names like Dubayy for Dubai or A'Sharikha for Sharjah), and M. Carter got hold of a 1987 version of that list and just banged it without checking into Wikipedia. That's my 2p worth as to how it all happened! And the spellings are a devil - only recently have spellings started to settle down - Wadi Qawr or Wadi Quwr or Wadi Qor etc. Hey ho! Bestest Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning: stop adding unsourced, contentious content to a BLP

Regarding Edgar Snyder, what are you trying to prove by continually restoring unsourced, contentious content to a BLP? You have been editing long enough to know that you do not add information that is not contained in the sources. This is your third warning about this. We write what the sources say, not what we assume happened after that. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please confine all discussion of the content of the article to the article's talkpage, rather than usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about your disruptive behavior, not about the content of the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a note on the talk page. I think you have gone over WP:3RR, so please see the talk page discussion ASAP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're incorrect. I had 3 and SL had 3, and she hit the 3 first. But my 3 were allowed under 3RR exemption #7. So, why didn't you issue SL a warning? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the job of an admin is to try and reduce disruption and defuse difficult situations, not whack a longstanding editor (with a clean block log) over the head with a silly block! And "I am right and the other party is wrong" never gets you off the hook with a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I really appreciate the improvements you have added to my little article idea SL. Wikipedia:Squirrel! may need a further member in it's listing! Kind regards, Simon Adler (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Haha yes, squirrelling is fun! Congrats on your first article, Si, and thanks for the strawberries! Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User raintheone

I am very sorry for the way i have acted. I should not get my personal life involved with editing. I enjoy editing and all my edits are detailed and good. I like watching Hollyoaks and i feel like i am helping them while editing the characters. I promise to stay away from User raintheone if she stays away from my editing Thank you Pdineen03 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief (in the voice of Charlie Brown)

This is still going on?! Feel free to remove this S. MarnetteD|Talk 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, M. Admins Gone Wild is a weekly show, after all. And lately it has added a degree of mystery and confusion to the episodes. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HeeHee. MarnetteD|Talk 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

arabic geography

It would be really great if you could please be more AGF with john's items as to whether they are nonsense or not, I could wordbomb here about the problems that have been discussed at length on mcnabs talk page - it is very easy to judge - but somewhat more problematic (If you are indeed and arabic speaker with knowledge of the middle east, please check me - my original expertise is Indonesia) - than meets the eye - to litter AFD's with 'nonsense' may fulfil some need for your part, but I would be very cautious as to indiscretions by many here on wp - who think they have a valid source - that turns out to be, in many cases complete and utter BS through no fault of their own. salaam. JarrahTree 05:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but not going to happen. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multichannel television in the United States

I didn't realize the definition of "MVPD" had been removed. I'm not sure if what I did to restore the definition was correct, but it's as good a place as any. The article went through a major overhaul. I had contributed a lot of the content prior to the overhaul but I've pretty much left it alone since then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in New York City

Please don't blanket revert thousands of longstanding bytes without discussion first. Most of the notable people without their own Wikipages are notable enough to warrant their own Wikipage. That's the WP:burden. Your understanding of this issue is not correct. Did you happen to see the note left above by the reviewer on my Talk page regarding a new article I created? The standard is that those listed with refs who could warrant their own page qualify to remain in the notable people section, rather than people who already have Wikipages created. But your thinking defies logic, because you're implying that until a Wikipage is created, one is not notable - but a Wikipage cannot be created in the first place unless one is notable. Does that make sense? Castncoot (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Castncoot (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Energy

If you got the energy, there's another bunch of those useless geostubs over at AfD! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's almost worth the effort of the cleanup to read your marvellously grumpy Delete votes! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding what you have done. Leo1pard (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O'Keefe

Thanks for your edits at the Dan O'Keefe page. If you have the interest at some point there is a similar COI tag at Festivus, which would be nice to have removed before December. O'Keefe edited that page quite a bit, but I've had it watchlisted and there doesn't seem to be any major violations but good additions to the concept and history of the topic. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Randy Kryn (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now Festivus can be celebrated by tens of thousands (or at least tens) without the template blocking the view. You, good editor, have deservedly survived many feats of strength. Thanks again! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Softlavender. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC). 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.

GABgab 17:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Awww, thanks, that was very sweet of you!!! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short note

You may imagine that I would have appreciated it if you'd said that the first time you reverted, instead of just using rollback with no explanation, especially considering that I provided an explanation for my revert and that it was clearly not vandalism. I'm not interested in edit-warring, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized that even while it happened, Mr rnddude. I pushed the wrong button and it was too late. Softlavender (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. Hadn't thought of that, rollback doesn't provide a prompt. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Happy editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone is an inveterate trollish/disruptive editor, I assess issues and behavior rather than how often I have disagreed with someone (just ask Jytdog LOL). I only recall disagreeing with you a few times on ANI (I think I snapped at you once recently for being dramatic), or more precisely I can't really remember whether I often disagree with you or not, but like I said I don't keep track and I try to assess every case on its merits. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Apologies for my missteps. Thank you for your help with the format.71.56.169.162 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to locate source for Maria Callas' citizenship in Italy in 1949 as listed in Wikipedia Italy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas). Callas was a US born and raised citizen and also Greek citizen (due to parent's Greek citizenship).Filmartiste 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)mjsullus

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Softlavender&oldid=866696502"