User talk:Softlavender

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



Have some Canadian cuisine—a butter tart

Thanks for stepping up at my talk page. I know I've acted like a prick to you before. I know myself well enough not to promise I won't again, but at least I can promise I'll never be a prick for the sake of being a prick. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries, CT. I (try to) call 'em as I see 'em, no matter what past interactions I have had with folks. (That's not to say I'm not human, but WP is so big that generally speaking I interact with too many editors to opine based on "friendship" rather than my actual analysis.) Thanks for the food! Face-smile.svg Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts[edit]

Seeing as how you did argue for more stringent sanctions on this user when I took him to ANI, (though he subsequently stopped his disruption) should I have handled this by anything other than ignoring and allowing him the WP:LAST? [1] he's back to editing in a useful way and hasn't caused trouble for a few days. My goal is to try and not let myself be baited so much (I do not always succeed), but I do wrestle with the line between immaturity and trolldom. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I've been off-wiki. I always advise ignoring PAs (seriously, I never respond to them). If he edits disruptively, then that's another thing. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably good advice, which is why I asked. LOL! Montanabw(talk) 01:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

Disappointed in Softlavender[edit]

Hi Softlavender, I have seen your background (female, 1955, Duke University) and just wanted to let you know how disappointed I am in your comment that "it does not matter" whether someone is lying or not. Ends justify means? See below. If seasoned academics like you have such an attitude, then what hope is there for the rest of the world?

"Hi Softlavendar. You are side-stepping my question: where is the alleged agreement/discussion on the Talk:Census of Quirinius page? Perhaps I am too stupid to find it, but I am concerned that GBRV is making it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point it doesn't matter. You were edit warring against legitimate, valid, and easily understood edits by an experienced editor which cleaned up an overlong section. Contrary to your repeated claims, nothing was vandalized or deleted -- it has merely been better organized. If you object to the current organization, take that up on the article's talk page, by starting a thread on it. Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)"

Important message[edit]

Click the image for an important message. North America1000 13:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Aw, North America, I wanted a "You've been blocked" message! I feel left out! Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Proposing moratorium[edit]

I invite you to ongoing RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

Bangalore IP[edit]

Still unwilling to follow BRD and discuss much in talk. Just reverts w/ an occasional ES. Should I request PP on both articles? Psychological resilience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Social work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Having computer problems and this thing I'm on is really really slow. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for filling the ANI. I may not be understanding WhoIs correctly, but some show Bangalore and others New Delhi. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Jim1138: For future reference: Don't check WHOIS, check Geolocate. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Admitting ignorance has its benefits; one can actually learn something. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Greetings. The wikicology case is something that ought to go to Arbcom in my view, because of the principles involved, in particular whether it is OK to falsify credentials, and if not, whether editors should be accountable for any credentials they claim. But this is generally what Arbcom don't do, since they are a dispute resolution body. This requires naming the parties who are in dispute, and saying what the dispute or disagreement actually is. In this case it's not clear. In the Wifione case, the editor denied all allegations and thus the dispute was about whether he or she was in fact employed by a degree mill. Note also that Arbcom typically doesn't do forensic investigations. That is up to community, who present their evidence for the 'judges' to make a decision.

So the key question is: who are the persons in dispute, and what are the disputed questions? I am thinking about it. Also @SlimVirgin: Peter Damian (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there necessarily need to be any other "involved parties", because the case is solely about him. The case is similar to Essjay, Wifione, Neelix. See Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope_of_arbitration. And the problematical behaviors go way way beyond merely falsifying credentials. What we have is massive abuse of Wikipedia and WMF on many many levels, and therefore this is something that ArbCom should deal with and investigate, since some of the evidence is only viewable by admins, and since as you say evidence will need to be provided, and ANI does not have the context to deal with all of the issues and all of the evidence. If there absolutely must be a second party listed, as with other single-issue (single user) cases, the filing party can be listed as the other party. Could also mention other people from the ANI thread who were strongly in favor of an ArbCom investigation and/or a site ban/indef block. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, but as a straw man, what do you think the massive abuse of Wikipedia and WMF actually was? (Clearly I am not disagreeing, but it helps to set these out carefully, as an aid to making the filing itself). Thanks for all your work on this, by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Already spelled out in the ANI thread. It's a long thread. Softlavender (talk)
Note also that the Neelix case was closed after Neelix resigned. You mention Wifione (remember I was the one who effectively got that one to Arbcom), but s/he refused to concede anything. That's what made it a dispute Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. Socking
  2. Misrepresenting sources
  3. Misrepresenting professional/academic standing
  4. COI editing
Is that it?
This is something the community might be able resolve without ArbCom (but we'd need to temporarily restore the deleted autobiography to a sub-page, so non-admins can understand that aspect). It might have to go to ArbCom if the community can't agree on the seriousness of these breaches and so can't agree on appropriate sanctions. I do agree it would be nice to have ArbCom opine on the seriousness of #3. And they're likely to come up with a more nuanced response than the crowd at ANI usually does. Newyorkbrad, any thoughts on where we should go from here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It's lots more than you've listed. I can spell it all out to you in an email if you want. I don't feel like repeating the contents of that massive ANI thread on my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I've read the ANI thread. Don't most of the transgressions fall under those headings? (Of course, the instances and ramifications of those need to be enumerated.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Peter has opened a thread at Jimbo talk: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Faking credentials. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • [FBDB] Don't most of the transgressions fall under those headings? I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole members of the trans community like that. EEng 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Andreas has posted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikicology. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello, Peter Damian and Anthonyhcole. I've been away for a few days; and I'm also having major computer problems and I'm a month behind on a class I'm taking. Thank you for alerting me to the ArbCom request. It looks like it's trending to acceptance. Due to the craziness I just mentioned, I don't think I can start gathering/compiling detailed evidence until several days from now. However I'll try to add a statement of support for acceptance of the case. And no, the items/categories mentioned by Anthony do not cover all of the disturbing issues involved. (Also, pardon my rather curt response above, I actually thought that was Peter making the post I last responded to and therefore I thought it was odd he didn't see all of the other issues involved.) Anyway, Cheers all. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A new issue[edit]

Pinging Peter Damian, Anthonyhcole, Jytdog, Pldx1, NinjaRobotPirate, Choess, Fram, Takeaway, Smartse: You all discovered fake/unsubstantiating references in articles that Wikicology created. I've discovered a new very worrying issue even beyond that: Not only did he add fake references to his own articles, he added numerous non-substantiating references to random existing articles (usually previously tagged "refimprove" or "unreferenced") that he did not even create. He's done this as late as a month ago: [2]. I've only had time and room to note 6 or 7 articles he did this on, on 18-19 August 2014, on my now overlong Evidence draft: [3], but thus far every in article he added references to that I checked, his added references failed to substantiate, even via Wayback. If any of you are going to file Evidence at the ArbCom case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence), would you mind checking his other random reference additions to other articles? The best way to find is to go through his contributions (from the earliest, latest, or middle), and Control+F ref .... The newly extended deadline for Evidence is Monday 25 April, which I presume means end of day 25 April UTC. Thanks all who can help. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Forgot to add Sam Walton and Jayen466 to that list. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Softlavender. Erasing seems simpler... and safer ! Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Pldx1: I'm not asking for help on my evidence. I'm just asking, in case you will be filing evidence, if you want to check some of the other random articles he's added "citations" to. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

PS I looked at your evidence page. Do you have any objection if I put some signposting sections in to make it easier to follow? You are the first person to spot some of the 'bitey' stuff. Peter Damian (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter Damian: I'm not ready to organize it yet; I've not even finished perusing his first three months of editing. I'll organize, trim, and post headers when I get to a good overall viewpoint of his entire editing history. Also, "bitey" stuff is well covered in the 2014 ANI and the RfA -- I hope that the two ANIs and the RfA can be put, wholesale, into evidence, because they speak volumes and there's no way I can summarize all of the problems. I seem to be the only person really giving an overall picture for Evidence, even though 23 out of 33 people !voted for a ban/indef in the last ANI, and a ban was also suggested in the 2014 ANI. (BTW, I've never participated in an ArbCom case before, except for offering statements at a few RFAR's, so this is all new to me.) -- Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
ok just offering help. Lots of good stuff there. Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE to everyone: Wordcount for everyone has also been increased to 1000 words across the board, in filing Evidence. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's disappointing that Wikicology's disruption would extend to random articles. I don't know if I want to get involved in the arbitration case, but, if I do, I'll take a look at his edits outside of the articles he created, too. We might need a dedicated page to coordinate the cleanup of his edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to involve myself with this Arbcom case as it involves two people that make WP feel like a dirty place to me. I did what I could during the first ANI of Sep 2014, to have this problematic editor stopped (or at least closely monitored) but nothing happened back then. I suspect that Wikicology received personal messages from an admin or admins back then somewhere halfway through the original ANI, that he wouldn't be banned. I base this suspicion on the fact that at a certain moment, WC went from being extremely apologetic to becoming snarky again: "If you think I will be blocked or ban for this, by an administrator, it won't happen.". Just wondering who the admin or admins were? And where are they now that the shit that they created hit the fan? As for WC's bid for adminship: why would the nominator, User:Davidcannon (who's apparently been off-wiki for a while and only resurfaced with an edit today), have introduced WC as a lecturer? DavidCannon apparently didn't know WC at all before "This user approached me with a nomination request" so I can only conclude that WC himself wrote that he was a lecturer in his request to DavidCannon. And WC reaffirmed the claim to be a lecturer again later in the discussion concerning his adminship bid. But after the second ANI, WC suddenly states "there is no place I claim to be a University lecturer". Hopefully DavidCannon can shed some light on WC's claim to be a lecturer during his adminship bid. - Takeaway (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You are right. I didn't know of the existence of Wikicology before he approached me, asking for a nomination. I took his claims to academic credentials (which I seem to remember reading on his user page, though my memory is foggy now) face value — perhaps you could accuse me of being too trusting, and I probably was in this case. The long and the short of it is that I had just a brief look at some of his edits, saw nothing to raise my eyebrows, and didn't really look before I leapt. And by the way, whoever the admin was that told WC he wouldn't be banned, it wasn't me. I knew nothing about any of these controversies. David Cannon (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Davidcannon Can you perhaps find the original adminship request that Wikicology sent to you? It might be important. Don't blame yourself for thinking that this editor was legit. His articles all looked good at a glance due to his extensive use of fake/fluff references. Only when you start digging, do you see that a lot of it is just that: fake and fluff, probably meant to act as a smokescreen because when he is found out and told to remove unsourced content from his articles, he actually understands what is, and what isn't correctly sourced. - Takeaway (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Takeaway and Davidcannon: Here is the request for RfA nomination: [4]. I found the request by doing an "Edits by user" search on User talk:Davidcannon: [5]. It seems to be completely out of the blue, and I'm wondering why he did not approach one of the number of admins whose talk pages he frequently posted (butted in) on. David's initial responses: [6], [7]. Peter Damian may be interested in this. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology 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/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.


Thanks for your very clear feedback to Gongwool there. I trust your analysis, even when it comes to me, and you have chastised me there as well. It is good to have clear thinkers who aren't driven by wikipolitics at ANI. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Jytdog. Thanks for the note. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way Jytdog my last post there was an edit conflict and happened at the exact same time as your close (sometimes that happens on ANI -- two simultaneous posts on the same thread get posted). I didn't really know what to do -- whether to self-revert (maybe things were indeed resolved) or just leave it. Kind of a puzzler when that happens. Your close was gracious, so I hope I didn't escalate what was already calming down. If you want me to self-revert and return to your close, I will. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't know. It was a good enough place for me and reaching a good enough place in this situation was ... good enough. Gongwool actually is a newbie and I have some hopes for them. I don't actually want to stomp on newbies.  :) I do want the community to kick their ass a bit when they forget they are new and do crazy things like Gongwool did. So... your call! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I reverted. Better to have good feelings. People like to blow off steam when they are called to the carpet, so I'll chalk it up to that. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Insert smiley face here. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Happy to oblige: Face-smile.svg. EEng 14:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
EEng you are one step away from being banned from my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
<sulks> Are you serious? Apologies for any unintentional offense. Intentional, too, if there was any. Is this why you don't visit me anymore? EEng 08:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You are dead to me. Dead. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm famous now so you're making a big mistake. EEng 02:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Fucking hell. Is it too late to suck up to you? Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Rather strange edits on User_talk:Timothyjosephwood#Social_Work & Career talk. First Kerala IP gets blocked, then second Kerala IP makes first edit to Timothyjosephwood's talk page and suggests first is a rogue? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

Reversion of edit[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my edit to the article on Prince (musician) regarding the 911 call. You stated in your summary that there was "no need" for quotes from the 911 call. I am not sure I understand your reasoning. I made the edit so that readers could see highlights (not all) of exactly what was said: so that they could understand the hesitation of the caller to report the incident in its real terms, as well as his confusion about how to tell the 911 operator where he was. I don't know of any extant Wikipedia policy that discourages the use of quotations from 911 calls. Do you? And can I ask why you feel the article is better without this information? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 02:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444: In brief, it's trivial, unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and less easy to comprehend. There was nothing unusual about the call itself and the wording that was already in the article covered it accurately. If you still feel that your preferred version should be used, per WP:BRD start a thread on the article's talkpage, which is where these discussions should occur -- not user talk pages. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, "the hesitation of the caller to report the incident in its real terms" and "his confusion about how to tell the 911 operator where he was" is all your own mind-reading. There's nothing intrinsically correct about those interpretations. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You may be right about the venue for proposing such a change, but I did not want to revert your reversion and as you were the editor who reverted I would have thought it rude not to contact you first. And while I grant you that the interpretations I gave above are just that— interpretations— I did no such interpretation in the actual article: I left it to the reader to interpret the phone call... which seemed the fair and accurate thing to do, no? KDS4444Talk 06:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a talk page[edit]

Hi, Softlavender. AfD is not a talk page.

Per the AfD Edit Notice:

commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive

Hitler comments, etc. are unacceptable per that edit notice. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPO applies to all non-article-space areas where people post and sign comments. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. This is the edit notice on the AfD page:

commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. My removal is appropriate per the AfD edit notice:

commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. We are off-topic, but TPO which is a subset of TPG, stands for: Talk Page Guidelines. AfD is not a talk page. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. The Hitler and crime verbiage is a personal attack, and disruptive, per the AfD edit notice:

"... commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive"

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. From the AfD Edit Notice: "... commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive" {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I see your point[edit]

The solution to that is to remove the death section of the Prince article and simply have a link to the child article. Thank you for your concern. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. Plus, please keep discussion on the AfD page, not user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy at its finest[edit]

What are you, a comedian? Issuing an edit warring warning to someone with whom you are also edit warring is about as pathetic as it gets. Perhaps you don't know that just because you don't click the "undo" button doesn't mean it doesn't count as part of your edit warring. You've been told to calm down, be patient, and stop purposely presenting guidelines and policies out of context. You're literally all over the Prince talk page and have been battling numerous editors for days. Dirroli (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Warnings are a mandatory pre-requisite prior to reporting someone at WP:ANEW. You've already made 4/5 reverts in one hour over one edit, and now four reverts in one hour on another edit. I posted the required template in case of a report. Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, you completely missed the point. Again. You've also done this with several other editors. In any case, I was already warned. Do you know how to look at the editing history of a page? You were warned, as well. Are you going to report yourself? Dirroli (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dirroli: No, that's not required. For that reason it's probably best to leave warnings where they are, at least for a while. I don't know what you mean by "You were warned, as well" and "Are you going to report yourself?" Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, there's already a AN/3 report started. FYI. -- WV 14:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor conduct re: Krista Franklin articles[edit]

Hi @Softlavender: If you’d be so kind, would you please review the AfD discussion and my talk page discussion relating to the Krista Franklin article in regards to editor conduct? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Picomtn, I won't even be able to look at it for a day or two. If you need someone to look into it, I'd find someone else, as long as you would not be violating WP:CANVASS or WP:FORUMSHOP. Good luck. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Softlavender: A day or two would be fine as there’s no hurry on this issue, and the comments by @TonyTheTiger: were very helpful too. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Picomtn I have to ask why you are approaching me, as I have never edited alongside you, or had any interaction with you that I recall, and I have never edited that article. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Softlavender: For many years I’ve done small WP edits, but this year, for the first time, I registered an account and have been diligently trying to learn the rules around here. Unlike the academic world I’ve inhabited for many decades though, the consensus process here is often confusing thus leading to conflicts. So, and recently, I came across one such example of this involving yourself and the editor Checkingfax that was decided (I believe that’s the word to use) by C.Fred. However, and in reading the history behind that conflict, I became even more confused as the policies here are, sometimes, very difficult for me to understand. When confronted by issues such as this, and as my life experience has taught me, I’ve always found it constructive to query opposing viewpoints (the more extreme the better) in order to discover where the divergence occurred and led to conflict—which many times, I’ve discovered, rests in language differences. Therefore, since this is a subject area you’re familiar with, and in my belief that I’ve been treated rudely by editor HappyValleyEditor, I could find no better example than you to (hopefully) receive guidance from. Also, in you not knowing me your thoughts/opinions are even more invaluable due to your inherent neutrality. Please remember too, my query to you has nothing at all to do with the article, just editor conduct. I hope this explanation helps you, and, as far as I know, my requesting your assistance in this matter violates no WP policies—but if it does please direct me to it and, also, forgive me. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Although the editor is being quite aggressive in their edits, edit summaries, and comments to you both on that article's talk page and your own talk page, it's best to look past (i.e., completely ignore) comments about you or what seem to be personal attacks or aspersions, and focus instead solely on article content and Wikipedia polices. Everyone who edits Wikipedia articles does so with the implicit understanding that their article edits/content can be altered by others. If you want to write something somewhere that cannot be edited by others, do that on a website or blog of your own. When a dispute over content arises, start a talkpage thread on that article's talk page, and keep the focus on the content and on sourcing, not on other editors (don't even refer to the other editor[s]; e.g. don't use the word "you"). You are free to replace content that was removed if you can find citations that back the information up. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Picomtn, I'm going to suggest you contact Cullen328 for mentorship. He is an experienced editor, often works on articles about artists, and I believe he enjoys mentoring editors. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Picomtn: Dont take my comments personally, as I have said before. They are exclusively about the article or your editing, not you as a person. I am sure you are a nice person. However you are sure to get flack (as an editor) when you claim "copyright" on an article as you did here: "have reverted the deletion of my copyrighted edits to this article as no consensus was reached for doing so. Thanks." .... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, HappyValleyEditor. Maybe your word choice is poor, or your method of citing "policy" is. To wit: You are still insisting that we do not have a copyright on our edits, when I have already pointed out to you that we do. When you say that we do not, it naturally pushes people's buttons. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That's nice. Let's not waste time on silly things here on Softlavender's fine talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically, its a copyleft that we have on our Wikipedia contributions: anything we add can be modified, and also anything we add can be reused (with or without modification) by others, as long as there's some minimal form of attribution (even a hyperlink) that can [eventually] be traced back to attribution to us or our username. Softlavender (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender (with ccs to: HappyValleyEditor and Picomtn). Yes, you are technically correct, but my point as you confirm was spot on. As a west coaster I have an aversion to the left word (as in left coast). Such terms are usually a backhanded slight. My vernacular is copyright, and copyleft is a subset or maybe a fork of that.
Hey, HappyValleyEditor, calling my comment a waste of time on silly things and tarnishing a page is not cool or sportsmanlike behavior. Can't we all just get along? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to add one more thing to Picomtn: People can often seem aggressive here on Wikipedia, and they can be very opinionated and even often fairly obstinate/possessive. In some ways this is uncomfortable, however sometimes it is merely because we are building an encyclopedia and people can become very passionate about their vision of what's best for the encyclopedia, or how the encyclopedia should be. It's best just to see what you experience as rudeness as being passion or impatience. It's the internet -- people type stuff and click send with such ease, speed, and anonymity (and without much mental filter) that they act in a more dramatic or intense manner than they would in person. It's not so much that a "thick skin" is needed here, as it is a need to look past the personal comments or things that could get your goat, and focus instead on the goal of creating the best encyclopedia. Don't take anything personally, and focus on content, not on editors or their "behavior" or style of communication. We do have a lot of content policies and guidelines (which can take a while to get fully familiar with), and a lot of dispute resolution processes. Be patient (and forgiving) with others -- they are only human, too. Softlavender (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Softlavender: Thank you so much for your kind and respectful insightful answers/explanations relating to my concerns. It is, also, refreshing to find yet another experienced editor who values not only WP, but also knows the value and worth of helping those of us who get confused at times. Thanks again. Picomtn (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Softlavender: I must say honestly that the comments made in the AfD discussion regarding the Krista Franklin article by @HappyValleyEditor: have greatly saddened and discouraged me. This person said they were changing their vote following the flurry of truly wishy-washy references added by some editors and sarcastically added that this article has become a classic example of how to make someone notable enough through forensic reference excavation and archaeology. And as you know, and is documented, the editor being refered to was me, and all I was trying to do was my honest best in trying to improve this article, which took me many days of research, and which you’ve, greatly assisted in too. According to my understanding of WP policy, shouldn’t the nominator, and by association the supporters, of an article for deletion first do everything they can to support it? Isn’t saving an article the first choice before deletion? What am I missing?!? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Picomtn:: Re: "shouldn’t the nominator, and by association the supporters, of an article for deletion first do everything they can to support it? Isn’t saving an article the first choice before deletion?" Technically, no. (Why should an unrelated editor have to work their butt off to try to expand something that was to the casual observer completely non-notable? Wikipedia has strict notability guidelines, and is strict about enforcing them.) Which is why any article should be bulletproof before it is posted live onto Wikipedia. If you create an article, do it first on a user subpage or on WP:AFC or Wikipedia draftspace before posting it live. Technically, an AfD nominator is expected (but not absolutely required by policy), to do WP:BEFORE -- that is, research further a bit themselves to see if there is significant independent RS coverage of the subject. In this case, even if the nominator had done that, there wasn't any readily apparent -- mostly all bloggish or self-published sites/profiles or event notices. Even I would have !voted delete up until the very moment I !voted in the AfD. In terms of "the editor being referred to was me", you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading there, and taking everything personally; at least three editors were involved in adding those refs/information. If you continue to take things personally, especially when you are not being referred to, you will not last long on Wikipedia. I have already told you that. Now stop it, and stop referring to the behavior of others. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Softlavender. School is now open. WP:BEFORE is a subset of WP:Deletion policy (a policy). WP:ATD (alternatives to deletion) is a Wikipedia policy. So, yes, a deletion nominator is supposed to work their but off to ensure there are no alternatives to deletion before they can nominate an article for deletion. So, technically, yes, by policy. Same for WP:redlinks: policy says they are to remain unless there is no chance of them being made into articles. Scroll up on WP:ATD to see that it is a policy. Please start going to AfD and waving these four policies. Thank you. PS: When I removed mention of the behavior of others from an AfD you reverted it. (ccs to Picomtn and HappyValleyEditor) Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE is neither a policy nor part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. WP:ATD does not say "an unrelated editor [should] work their butt off to try to expand something that [is] to the casual observer completely non-notable". I reverted your violations of WP:TPO. This is my talk page, and I'm quite busy, so I'd appreciate it if there were no further replies here. Softlavender (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Assistance requested- Thanks! Comment[edit]

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.

Tribe of Tiger (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Chariots of Fire[edit]

Who? Why? Is it not interesting that the album made two appearances, that it was #2 for 2 weeks, and why it wasn't #1? Thanks. AMCKen (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. There was a lot of clutter in there about the single (which has its own article, so information on it should be on that article, not the album's), so I removed too much. I've restored the Top 10s for the album in the lead. Softlavender (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Social work[edit]

Hello Softlavender, Thank you for your work on the social work article, I haven't been brave enough to go near it yet its such a big topic! I've had a message from an IP asking if I can watch the page as s/he feels they are not able to edit - Can I suggest that in your edit summary/ on the article talk page or even the IP's talk page you state why you have reverted the edits. If people know what they are not getting quite right they might not keep making the same mistakes. Thanks again for your edits, I might contribute at some point! ツStacey (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Stacey, the IP-hopper is a troll and has been trolling the article and its talk-page for months. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The edits don't appear disruptive; they just seem misguided in what should be included in the article. I am not criticising your revert just that it would be helpful for the IP and other editors (like myself) who are looking at the history, if there was an edit summary to explain why it was an unhelpful edit. ツStacey (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Stacey, to repeat, the IP-hopper is a troll and has been trolling and vandalizing the article and its talk-page for months. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Trolling and vandalising are strong accusations Softlavender, I don't suppose you could provide diffs of actual bad faith editing or discussion of it on a noticeboard, especially where it goes as far as trolling or vandalism. When I looked through the edits from an outside perspective, they seemed like good faith edits, which could be worked with. I'm not happy with how the terms "troll" and "vandal" are generally thrown around on Wikipedia, so I'd like to see a little evidence. WormTT(talk) 12:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Three different ANIs have already been filed about the editor in the past 8 weeks: [8], [9], [10]. The only reason they haven't been blocked is because they have been IP-hopping under various IP ranges. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Stacey Also see:
The IP repeatedly ignores WP:BRD requests and simply reverts sometimes leaving a message on the talk page. Pages have been PP a number of times. Seems to have the "I'm right" attitude and won't discuss in an honest manner. Very frustrating to deal with. The IP has been blocked several times and has avoided the block by changing IPs. Jim1138 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe this brings the IP to SockPuppet status. Jim1138 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Now hard at work on WikiProject:Social Work] Jim1138 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Prince AfDs[edit]

How can those two AfDs get closed? I think it's time and consensus is pretty obvious for both. The more time that passes, the more people are going to waste time working on them. -- WV 02:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea. Talk to Drmies or another admin. They're both pretty much snows, but there is some case, I suppose, to decide between outright deletion, and redirecting instead to preserve the content (although frankly there isn't much !vote support for that, even if you combine the "merge", "redirect", and "delete or" !votes). Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll pass on contacting an admin about it. -- WV 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: BTW, I'm starting to wonder if at least one of those new SPAs are socks. They're doing an awful lot of the same things as the article creator -- like removing the SPA notices, etc. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, at least one. I've actually thought they were all the same person/a sock of the article creator since the first one cropped up. Same attitude, behavior, same type of thoughts on the article(s), same manner of expressing those thoughts. -- WV 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably should be reported. I'm not good at filing SPIs and find it tedious -- I've only ever done one at most, and I don't use Twinkle. If you file one, I'll back you up. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I have some experience with SPIs and will put one together later today. I'm seeing some definite tells that should be enough to connect the currently blocked account with another account which should give CUs a reason to look into it. -- WV 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, WV, yeah, you're much better at SPIs. If you need an extra analysis or set of eyes, let me know. What about the IP and also the other SPA? Softlavender (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Hi, Softlavender and Winkelvi. There is that board where you can request non-admin closures. Softlavender knows where it is. Flyer22 Reborn is very skilled at recognizing socks and putting them out of business. Maybe she can assist too? Good luck. I hate socks. They waste our time. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
My only suggestion - for whomever opens an SPI in this case - is that there is some good solid behavioral evidence presented. Otherwise, we then run the risk of the report being dismissed or ignored and then having it go stale. That's been my experience, anyway, with SPIs that aren't overtly "ducky" in nature. -- WV 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought you had a lot of "tells"? Anyway, I'm under a deadline and am really slow to get SPIs together, so it should be you (or someone else; but it would make the most sense if you do it since you've been observing all four of them all along). Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I said I have noted some tells. I'm also under a deadline and don't have time to get to it until later today/tonight. Checking fax mentioned someone else doing it, so I was only trying to give suggestions based on experience with a few rejected/dismissed SPIs. -- WV 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Thank you very much wiki[edit]

FYI - Appears to be impersonating you [11].--Cahk (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I know; I saw that. Just bullshit trolling. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I was about to post about the same thing S. I am glad that you are already aware of it and have noticed it for what it is. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

you've got mail[edit]

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.

--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments/threading on the Wikicology workshop page[edit]

I see you objected earlier to these edits by Wikicology on the workshop page. Strictly speaking, he is correct - there are separate subsections for comments by parties to a case and comments by non-party participants. In this case, since there is only one party and a lot of evidence, it is fine to use threaded comments as you both were doing initially. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, which is what I have been telling him on his talk page. I do not know why he removed them only to replace his without-context-and-without-replies responses in another place. If you or he request it, I will copy-paste our original nested discussion back into my analysis section. Initially, I thought he was simply removing his replies and mine because he thought better of discussing (I hadn't noticed his edit summary), but then when he posted his replies-only elsewhere, that became a problem at that point. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead and put the discussion back if you like, thanks. Splitting his replies to a separate section was, I think, intended to follow the instructions that case parties should post in their own separate section (a bit like the sectioned discussion sometimes used on case talk pages). We all agree that's a bad way to organize this particular discussion, but the case page templates aren't very good at context :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the templates don't work in all situations. I'll do that now. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bashiru Ademola Raji article[edit]

When reading the original version of Bashiru Ademola Raji, two things struck me as being odd. For one, the English used in the article is impeccable. It doesn't "sound" like WC at all, whose English is at best middling. And two, the whole article sounds like a resume that was written by the subject themselves, also because most of the info wasn't at all supported by the sources. So where did all the info come from? If it indeed wasn't written by Wikicology, what does he get out of it by posting it under his name? - Takeaway (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know; I've had those thoughts for quite a while from going through these. It's like a publicist writes them, gives them to Wikicology, and he adds random (and usually inaccurate) references to them. Also see my report on Ken Nwogbo (on my ArbCom Workshop posting) about the dates of the sources and the date of his posting the wiki article. Then click on the photo and navigate to the deletion debate about it -- it's a professional photo that was used online before Wikicology uploaded it as "his own", but on the online one the EXIF data is missing and resolution differs, so he didn't use that online one -- it's like the subject (or a publicist) himself gave him the photo to post. Weird. Softlavender (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I just realized that not only did he have the article draft completed within less than two days after the only source for the wiki article was published, he had also already uploaded that photo (obviously a professional photo from the 2015 Beacon of ICT Awards) on March 2, 2016 Nigerian time, one day after the sole and full source citation used for the wiki article was published. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
That might actually be a good assessment of what's going on here. There can't be another reason for the huge amount of unreferenced and incorrectly referenced content. I can imagine that the cause of all this fishy behaviour is his desire to be a "someone" here on Wikipedia, and through Wikipedia a "someone" in Nigeria. And there might even be some additional benefits for a someone who is the self-proclaimed pipeline to Wikipedia for Nigeria, if even just a friendly invite to attend an award ceremony for instance. - Takeaway (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the "additional benefits" possibly available to someone who is working at the behest of a publicist(s). I've been concerned about COI ever since the middle of the ANI. Softlavender (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I should have winked at the end of the last sentenced. Like this -> ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed the same things. In several of the "professor/physician articles, I began to see a pattern. Usually, I could locate info online to support the lede, career and professional portions. But there's an unusually detailed or specific "early life" section for which there is no discernible source. I will go through my notes for examples. Softlavender, I wanted to let you know that I had added info to B.A. Raji. Should I post u|yourname (inside curly brackets) to alert the other party when I post on a project page? Hoping this will work for TakeawayThanks. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If you have evidence on misconduct, please send it to the arbitration committee now that the evidence phase of the Wikicology case has closed. But I don't think it is productive to speculate on another editor's motivation and insinuations can be seen as a personal attack. If there is content in an article that is not supported by references, you are welcome to find references that do so or you can remove the assertions. But a judgment that someone's English is "impeccable", as if that was suspicious or a bad thing, is out of place here. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Liz, discussions of writing patterns are not "judgments", they are determinations of who is doing the writing. Discussions of newly discovered problematical patterns in an editor's behavior have every relevance to an ArbCom case and are not personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC); edited 03:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger, I'm not sure what you are asking, or why you are inquiring about WP:PINGs, or who you are talking about pinging. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger I have most of the relevant pages concerning this case on my watchlist already so there's no need to ping me. - Takeaway (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have the same doubts. My puzzle from the very start was how someone whose English is erratic, with errors of both syntax and logic in every other sentence, could write something resembling polished prose. When I looked, it turned out that the polished stuff was all copied and pasted from somewhere else. What it means in this case is hard to say. The comment on my talk page, now revdeleted, made accusations about paid editing for clients. Peter Damian (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding that the polished prose is not copypasted in many of the articles I've been checking (I'm checking line-by-line every article he has written from late October onward, and I'm almost finished). Many of them, especially many of the non-stubs, look like they were carefully written by someone else; or at least the body copy has been written by someone else and he has added a malformed lead. I can generally tell when he writes something because it contains his erratic and incorrect English, along with some copypaste sentences that he re-writes slightly. And in all of them, the references are incorrect and inaccurate, meaning that he adds random refs to stuff he doesn't seem to have generated. Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This could maybe explain why he started adding fake refs to random articles -- perhaps to see if he could get away with it, as in the Wikipediocracy article he linked to in someone's RfA. Maybe the fact that he got away with it led him to do it with material generated by others. He started adding the fake refs to random articles by or before August 18, 2014, just over two months after he started editing as Wikicology [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The copy/paste edits seem to be concentrated in his science articles, whereas the unexpected polished prose that isn't a copy/paste job seem to occur in biographies of people or articles about organisations. Strange how per WP:DUCK one can point out strong similarities in editing, but there is no such thing as WP:NOTDUCK to point out convincing discrepancies. - Takeaway (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, now that we've considered the concept of paid editing, I find it ties together and makes sense of all the disparate, puzzling, and sometimes seemingly inexplicable aspects of his behavior, including the addition of fake references to dozens of completely random articles (concerning the last, see my thoughts just above: [13]). In the Venn diagram of all his problematic and destructive behaviors, they all meet in paid editing. This also explains the pop-up editors making allegations of late, and why no Nigerian editors (to my knowledge) have come out in support of him. It also explains his protesting-too-much statement on his userpage "Am a wikipedian from Nigeria with no COI.", which he had there from the first iteration of his userpage on June 3, 2014 [14]. It stayed there for 6.5 months: [15]. (I found that to be an enormous red flag.) Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
According to some people, COI-editors should be .."chased out of the room".. -> [16]. ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


I can write "except for the song...the lyrics of which...", but "whose lyrics" is incorrect English, and therefore needs to be fixed, one way or another. Rags (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. Buy a decent grammar book or do a Google search. --John (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Ragityman, you are thinking of the interrogatory use of the word "whose" (as in "Whose boots are these?"). In normal non-interrogatory use, "whose" means "of whom" or "of which": [17]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

IP at AN[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editing. Fences&Windows 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another 'forgot'. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

Re:ANI threads[edit]

YOU WROTE "Hello, I've closed both of your ANI threads. Please do not open any further ANI threads. If you do so, it will constitute disruption and you will likely be blocked from editing. The editor Grayfell is an experienced editor and I'm sure he will gladly continue to answer any questions you have about Wikipedia. Alternatively, you may wish to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE for more help and information. Lastly, the best way to learn about Wikipedia is to register an account, and then you can request mentoring and all kinds of other assistance. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)"

So in summary: He is experienced and couldn't possibly have abused his position of trust.

DISBELIEF AND DISMISSAL: Isn't that the same approach the Catholic church used for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

This page is not the best place for content discussion. Etimena 01:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Striking comment by indefinitely banned sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
No, in summary: people have looked at what he's done, and he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Unlike the Catholic Church, Wikipedia has no dark corners where bad things can happen out of sight. Everything's right there in the history for everyone to see. Please take Softlavender's advice. EEng 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Guess who Orangemike templates with his block notice. Me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs) 07:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Don't come lolling around to me on my talk page about that. If Orangemike put it there, you deserved it. Face-wink.svg Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Another venue discussing DVD/VHS dispute[edit]

You chose not to continue at FFD but to remove the FFD caption. I nominated the DVD image as FFD because I want it replaced. I could not talk to the other guy who removed the VHS image because... I could not stand him personally. I don't want you to become another person whom I could not stand. I just want the effort not to go to waste. I don't want to plan resignation from Wikipedia, but everything that's happened to me leaves me no choice. I don't want this dispute to affect me. I just want the VHS and DVD co-exist in the article. If you are unwilling to do that, you would trump me. I'm tired of cooperating with hostile people anymore, and hostile people have greater influence than ordinary, hard-working, good-willed people. Actually, intimidation is predominant and strong. I don't want to think of you as part of that, but your tone says otherwise. --George Ho (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(TPS, from the guy George "could not stand personally): George, just stop creating issues all over the place. It's better if you spend time improving pages rather than trying to fix things that simply aren't broken. And scooting off for page protection just because you didn't get your way really stinks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I had the VHS image deleted. Allow me to re-nominate the DVD one as one of FFD? --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bach Brouhaha[edit]

Hi Softlavender. I was wondering what you think of my alternative proposal at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Restricted to 1RR. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Voceditenore, I'm back from a bit of a wiki-break. It looks like that proposal has broad support already, so it doesn't look like my participation will matter or make much difference. Thanks for your consideration and participation in the dialogue and attempted remedies. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Softlavender[edit]

Thanks for your help at my user talk. I regret that you have had to divert your attention from more important tasks. See ya 'round Tiderolls 12:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are all so very important and everything here is very serious! LOL. Anyway, no worries, TR. There are advantages to being in a weird timezone in the middle of the Pacific, and also staying up well past midnight. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

Thank You[edit]

Hello S. I don't know if you have BMK's talk page on your watchlist so I wanted to make sure you got my thanks for you help with the person that was trolling me yesterday. I have been trying to follow the "I" of WP:RBI in dealing with this person so I appreciate all the research and posts you made there and on the ANI page. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

noticebox dispute[edit]

Please see my comments before making a fair and complete decision64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Iselilja (given name)[edit]

I see the creator is now trying to list the article at AfD, which is a nightmare without Twinkle, really horrible. I thought I'd offer to delete it if they like. That is assuming you wouldn't mind having your contributions to it go away so unceremoniously. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

I've created many many AfDs, all without Twinkle. The fact that the editor made several other wiki edits rather than creating a deletion discussion means the AfD tag needed to go. You or s/he can do whatever you want to with the article. But if an editor tags as AfD, a deletion discussion and rationale must immediately follow. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant to ask if you value your own contributions, and I suppose you're saying you don't. I'll speedy per G7, then. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

(ec)Bishonen but if you are asking should you delete it summarily without discussion, my preference would be no. I think a community discussion is in order, because there are several options, plus some editors might feel it is either useful or notable, plus I don't know the rules on names. Softlavender (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

For god's sake. Fine. I've told the creator I can delete it if they wish, but I can retract. I'm going out now. I've spent too much time on this already. Bishonen | talk 11:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
LOL TELL ME ABOUT IT. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

Archiving resource requests[edit]

Thanks for your work on the list of resource requests. When you use OneClickArchiver, it archives to a different location, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Archive 1, than all of our other archives (most recently Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive 28). That isn't the end of the world, but does make the requests you archive difficult to find. If you can tolerate {{resolved}} and {{stale}} requests briefly, ClueBot III will archive them automatically within 24 hours of them being tagged. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I know; I realized that afterwards and have posted a query about it at WP:Village pump (technical)#One-Click Archiver sending threads to the wrong page.27s archive. One-Click has never messed up like this before, so i can't figure it out and I'm not a techie, but I'm sure someone can figure it out. Anyway, I won't use One-Click there again until it's fixed, and I will use the templates instead. Also, I think eventually I will move the misplaced threads to the correct archive. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I like a lot of things about automated archiving, but it isn't perfect. You'll have to be careful about asking people to "please mark with the {{resolved}} template". Even enclosed in nowiki tags, the bot saw it in your comment and promptly archived the thread. It may be safe to write "{{resolved}}" using the tl template, or you can just leave out the curly braces. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Titty obsession"[edit]

  • [18] I think this strayed into the territory of a personal attack and is inappropriate in a deletion discussion... Deryck C. 13:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You're either joking, or have been away for awhile. Neelix's titty obsession (and that's the only appropriate term for it) is well known, has caused enormous amounts of time to be wasted, and is justifiably kept in the collective WP hive mind as an object lesson. EEng 16:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hive mind? Are you sure you don't mean swarm intelligence? Although an object lesson in titty obsession does sound somewhat intriguing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Face-sad.svg Deryck C. 11:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Just spotting the title to this thread ... my reaction was that it would be about this Cheers to Martin and SoftLavender! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

...for your comments in the AN/I thread I started. I think we share a number of views about the whole sorry situation. I feel it is as resolved as it's going to get, and I hope things can improve going forward. Unlike some people involved, I certainly wouldn't mind bumping into you again at some point. Bye for now, Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


why are you planning to block me , if I just may criticize , and I have someone wise not to revert otters edit without consesus , we live here in a dictatorship , and this is also uncollegial. BerendWorst (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

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

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Varkey Foundation[edit]

If it is in Category:Educational charities based in the United Kingdom it doesn't need to be in Category:Educational charities. This is a heirarchical system. Rathfelder (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussions belong on the article's talk page, not on user talk pages. Also, don't directly link categories on non-article pages like you just did; use colons to render the links inactive (I have fixed this for you above). Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversial statements?[edit]

I don't think so. This is the summary from the O.U.P. book of the musicologist Russell Stinson:


The Orgelbüchlein is simultaneously a compositional treatise, a collection of liturgical organ music, an organ method, and a theological statement. These four identities are so closely intertwined that it is hard to know where one leaves off and another begins.

This is from later on in Stinson:

The Orgelbüchlein's highest purpose, however, like that of Bach's music in general, is of a religious nature: service to God and the edification of humankind. It is summed up by the rhyming couplet—essentially a dedication—that concludes the title, and that bears repeating here: Dem höchsten Gott allein̍ zu Ehren, Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren (which Hans David and Arthur Mendel poetically translated as “In Praise of the Almighty's Will, And for my Neighbor's Greater Skill”). Like other previously discussed portions, this couplet, too, may have been borrowed from an item in Bach's personal library, the Gesangbüchlein of Michael Weisse, published in 1531, which ends with the couplet: Gott allein zu lob und ehr / Und seinn auserwelten zur leer (“For the praise and honor of God alone, and for the edification of his chosen ones”). Not only do Bach and Weisse express the same message, but they also use the same phraseology and rhyme scheme (“ehr” and “lehr”). And in addition to being a hymnal, Weisse's collection, like Ammerbach's Tabulatur, also parallels the Orgelbüchlein in its use of the term “Büchlein.” Any connection to Weisse, however, is of secondary significance compared to the couplet's apparent biblical derivation, which would seem to reveal its true meaning. The scriptural source in question is one that has always occupied an important position in Christian liturgy. Known as Christ's “Summary of the Law,” it reads: “Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40). Basically an extension of his more common slogan Soli Deo Gloria (“To God Alone the Glory”), Bach's little couplet proclaims that his music has both a divine and worldly purpose, in accordance with Jesus' teachings. Ultimately, then, the Orgelbüchlein may be understood as its composer's response to the New Testament.

This is what the musicologist William Renwick writes, in a commentary on BWV 614.

Bach’s art is frequently intertwined with his religious convictions. The consecration of time through music, which is part of the Christian tradition, is seen in his great cantata cycles, in Clavierubung III, and in the Orgelbuchlein. Indeed, the Orgelbuchlein, in its extensive conception though incomplete real- ization, contains his most detailed exposition of the theological expression of time. In many cases Bach’s compositional process was a matter of taking the text or theme of the hymn as a basis for selecting topics that could be trans- lated into musical terms and then built into contrapuntal structures.10 In Christian theology, the supreme action is the God-Man event, the incarnation. New Year, with its implications of rebirth, is a central point in the twelve-day Christmas cycle that extends from the Nativity to the Epiphany.11 This is the divide between old and new. In the spiritual life, this is worked out by turning away from a sinful past and toward a future promise of redemption. This concept may well be reflected in the change of tonal orientation that “Das alte Jahr” embodies. But despite our best intentions, each new year, each new beginning always ends up as a retracing of our old follies. The dividing point of the new year is in fact a mirage; we are helpless to reform without the intervention of God. In the same way, the ending on E inevitably points us back to our starting point on A.

The old year closes, but the new year opens at the same time. Our bit- tersweet regret for the past is mingled with our dared-for hopes for the future. When we look back at the past, it inevitably makes us reflect on our future; when we look to the future, we reflect back on our past. Each reflects the other. In a like manner, the open-ended tonality of “Das alte Jahr” is self-reflective: E searches back to A for its context, and A searches forward to its hoped-for resolution on D. The year may be complete, but time marches on. The music may be complete, but the tonal implications continue beyond the double-bar line. “This type of ending awakens a desire to hear something additional.”

A performance of the hymn of course has several verses. And here we sense the connection of the end of one verse to the beginning of another; it becomes a cycle, just as the end of one year leads to the beginning of the next. But in an isolated performance of Bach’s chorale prelude, the impression is rather more of a single transformation, from before to after, from the past to the future. Whether one primarily understands the former or the latter shape, they are both facets of the same process: in one case mirroring the endless cycle of the year, in the other mirroring the single yet ongoing transformation that is at the heart of the Christian experience. Perhaps indeed, the ascending spiral is the best analogy to this progressive yet cyclic movement.

This discussion brings us back to our starting point: grasping Bach’s expression in this pivotal composition. I suggest that Bach is intentionally reflecting upon the complex meaning of new year, in both its philosophical and theological contexts—a turning point; a Janus-like reflection backward and forward; regret for the past and hope for the future; the place between before and after. An attempt at a perfectly unified view may miss the point that this chorale melody in its later version is about transition and change. The opening A provides a successful bridge from the ending of one verse on E to the beginning of the next, in D. A is the common denominator—and the reciting note—but it is not therefore to be construed as tonic.

In the main body of Orgelbüchlein I quote part of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. The main body also contains Bach's own dedication which reads, "Dem Höchsten Gott allein' zu Ehren,/ Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren." There is also a verse translation. Stinson and Renwick are both expanding on the first line of Bach's dedication.

Nothing in Stinson or Renwick is controversial (except possibly Renwick's Schenkerian analysis). On the talk page on June 4 the administrator Fences and windows already told Francis Schonken to discontinue making comments about "religious POV". She pointed out that one would expect exactly that in a collection of harmonised hymns.

At the moment I am midstream in editing some quite complicated mathematical content (Uniformization theorem), which requires finding and checking multiple sources. It also took a while to write A solis ortus cardine, the Latin plainchant hymn from which BWV 611 is derived — translating 5th century Latin, finding images of medieval sources, etc. None of this editing is easy. Proxy-editing is a lot easier. Mathsci (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci none of this gigantic wall of text belongs on my talk page (therefore I have collapsed it). It belongs on the article talk page. Please remember WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" and that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." And please stop complaining about your contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is voluntary. No one is forcing you to edit Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, I know how to edit so please reserve this kind of advice for new editors. You tag-teamed/proxy-edited on behalf of a sanctioned editor, manufacturing an edit war, and then templated an experienced user's talk page. Your reference to "controversy" in edit summaries was capricious. You knew that this was an unfinished article in an active state of creation, with large amounts of detailed content being added.[19] Your editing forced me into adding a quote to the article in an as yet unwritten section: I am not at all happy with it, but at least it served to pacify you. Ledes rarely have citations for uncontroversial statements and that was the case here. I have no idea why you chose to make all this fuss about an acknowledged musicologist writing that Bach was making a "theological statement" in writing Orgelbüchlein. To give you credit, it was not quite as childish as posting a "religious POV" tag at the top of the article. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The claim, which was a major, unsubstantiated, and controversial one (see the article's talk page, where the statement has been challenged since 2012) and needed citing, was uncited. It was tagged as uncited by two experienced editors and you edit-warred to keep removing it. We are required by WP:ANEW to warn editors on their talk pages before reporting edit-warring at that board. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

My Apologies[edit]

It was not my intent to be disruptive but to be helpful. Once I read through some of the Wiki policies and procedures I immediately corrected my error. Stryker1981 (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for your input[edit]

Can you please reply here: User_talk:NeilN#diffs? --NeilN talk to me 07:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no comment. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
NeilN, I'd like to reiterate that I will not be participating in the linked thread on your userpage; however I'll add that my choices/actions now and previously have, and have had, absolutely nothing to do with Winkelvi (I am not in communication with him, do not follow his actions [or vice versa] or have his talk page watchlisted, and I didn't even know he had been blocked until it was mentioned more than two weeks later on someone else's talk page). Moreover, I'd like to add that I think you are being played and have been from the beginning; this is unfortunately one consequence of being away from Wikipedia for several months and then trying to step into a scenario which Floquenbeam and others were apparently handling. I don't have anything further to say, and would appreciate not being further pinged from that thread. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You should ask User:BenLinus1214[edit]

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) 08:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Apparently that user goes by User:Johanna now. Repinging them since I don't know if I would be notified when someone pinged my former user name. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail again. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tommy's Honour[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 2 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tommy's Honour, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actors Peter Mullan and Jack Lowden, who portray pioneering golfing legends Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris in the 2016 film Tommy's Honour, had no prior experience with golf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy's Honour. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tommy's Honour), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]


Can you please stop entirely removing my edits to the Brandon Semenuk and Brett Rheeder pages? I follow biking very closely I just didn't add references yet. Also when you get your sources from old web pages or newspapers, that most likely is inaccurate info, and is not providing the reader with good up to date information. Rileyschneider (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Rileyschneider, as we've mentioned to you before, you need to provide the citations when you add the material, not later. Create a draft in your sandbox or on a userpage draft, and mock it up there before posting. That will give you an opportunity to compose the text and add and format the citations. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


I'm a little confused. When the block on the IP (CrazyAces) is over, and the IP edits again, do I report it to ANI again? It still would be CrazyAces evading a block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick: I'd recommend reporting it first directly to Bishonen if it's the same IP making the same kinds of edits (that is, targeting you or known CrazyAces topics). If it's another IP doing similar things, I'd say you might first run it by Bishonen, and if it's not eventually taken care of then you might report it as block evasion on ANI. Personally I wouldn't go looking for trouble though -- don't track the IP's edits, etc. Just let things be unless you are affected. That's my opinion anyway. Softlavender (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Will do. I only reported the first time as a last resort because he kept continuing to target my articles. If he leaves me be there will be no trouble. Thank you for the advice.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving discussion marked DoNotArchive[edit]

Hi, you archived a discussion that was marked "DoNotArchive". The discussion was only temporarily closed and can be reopened "if desired". Is there a way to un-archive it without pinging every single user mentioned in the discussion? It would be a bit ungainly to re-start the discussion from scratch and have to bring everything up again. Furry-friend (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It might as well be archived, since nothing's going to happen to BMK :) Muffled Pocketed 11:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The "No Archive" text preceded the close and was only for the bot which automatically archives threads that are unclosed but inactive for more than 72 hours. Newyorkbrad's close meant the thread could be archived after at least 24 hours (otherwise he wouldn't have closed it). I tried to let the thread stay for much longer than 24 hours after close, but it was taking up an enormous amount of space on the page, and so I eventually archived it. If there's any reason to bring the thread back after BMK returns from his wikibreak, you could probably consult Newyorkbrad and he would bring the thread back to the board. Bringing it back wouldn't re-ping anyone, because WP:PINGs only work when you physicially type four tildes at the same time you post them. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh! Thank you! With the length of the discussion in mind, I'll re-open the AN/I on the 10th without copy-pasting back the entire discussion. Furry-friend (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
OK. That may or may not be the best solution ... because eventually you could be accused of being selective of what you chose to copy. I still suggest that you consult with either Newyorkbrad or NeilN as to how to precisely proceed if you want the discussion to continue when BMK returns .... Maybe run by them your exact plan, or simply ask them what they advise. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Furry-friend, I'm pinging you to make sure you see this. Copying only part or parts of the former ANI thread would be against Wikipedia policy. So if you want to continue or revive the discussion when BMK returns, your options are: (1) Have Newyorkbrad restore and unclose the thread. (2) Start a new thread, and within it mention and provide a link to the old thread. (3) Start a new thread, that contains a collapsed version of the old thread (using the Template:Hidden archive top codes) at the top. Again, I encourage you to speak to Newyorkbrad or NeilN before you proceed. Softlavender (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do (2). Furry-friend (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

required arbcom notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#I wish for some resolution of the harassment, wikihounding, wikistalking, and attempts to WP:OUTING of me over the approximately last 60 days by user HappyValleyEditor and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

ani which you may be interested in, includes diffs[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


You chose to ignore my question. That's fine. But this should have been a "clue".[20] Don't revert my thread closures again as a "NAC" closure. Don't be a hypocrite. Cheers. Doc talk 08:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing. You seem to think by ignoring me you're "above" addressing me. Or something. I recommend that you reconsider this approach. I'm not going anywhere, and you're going to have to deal with me one way or another. Doc talk 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If I may[edit]

So, you're suggestion that Maybeparaphrased and Fouette are more than simply acquainted. I think I'm starting to believe it. First, I took a look at all the article Fouette has edited and all the articles Maybe has edited, they never cross. They may have first met at AfD, for the same article, I want to see if I can pin their first interaction. Right now, July 5th seems to be an interesting date. If I come up with anything that could be used for SPI do you mind if I notify you, on your talk page? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter either way. There's more than enough evidence that they could easily be the same user. Softlavender (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There may be enough evidence, but, that would need to be presented, else CU won't accept it. Sorry, I just got curious. One person mentioned at AN/I, quite pertinently, that editors like Carrie and FRDJT would likely be well prepared for this event. Ah well, could be paranoid. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I just want to interject that anyone with a stupid Frenchified name like Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant was bound to be trouble, especially in pink script. EEng 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Fouttés ronds de jambe en tournant are actually really fun, albeit badly overused and tacky. FourViolas (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your thanks[edit]

LOL! --NeilN talk to me 16:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was going to volunteer to do it myself – again – but frankly at that point I would have requested secretarial wages, especially considering your highly lucrative activities of late. Ha. Softlavender (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned you on my user page[edit]

I know that we've butted heads recently, but I really do respect you as an editor. It's that respect and your wise words which led me to mention you on my user page. I hope that mentioning you there is okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That bit is on my user page and talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the call-out mention. As for "butted heads", whatever it was wasn't that recent, and I don't (or try not to) base my interactions with people on whether we have agreed or disagreed in the past (unless the person is a long-term irredeemable lout LOL). I try to focus on content and policy and best practices, not editors. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up and mention! :-) Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
LOL, thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016 recommended reading[edit]

Reger, Zwei Gesänge, Op. 144.jpg
16 July 2016

... on a centenary of a performance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah Gerda, this is clickbait, isn't it? I'm not falling for it! As I recall, the Reger Requiem is very beautiful, reminiscent of Fauré's (or am I thinking of the Rutter Requiem?). If you have sung it, I hope you enjoyed it. That's a nice image, too. Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what it is with you and stories ;) - Yes, I've sung it, three times, and it changed my life, especially as the first time, we walked up the steps to the same organ loft that the composer had used, and a friend in the audience was dying of cancer, - it was his last time "out", and part of the music played at his funeral 8 weeks later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that sounds amazing, Gerda. After I logged off, I realized that I was actually thinking of the Rutter Requiem and that I don't recall anything about the Reger Requiem or even if I've ever heard it. I'll have to give it a listen .... Thanks for the link to the Reger-Cor. Softlavender (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
... what we are here for: link to new info and music, - hope you will have enjoyed to find that there were three compositions called Requiem by the composer who died 100 years ago, - joyful Psalm 100 - a symphony - to come in about five weeks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, I just listened to this on a YouTube video [21]. It's very interesting. But the end seems odd -- like I'm not even sure that that was the correct ending (the uploader noted that the audio is from an old unidentified MP3 that was on his computer) -- it just drops off. Is that the correct ending? Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Without having listened: probably not, you can see in the score that it has a well-defined end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It's complete and ends in peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Well peace is relative, for modern music. Here are the last 1.5 minutes of that 52-minute YouTube video [22]. There's a loud tipani burst, and then a minute of rather intense or forte singing, and then it ends. It's just not a normal expected drawn-out melodic ending though -- that's why I'm not sure. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess we hear different things even when clicking on the same. Soloist, choir and orchestra all conclude together, singers on "Toten" - for me. I have to be quiet right now, so can't check. You could compare other recordings, and the score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban?[edit]

I see that you think I am incompetent? You said earlier that "that [I] should possibly be topic-banned from AFC reviews if this is the level of [my] reviewing". That's quite a charge.

I'd like to explain that WP:BLP1E does refuse notability for these sorts of claims. Perhaps you disagree. The musician in question fails WP:NMUSIC. Perhaps you disagree on that, too. Finally, I misspoke in my comment: I meant to say that name-dropping is a cognitive bias, not a cognitive disorder. So I'd like to work out this apparent misunderstanding. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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)