User talk:Softlavender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Boy in the Red Vest.jpg


The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

Signature issues[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Constitutional crisis[edit]

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

A birthday[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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?[edit]

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 [1]. - Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened[edit]

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![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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! Face-smile.svg 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)


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[edit]

DYK for Bells Across the Meadows[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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?[edit]

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 ( 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[edit]

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[edit]

[2] 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[edit]

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 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.[edit]

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![edit]

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 remove this notice 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. [3]). -- 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[edit]

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[edit]

Hello. It appears you posted some sources half way down this AfD page [4]. These are PDFs from "International Journal of Hydrogen Energy", and other links to Progress in Physicsm Biotech Week, News of Science, Energy Weekly News, and Gulf Industry, and so on. It seems someone changed these to wiki links that go to their respective Wikipedia articles. Do you have the correct external links so that one may view these sources? Also, if someone did this to undermine the discussion then that seems to me to be POV behavior -unless you intended these to be Wiki links, which does not seem to be the case. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No one has altered my post. All the external links are there. The first nine are numbered 2–10; the last five are not numbered. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]


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

Well, it certainly spells privilege correctly, I can tell you that. EEng 08:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
DionysosProteus, the OED is not the "standard" for anything (except the OED), much less Wikipedia. Please keep all discussions of article content on the article's talk page, rather than on user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Well, I'm looking right at the OED entry itself [5] and it gives premiere and première as alternative forms. EEng 04:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Tommy's Honour[edit]

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

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

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

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

I can document the Google problem if you want -- I spent untold amounts of time trying to find someone who understood it and to find a solution to it, to no avail, until I realized I could add the INDEX magic word. The magic words NOINDEX and INDEX definitely do something. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I normally refer to H:MW, but Bgwhite has already done that. I think that the action of __NOINDEX__ varies by namespace: in some (like the Draft space) it does nothing because that namespace is already noindexed; in mainspace I believe that it does nothing because something in the MediaWiki software causes it to be ignored (we want all articles to be indexed); but in others, it is definitely acted upon. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
NOINDEX definitely works in userspace; INDEX works in articlespace. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What does __INDEX__ do in article space that isn't already done by default? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It causes Google to index new articles that have apoostrophes in the title, which Google hasn't been properly indexing for at least a year. It's a problem specific to Google; Bing and Yahoo do not have this problem. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. Tommy's Honour is still listed in a Google search. INDEX is no longer needed after its on Google? I checked several articles with an apostrophe on the new page feed. All but one weren't listed on Google or Bing. ‎Coeur d'Alene School District is on Bing, but not on Google. I went further back, Santa Maria dell'Itria, Ragusa is only on Bing, but everything else is on both Google and Bing. I'm not seeing where an apostrophe is causing a problem with Google. Maybe fixed? Bgwhite (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
No, not fixed, as you've noticed. Google indexes Wikipedia instantly, in real time. New articles come up immediately and are the #1 or #2 spot in Google results. As you mentioned, that's not happening. Tommy's Honour is now (and still) at #3 and has a Google infobox -- my adding the "INDEX" magic word finally got it to index properly. Now that it's indexing properly, hopefully it will continue to do so even without the magic word. Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Not instantly, people have complained why their new article isn't seen by Wikipedia after six hours. It's usually within two hours. Articles are rarely listed at #1 right away. Being on Wikipedia is only one factor on where an article is ranked, other factors are.... how many sites link to the Wikipedia article, how an AI views the article, if SSL is turned on by default, if it is disability accessible and many others. It is common to have Wikipedia articles list #5 and below. Having Tommy's Honour listed below IMDb and the film's website is also common. Star Wars is ranked #3, The Room is #2, Prizzi's Honor is #2 and Logan's Run is #1. Logan's Run and Prizzi's Honor don't have _INDEX_ and are ranked fine. Having _INDEX_ just doesn't affect ranking. As I mentioned above, all but two articles I checked with apostrophes where listed at Google and Bing. Santa Maria dell'Itria, Ragusa is on Google and probably was yesterday as it's ranked lower. Coeur d'Alene School District is still not on Google. I'll ask at WP:VPT. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That's just not true nowadays in my experience (it was possibly true 6–10 years ago). There's no dependency on other articles linking to the wiki article, and so on. If people can't find their article on Google, it's because they aren't enclosing it in quotation marks when searching. INDEX does affect proper indexing -- before I used it on this article it came up #10 or so on Google -- even after huge viewer spikes from being on DYK, Google Help Forum, VPT, etc. The folks at VPT are even more clueless -- I already inquired back three months ago and those people don't even know how to use quotation marks either, or how to set their searches to 100 results. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I listed it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Question on INDEX and Google.. I've seen articles not show up on Google for a few hours and yes I know about quotation marks. Some articles can be 20-30 down, even with quotation marks. Google ranks all pages on how many outside links there are to the page. Wikipedia articles follow this also. If there are more outside sites linking to the article, the higher the rank. All Wikipedia articles go thru the same ranking programs as all other sites do. Wikipedia, IMDb, .edu and many home sites get an advantage as Google marks them as trustworthy. There are many more variables in the page rank equation. Again, Wikipedia does go thru Google's ranking process, just Wikipedia gets some advantages. I cannot see how _INDEX_ affects page rank. Just two different things and the page is already listed by Google... It's already "indexed". I can't see how adding _INDEX_ get's it seen by Google, unless there other things at play that cause pages not to be seen for awhile. Bgwhite (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Arbitration propossed decision[edit]

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


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

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

Nisha Ganatra Page[edit]

Hi Softlavender,

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

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

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

Is our friend back?[edit]

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

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

RfC for page patroller qualifications[edit]

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

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

What a read[edit]

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

Heh. It certainly was a lot of sound and fury. Don't know that it merited all that acrimony, but hey, this is Wikipedia. Hope things are well in your neck of the woods. Hey, did you happen to see Hunt for the Wilderpeople, starring Sam Neill? To quote a line in the script, "it was the best". -- Softlavender (talk)
Things are well here as we are experiencing nice autumn. As far as I know the film hasn't hit town yet. I did see Sam on Graham Norton last night and they showed a clip from the film. Add that to your enjoyment of the film and I am looking forward to seeing it. MarnetteD|Talk 03:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it's there now, M! [6]. Here it only came to the arthouse Palace Theater, but they kept changing the date because of a projector snafu so I just said fuck it and bought it on Amazon (streaming, in my case). It's a delightful refreshing change from normal movies. Anyway, speaking of the Samster, I imagine you have seen Reilly, Ace of Spies. I'm thinking about re-watching it; although I'd have to either buy the DVDs or watch it on YouTube (I originally watched it via Netflix, which I am no longer subscribed to). Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, oops, I called you an admin on ANEW [7] – I thought MelanieN made your edits; I find the female "M" name and the final "D" or "N" easily confusable (in fact I used to confuse you two frequently back in the day, before I realized that if it was film- or actor/filmmaker-related it was usually you). The fact that your posts on that user's talkpage were just warnings and not blocks should have tipped me off .... Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Great minds again S. I did my google search just before watching Poldark and found it at that theater. Sadly, my experiences there have been rotten. They leave their overhead lighting on low (they claim it is a city ordinance) after the film starts and it washes out the picture. It happened when I went to see The Girl with the Pearl Earring - of all the pictures to ruin the color on! I had to walk out and get my money back. Then I couple years later I tried it again and the result was the same. Rest assured I will be adding the film to my DVD collection when the time comes. Thanks so much for taking the time to search it out though!! I had missed the fact that you had elevated my WikiP status until reading this :-) My latest DVD treasure is The Voyage of Charles Darwin I had seen it a couple times in college and had hoped for years and years that it would get a release. It is even better then I remembered. Filmed at many of the places that the HMS Beagle actually sailed to and they don't dumb down the science. I watched my DVDs of Reilly a couple years ago and enjoyed it as much as before. Leo McKern is a favorite of mine so I am always happy to see him again. Cheers again
I see it at two theaters, M: Denver West Village and Landmark Chez Artiste. Don't know which is the "bad" one but hopefully the other is good. Whichever one is the bad one, perhaps you could contact their corporate office. In any case, it's out on DVD already [8]. Anyway, that Darwin miniseries looks good and has excellent ratings. One of my favorite books is Irving Stone's The Origin -- an exhaustive and intimate biography of Darwin, so I feel like Darwin and I are old and very good friends. That reminds me, the Darwins and the Langtons and the Wedgwoods constantly married each other (that's covered in Stone's book), and so I was reminded of that when I spoke to you some months ago about Emily Langton Langton on your talkpage. One other thing -- a Darwin connection was brought up to me again because I recently finished reading The Signature of All Things, by Elizabeth Gilbert (yes, her), which is contemporaneous and delves into those matters and the naturalists of that time. Lastly, I'm rewatching Reilly Ace of Spies right now on YouTube. :-) Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
DWV is the crummy viewing place. CA is a tiny theater - more of a screening room but it is a possibility. But the fact that the DVD is already available is wonderful. Once again thanks for doing all of the web searching!! The Darwin-Wedgewood connection is noted in the series in a pretty big way. I too read Stone's book and enjoyed it. Thanks for the info about MG's book. I have forgotten to say thanks - lots of those in this post :-) - for recommending Bottle Shock. It was marvelous - Dennis Farina's performance was so different from his usual roles. When I purchased the DVD Amazon offered this book so I picked it up as well. I haven't started it yet so I will let you know how it is when I get to it. I'm glad you are watching Reilly again! Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 14:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
One of the things about books and movies is that I'm always afraid one is going to spoil (or even ruin) another – I've had that happen so I'm very circumspect. Like, I read and adored Stone's Lust for Life so I've never watched the film (starring Kirk Douglas, whom I just can't see as gentle Vincent), or Vincent and Theo, or etc., and only my great love for Cumberbatch (before the untenable mania) and my desire to be a completist at that time caused me to watch his Van Gogh: Painted with Words, which was wonderful because the entire script was verbatim from letters, and it showed lots of artwork (and Bendedict was wonderful). I've toyed with the idea of reading the source book for Tommy's Honour (because it gets raves while the movie gets lesser accolades, and because before news of the U.S. release in 2017 I despaired of ever seeing it anytime in this decade LOL), but I think I'll wait to see Jack's performance and not have it spoiled (even though I already know the skeleton of the plot). Consequently I've also avoided films about Darwin since I hold allegiance to the Stone book. But if you liked that miniseries after reading Stone, and since it gets such amazing ratings, I may watch it. :-) Gilbert's book gives an amusing look at some historical figures like Joseph Banks and Captain Cook. Glad you enjoyed Bottle Shock. That book looks quite good also. I had more thoughts zooming through my head but this should suffice for now! Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

LOL, why do our conversations turn endless? As usual, your post brings on several new things to talk about. Speaking of the Puttnam/Columbia saga, I read Fast Fade: David Puttnam, Columbia Pictures, and the Battle for Hollywood a couple of years ago and it's very good -- the author did excellent research and is studiously neutral while maintaining interest and drama; it's very much an "insider's" tale. Speaking of Forsyth, I adore Gregory's Girl but disliked Local Hero. So sue me. :-) My best book/film combo has been Dead Man Walking (both are great and inform the other; I read the book after viewing the film). My worst book/film combo has been My Antonia -- for over a decade or more that was my favorite book. Then in 1995 I watched the TV movie, starring Neil Patrick Harris and it was just ick ... no. Scarred me for life, so that's why I am wary. Anyway, I've put both the film and book you mentioned on my watch/wish lists, so thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
PS: This is what I was trying to remember to say before: Longitude (2000), if you haven't seen it, is an excellent adaptation of an apparently equally excellent book. It stars Jeremy Irons and Michael Gambon, and was written and directed by Charles Sturridge. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes Dava Sobel's book and Charles Sturridge's series are both wonderful. Two facts that I love about Charles is that we got to see him in front of the camera in Edward the Seventh as a youngster and then his directorial debut is Brideshead. He certainly has given us some wonderful things to watch since then. MarnetteD|Talk 01:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Ack forgot to say thanks for making me aware of Fast Fade! MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sturridge was such a hottie! I was shocked when the credits rolled on the early episode of Edward the Seventh (which I first watched about 5 years ago) and I found out that was him. Yes, quite the talented little (and old) bugger. I actually didn't even recall that he had written and directed Longitude until I looked at the wiki article for the link. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey-o, M, I just watched the 13-hour BBC historical miniseries Fall of Eagles (1974). I was going to ask if you'd seen it, but now I'm hip to the fact that I can scour the wiki article's edit history and tell if you have. I quite enjoyed it and learned a lot, and finally the immediate cause of WWI makes much more sense to me (although frankly I think Willi was much more authentically portrayed in Edward the Seventh [1975]). I thought Fall of Eagles was somewhat uneven however, and often too much time was spent on a single note (one problem was the different writers and directors for each episode). Plus some of the more dramatic developments were not reenacted because of budgetary limitations (assassinations of the Archduke & the Romanovs; triumph of Bolshevism; etc.). But it was nice to see familiar actors like Patrick Stewart, Gemma Jones, Michael Bryant, Gayle Hunnicutt, Barry Foster, Denis Lill, and an unrecognizably young Michael Kitchen. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
You are right on all counts S. It aired at the same time that I was taking a couple European history classes in college. While I have always aware that dramatizations like this one aren't documentaries they did (and do) help broaden my understanding of events. I still have the companion book for FoE in a box somewhere. BTW the 2014 series 37 Days (TV series) makes a nice companion to FoE. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that recommendation; I hadn't heard of that one so I put it on my Watch List. Also, I want to give a shout-out to Mahler's Trauermarsch and whatever it was of Shostakovich as the opening and closing themes of each FoE episode. Well chosen. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
So true! MarnetteD|Talk 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France[edit]

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

The bot is working[edit]

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

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

Request help on an archiving issue[edit]

I need some help from a more experienced editor on an archiving issue. An RfC was incorrectly closed and archived at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Archive_11#A_call_for_consensus_on_McMullin_and_Castle and then restored but now there are two copies of it (one active and ongoing, the other in the archive). Should the duplicate copy in the archive be removed, or should it be collapsed with a note explaining what happened, or should it be replaced with a note linking back to the active RfC or something else? The admin notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfC_Closure explains part of the situation. Sparkie82 (tc) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to remove it from the archive when I re-opened it and replaced it on the article talk page. Thanks for the reminder. I've fixed it now. Hope that solves that part. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI, someone has linked to that extra archived version from Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Protected_edit_request_on_29_October_2016_.283.29. Sparkie82 (tc) 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Christ, why is life so complicated? I've now fixed the link and replaced it with the link to the incorrectly "closed" version before it was prematurely archived. I've also put a couple of notes about it on the thread. I hope you can take it from there. :) Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Sparkie82 (tc) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! Softlavender (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi! :) Could you please correct {{see also}} template that you have corrupted here: [9] ? --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Weird. Don't know what happened there. Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you ☺ --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for separate comments, but I would appreciate a lot if you could also remove the closing html tag (-->) in the source. I have just noticed that you left it there. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thumb up icon.svg --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing own comments after a reply[edit]

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


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.

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

My sincere thanks[edit]

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

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

Kerala IP[edit]

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

Hi, Marianna251. Jim1138 may be the person to ask; he has kept up more of a list and has been tracking things. I got tired of it and haven't kept up with it, largely because I don't usually edit sociology articles (I only got involved originally because of Jim1138's first thread on ANI), and also because of some unwarranted obstructionism a long while ago from a bureaucrat who refused to look at the evidence. Here are some ANI reports that were filed in the spring of this year: [10], [11], [12]. I haven't done too much tracking since then, but Jim1138 can no doubt fill you in from there and help you file a LTA or whatever is necessary. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC).
@Marianna251: I haven't been watching either. I do have a few watch pages, mostly social articles, and lots of Huggling which I have noted edits a few times. Looks like he gave up on social articles. Jim1138 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, both! It's been a few months since the social work debacle, so there's probably not enough recent evidence to file LTA/SPI right now. I'll keep watching. Marianna251TALK 10:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for at Garage rock article[edit]

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

Talk:Bill Hillmann[edit]

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

Forums and outside help[edit]

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

New Page Reviewer - RfC[edit]

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

About your move protection request on my talk page[edit]

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

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

Stupid wise-ass admins. Are you open to recall? Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I can just about recall Shirt58. One of our best admins, I think you'll find. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

your change[edit]

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

Bill Hillmann[edit]

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

Hi Marchjuly, I considered the possibility, and some things raised suspicions in my mind. But that post on Commons does not; it merely claimed that "This is my photo [i.e., a photo that he uploaded] and should be kept. It is also the author's bio photo. The subject Bill Hillmann who owns the copy right has given permission to use the photo." Also, it's very important to note that Hillmann is a sophisticated, polished, masterful writer, whereas this editor's writing, both in the article and off, is third rate at best; more like fourth rate and remedial. If Hillmann had written [or even commissioned, in my mind] his own wiki article, it would have ended up quite different than this: [13], [14]. Also, this edit is not something that would in my mind have proceeded from Hillmann (at least not the top part): [15]. It's more likely in my mind, especially given that edit, that the editor is a Chicagoan who attended or attends the same school that Hillmann did (or lives in one of those two neighborhoods), and is a fan. It is possible that the editor is or has been in touch with Hillmann, but even if so, I think whatever communication there may be or may have been isn't very continuous or close, or we wouldn't end up with these very substandard edits and writing. I don't think there's anything that needs to be done, except to keep an eye on the article and keep out the cruft and the uncited. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your take on things. Your point about the difference in writing ability between makes perfect sense when you think about it. It would be rather unlike a professional writer to pretend to write in substandard way or even encourage another to write on their behalf in such a way for something such as Wikipedia, simply because any edit made can simply be undone by another with a single click of the mouse. Regarding the article itself, I understand that its important to cite as much as possible, especially for BLPs, but I am wondering if it starting to get close to WP:OVERCITE or WP:BOMBARD. The string of references added from number 12 to 35 are for a hodge-podge of articles, videos, blogs and other UGC, event listings, etc. in support of content which might be close to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I was going to go in and clean the citation formatting up a bit per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful, but figure I'd see what some others think first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
In terms of the content itself, I'm personally OK with all of it (unless it's incorrect). If you wanted to find substantiating citations that are more secondary, that would in my mind certainly be fine. My main personal feeling about the number of citations is that the single items with four citations don't need that many citations for one single piece of information (unless they are pertinent reviews which could possibly be quoted later on if the section were expanded to include review mentions). I think some of that comes from Yngvy moving Further Reading entries into citations rather than deleting them. It would be fine to trim those, although I would suggest saving the removed noteworthy articles or writings that have actual substantive content -- saving them in a section on the talk page, for instance. I started collecting some items at the top of my sandbox (User:Softlavender/sandbox), for instance, but haven't finished my list. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Shirley MacLaine[edit]

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

Nope. check again: [16]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Kumagoro-42, you've been on Wikipedia for more than 9 years. You need to always leave an edit summary for each of your edits. And you need to sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~ so that your username and talk page are clickable in your signature. In addition, please do not completely misrepresent what other editors have written: [17]. As it happens, your utterly unexplained change happens to be correct, so I will now reinstate it. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Sorry …[edit]

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

Hi JLTN. No good deed goes unpunished; I only created the article because it redirected to canvas, which was idiotic, and that redirect was the only Wikipedia edit Gonzafan ever made (LOL). My actual content contribution to the article stopped in December 2014 (before the copyvio), from then on out I was merely keeping a bit of an eye on it. I wash my hands of the whole affair. That said, I do think it's important to have some version of the article on Wikipedia, since Guy Kawasaki, who is now on the Board of Trustees of WMF, is the company's "chief evangelist". If nothing else, I suggest rolling it back to the version you suggested above. And giving a stern talking-to to the person who added the copyvio, if you have't already. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, step 1 is done (I had to remove another bit added by a different editor too) so over to you if you want to do anything more to it. I'm still working through the contribs of the first editor, probably not enough of them to need a CCI. And yes, there'll be a talking-to. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)